What is the History of Your Church?

[Eutychus123]

The history = the large libraries of Eastern Orthodox writings. They wrote things that have been translated into English.

What you cited was the post-900AD interpretation of a Bible verse. What I cited was the communal understanding and practice for those first 800 or so years of Christian history, by the very people who invented church tradition and who wrote the original commentaries on the Bible. To repeat, the Eastern Church itself taught from the beginning that the Roman Patriarch has primacy. That is still the teaching today. The issue is what that means. The original meaning is not the meaning that you are imposing.

For you to say “but the Pope of Rome is the rock!” means nothing, because the Eastern Patriarchs taught that Peter was the Rock. The issue is what that phrase meant back in the old days.

We should discount the See of Jerusalem around the time of the split because it was not independent. That leaves three Sees voting against one See. Three Sees, three Patriarchs, said, “Whoa, wait a minute, you are overstepping the bounds of 800 years of tradition!” I am quite confident that if three of them agreed on the boundaries, then they were correct.

I am looking for a source. I read that the consensus of the Early Church Fathers was that it was the faith of Peter on which the Church was built.

 

[Hesychios]

… Papal Infallibility only applies to faith and morals, the Pope is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition. He can’t go out and radically change the Church like a monarch can (Henry VIII). So he can’t change teaching on female ordination, contraception, homosexual marriage, etc. because he is bound by Canon Law and Holy Tradition.

Even allowing for the limitations you cite, the powers claimed by the papacy are awesome in scope. The occupier of that See at Rome has absolute authority, if he should choose to exercise it.

This causes me to ask what may seem obvious “what is the point of having a Pope if he has limits on his authority?”, “why not be able to make changes like a monarch?”

Well, historically there are no early examples of bishops of Rome doing many of the things that Popes claim the right to do exclusively today.

I think though, that some Popes have claimed not to be able to change things (like women’s ordination, etc.) because this is the only way they can see to protect the church in the future from the abuse of their own widespread powers by a successor. In other words, we note that it has to be Pope’s who initially must claim to be not able to rule on them, not other churchmen claiming that Popes don’t have the rights.

If outside parties under other circumstances had claimed that Popes had no right to rule on those issues, I am sure there would have been great battles with Popes arguing to protect their own prerogatives.

As far as the canon law (which it seems the Popes must obey), the simple fact is the canons are codified by the Popes through their secretarial staff in the curia and the changes are approved by the Popes. The Popes literally author the modern canons through their authority, and are the final interpreters of the canons, from whose judgments no appeal may be made. They cannot be said to be bound by them in any real sense, and if challenged they themselves will be the judge of their own limits.

 

[Justin1982]

The history = the large libraries of Eastern Orthodox writings. They wrote things that have been translated into English.

The same goes for the Western Church.

What you cited was the post-900AD interpretation of a Bible verse. What I cited was the communal understanding and practice for those first 800 or so years of Christian history, by the very people who invented church tradition and who wrote the original commentaries on the Bible. To repeat, the Eastern Church itself taught from the beginning that the Roman Patriarch has primacy. That is still the teaching today. The issue is what that means. The original meaning is not the meaning that you are imposing.

For you to say “but the Pope of Rome is the rock!” means nothing, because the Eastern Patriarchs taught that Peter was the Rock. The issue is what that phrase meant back in the old days.

Well what does it mean then if it is not how it is fairly clearly stated? You keep asking the question and if I haven’t answered you I probably don’t know.

We should discount the See of Jerusalem around the time of the split because it was not independent. That leaves three Sees voting against one See. Three Sees, three Patriarchs, said, “Whoa, wait a minute, you are overstepping the bounds of 800 years of tradition!” I am quite confident that if three of them agreed on the boundaries, then they were correct.

I’m not sure I follow you.

 

[scottm]

The same goes for the Western Church.

Well, yes, this is true. Being an American I was raised Western — I learned a lot about France and England and such, but almost nothing about Russia and Turkey and Lebanon and such. I learned lots about the Roman Catholic Church, but I was never told that there are 22 other types of Catholic, and that these 22 other types of Catholic are Eastern Orthodox in theology and tradition. Being an American I knew the soundbyte arguments for why the East split away from the West, but I knew nothing at all, nothing, nothing, from the perspective of the East.

But don’t our courts of law have two sides? For every prosecutor, is there not a defense attorney? Can anybody cut a pancake so thin that it doesn’t have two sides? Is there not another side to every story?

Yes. The East has a story to tell too. For reasons of history their side is not widely known in North America or Western Europe.

Well what does it mean then if it is not how it is fairly clearly stated? You keep asking the question and if I haven’t answered you I probably don’t know.

The See of Rome was originally given primacy of honor not because Peter was the first pope of Rome (he was the first pope of Antioch too, and the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome!!!), but because Rome was the capital of the empire. At the same time Constantinople was given 2nd place, and this because it was the 2nd capital of the empire. These were practical political decisions. They were not religious decisions. Originally primacy meant that the patriarch of Rome would be the leader at councils, would be the Church’s spokesman to the world, would hear cases between bishops, would hear appeals brought from the jurisdictions of other bishops, and would have to involved in council decisions for the decisions to be “ecumenical” and thereby universally binding. In short, he would be the loving father who held the family together.

It did not mean that the bishop of Rome would rule the territories of other bishops! Such a statement is absurd on its face, because it immediately and necessarily undermines the appointment of the other apostles: Paul, James, the other James, Simon, and so on down the list. To say that Peter or his successor ruled every parish from Rome negates the appointment of his own brother Andrew who brought him to Jesus, negates the pastorate of the last surviving apostle, John, in Ephesus, and negates the authority of the bishop in God’s city of Jerusalem who succeeded the martyred apostle James. That is an untenable position.

I’m not sure I follow you.

There were four viable Sees at the time of the split. Three of them went one way, together, in unity. Hypothetical objective uninterested observer is asked which side is adhering to the longstanding tradition: the three united to each other, or the lone dissenter?

Answer: the three united are maintaining longstanding tradition. The lone dissenter has strayed. That is why he is alone.

Obviously I must have come up with a solution to this problem because I am Catholic. My solution is Eastern Catholicism + friendly pope. The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” and the Codes of Canon (I forgot the exact titles) claim to bind the 22 forms of Eastern Catholicism into Roman servitude, but my priest knows for a fact that in practice servitude is not always given. And in practice the Vatican doesn’t do anything about it. As long as the Vatican doesn’t care, we don’t have a problem. As long as the Vatican doesn’t meddle in the affairs of Eastern Patriarchs, we don’t have a problem. It’s not a perfect solution, but what a person does is more important than what he says.

 

[Holly3278]

My Church was started at Pentecost at about the year 33 AD! It was founded by Jesus Christ who made Saint Peter the first Pope!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Our church was started at the turn of this century. Thanks for asking. We follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles as found in the infallible Bible.
Christ led me to the church after He changed my life.

Which century? The 20th, I presume. And, like all Protestant and non-Catholic organizations, man-made. Would you care to share the name?

How do you know that all the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles are to be found in the infallible Bible? The Bible doesn’t make that claim.

Which Bible, Whose Canon? There are several collections of “Scripture” that different Christian groups call their “Bible.” gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

How do you know the Bible is infallible?

The Bible came from the Catholic Church. Logically, an effect (the Bible) cannot be greater than its cause (the Church). If the Bible is infallible, the Catholic Church is infallible.

Peace be with you. Jim Dandy

 

[Roy5]

Most informed Protestants I know consider Christ as the founder of the Christian church. They believe that by the late Middle Ages (early 16th century) the church and its leadership had so much corruption that there had to be a reformation. Along came Luther, Calvin and others. They do not deny earlier history, and I understand that most mainline Protestant seminaries teach the writings of the Church Fathers, for example. The difference is that they feel that reforms had to be made. When Hus was burned at the stake, Wycliffe faced persecution, Waldo and his followers had to flee into the Italian Alps, Luther was excommunicated and could be killed on sight by order of the Vatican division could not be avoided. Various men like Dominic, Benedict, and others had been able to reform without division, but that didn’t happen by the time Luther came along. There is plenty of pigheadedness and blame to go around.

Now, Protestantism has divided and then divided again and again. That is its major weakness, though the mainline denominations - Methodists, Episcopalians, UCC, Presbyterians, Disciples, some Baptists, etc - cooperate on the local, national and world levels. 

 The real issue between these two branches of Christendom seems to be: will we accept the authority of the Papacy and accept all the doctrines and practices that come from the Vatican? or, will be exercise the freedom to think individually, to come to our own conclusions in the religious-spiritual arena? Catholics belong to the former group. Most Protestants prize their freedom to think and believe as they feel led through study of the scriptures.For many, including me - a tough choice - since I have both a Catholic and Protestant family background

 

[Jim_Dandy]

. . . The real issue between these two branches of Christendom seems to be: will we accept the authority of the Papacy and accept all the doctrines and practices that come from the Vatican? or, will be exercise the freedom to think individually, to come to our own conclusions in the religious-spiritual arena? Catholics belong to the former group. Most Protestants prize their freedom to think and believe as they feel led through study of the scriptures.For many, including me - a tough choice - since I have both a Catholic and Protestant family background

It is my hope that Protestants will continue to “prize their freedom to think and believe as they feel led through study of the scriptures.” Every Protestant should make up his own mind as to what the Bible means; his prerogative to personally interpret the Scriptures, without any preparation or knowledge of the original languages or the milieu in which they were written, is his birthright.

Christianity is a revealed religion, but why should Protestants care about God’s Revelation when they can interpret the Bible for themselves, thus proving the adage that every Protestant is his own pope?

A few Protestant entities have splintered into many thousands in only 500 years. The last estimate I saw was that five new denoms appear somewhere in the world every week – the legacy of Sola Scriptura. That means that Protestantism will continue to become weaker and weaker and eventually splinter itself into oblivion.

Either that or I hope all Protestants do the only logical thing and become Catholic!
The New Testament was written in the heart of the Catholic Church.

 

[MartinJordan]

As far as I can recall reading years back, I think St. Charles Borromeo was around when Luther split from the Church. CB knew how rotten things had become with many Catholic clergy hypocrites, and worse. But he kept the Faith, cleaned out many abuses, was ill treated himself, got sick, but kept bouncing back even when his life was in mortal danger.

He in fact assisted and of the main individuals involved in the legalities (for lack of a better word) of the Council of Trent. But I’m not sure whether he actually confronted Luther. If anyone has more info on that, I’d like to have those links (too lazy to search:blush. Thanks in advance

MJ

 

[Justin1982]

The real issue between these two branches of Christendom seems to be: will we accept the authority of the Papacy and accept all the doctrines and practices that come from the Vatican? or, will be exercise the freedom to think individually, to come to our own conclusions in the religious-spiritual arena? Catholics belong to the former group. Most Protestants prize their freedom to think and believe as they feel led through study of the scriptures.For many, including me - a tough choice - since I have both a Catholic and Protestant family background

You can have all the free thought you want as long as you follow what is commanded by God. Where the problem lies is the fact that without a central figure, there is a lot of room for digression from the original texts. Where do we get the ideas of homosexual unions, abortion, openly gay clergy? None of this is justified by the scripture yet many mainline protestants are going the way of extinction by allowing such things into their churches. I have found that in my parish, there has been a strong emphasis on tradition and reverence which has really shown in the upswing in attendance because most feel they are there to worship not be entertained. We would be far greater a society if we actually practiced what we preached.

 

[Eutychus123]

You can have all the free thought you want as long as you follow what is commanded by God. Where the problem lies is the fact that without a central figure, there is a lot of room for digression from the original texts. Where do we get the ideas of homosexual unions, abortion, openly gay clergy? None of this is justified by the scripture yet many mainline protestants are going the way of extinction by allowing such things into their churches. I have found that in my parish, there has been a strong emphasis on tradition and reverence which has really shown in the upswing in attendance because most feel they are there to worship not be entertained. We would be far greater a society if we actually practiced what we preached.

Yes, sadly, many of the so-called Mainline churches have been overwhelmed by our culture. I’ve had to leave two of the them, UCC and PCUSA.

 

[Roy5]

Hm! Since this is an open dialogue, let me make a few quick points.

A major problem within Protestantism is division. Essentially, however, there is a split between what often are called mainstream Protestants and more conservative evanglical Protestants. The lines are not all that clear because many evangelicals are in mainline denominations - Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.

Now, I find a smiliar division within Catholicism. There are three groups, basically. (1) Traditional Catholics who accept whatever is taught by the magisterium. (2) Free-thinking Catholics who remain in the church but disagree with the magisterium on some basic theological or perhaps policy issues. (3) It's estimated that at least 30 million Catholics have left the church in the US, some to become mainline liberal Protestants, others to become evangelical conservative Protestants, maybe the largest number to come inactive altogether. Very small groups have become Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses, Buddhist, etc.

 Polling of Catholics, for example, has shown that roughly 57% believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, while 43% do not believe that. That represents a very serious division, even if the 43% remain in the church. The majority seem to favor married priests, and they divide almost evenly re the ordination of women priests. Actually, Catholics as a whole seem more 'liberal' than evangelical Protestants. The majority voted for Obama, for example, while evangelical Protestants voted against Obama by a significant margin. Mainline Protestants were split, a slight preference for Obama. Remember that traditional political affiliation plays a role. The majority of Catholics have been traditionally Denocratic. Black Protestants voted about 95% for Obama, and Black Protestants are roughly 20% or a bit more of all American Protestants. 

 Back to the 'stickyest' issue. Protestants, almost by definition, emphasize  individualism, freedom of conscience and belief. The evangelicals as a whole accept the Bible quite literally, including Adam and Eve forward. The mainstream Protestants have been heavily influenced by modern thinking that have difficulty with certain supernatural teachings. They agree on some things that set them off from Catholics. St. Padre Pio, canonized not that long ago, claimed to have levitated, bilocated and much more. All Protestants would likely regard that as untrue. And with Catholicism, if one thing is untrue the whole system can be undermined. 

 There are hugely controversial issues regarding the priesthood as well as social ethics. Mainline Protestants generally favor the ordination of women, less popular among evangelicals - although the highest percentage of women clergy has been within the Salvation Army. which is evangelical. Mainline Protestants are likely to allow abortions in certain cases - e. g., to save the life of the mother, certainly. Most mainline Protestants and evangelical Protestants don't have a problem with artificial birth control. They might argue that we have artificial hearts and limbs, etc. They also may say that the Catholic approved method and artificial birth control both aim at avoiding pregnancy - so? If we truly believe that God decides whether or not pregnancy occurs, it will happen regardless. 

  Back to the theme: Protestants, as stated in an earlier post, believe that 'their church' goes back to Jesus, but reform was needed when it went so far off track. Different denominations provide a wide selection. Millions of Protestants, of course, have no problem switching denominations if they move and find a church nearby that they like, or are inspired by a certain preacher, or one church offers a much superior Sunday School to another, etc. They don't really 'convert' to another denomination. Among mainline Protestants, especially, theological differences don't play a big role as most of them accept the same basic beliefs and don't worry about the details. Evangelicals tend to worry more about theology and its details, which is a major reason as to why they keep dividing.

  More than enough sed. Hope it makes sense.

 

[Eutychus123]

Hm! Since this is an open dialogue, let me make a few quick points.

A major problem within Protestantism is division. Essentially, however, there is a split between what often are called mainstream Protestants and more conservative evanglical Protestants. The lines are not all that clear because many evangelicals are in mainline denominations - Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.

Now, I find a smiliar division within Catholicism. There are three groups, basically. (1) Traditional Catholics who accept whatever is taught by the magisterium. (2) Free-thinking Catholics who remain in the church but disagree with the magisterium on some basic theological or perhaps policy issues. (3) It's estimated that at least 30 million Catholics have left the church in the US, some to become mainline liberal Protestants, others to become evangelical conservative Protestants, maybe the largest number to come inactive altogether. Very small groups have become Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses, Buddhist, etc.

 Polling of Catholics, for example, has shown that roughly 57% believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, while 43% do not believe that. That represents a very serious division, even if the 43% remain in the church. The majority seem to favor married priests, and they divide almost evenly re the ordination of women priests. Actually, Catholics as a whole seem more 'liberal' than evangelical Protestants. The majority voted for Obama, for example, while evangelical Protestants voted against Obama by a significant margin. Mainline Protestants were split, a slight preference for Obama. Remember that traditional political affiliation plays a role. The majority of Catholics have been traditionally Denocratic. Black Protestants voted about 95% for Obama, and Black Protestants are roughly 20% or a bit more of all American Protestants. 

 Back to the 'stickyest' issue. Protestants, almost by definition, emphasize  individualism, freedom of conscience and belief. The evangelicals as a whole accept the Bible quite literally, including Adam and Eve forward. The mainstream Protestants have been heavily influenced by modern thinking that have difficulty with certain supernatural teachings. They agree on some things that set them off from Catholics. St. Padre Pio, canonized not that long ago, claimed to have levitated, bilocated and much more. All Protestants would likely regard that as untrue. And with Catholicism, if one thing is untrue the whole system can be undermined. 

 There are hugely controversial issues regarding the priesthood as well as social ethics. Mainline Protestants generally favor the ordination of women, less popular among evangelicals - although the highest percentage of women clergy has been within the Salvation Army. which is evangelical. Mainline Protestants are likely to allow abortions in certain cases - e. g., to save the life of the mother, certainly. Most mainline Protestants and evangelical Protestants don't have a problem with artificial birth control. They might argue that we have artificial hearts and limbs, etc. They also may say that the Catholic approved method and artificial birth control both aim at avoiding pregnancy - so? If we truly believe that God decides whether or not pregnancy occurs, it will happen regardless. 

  Back to the theme: Protestants, as stated in an earlier post, believe that 'their church' goes back to Jesus, but reform was needed when it went so far off track. Different denominations provide a wide selection. Millions of Protestants, of course, have no problem switching denominations if they move and find a church nearby that they like, or are inspired by a certain preacher, or one church offers a much superior Sunday School to another, etc. They don't really 'convert' to another denomination. Among mainline Protestants, especially, theological differences don't play a big role as most of them accept the same basic beliefs and don't worry about the details. Evangelicals tend to worry more about theology and its details, which is a major reason as to why they keep dividing.

  More than enough sed. Hope it makes sense.

Good overview.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Amen to this…

Hm! Since this is an open dialogue, let me make a few quick points.

A major problem within Protestantism is division. Essentially, however, there is a split between what often are called mainstream Protestants and more conservative evanglical Protestants. The lines are not all that clear because many evangelicals are in mainline denominations - Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.

Now, I find a smiliar division within Catholicism. There are three groups, basically. (1) Traditional Catholics who accept whatever is taught by the magisterium. (2) Free-thinking Catholics who remain in the church but disagree with the magisterium on some basic theological or perhaps policy issues. (3) It's estimated that at least 30 million Catholics have left the church in the US, some to become mainline liberal Protestants, others to become evangelical conservative Protestants, maybe the largest number to come inactive altogether. Very small groups have become Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses, Buddhist, etc.

 Polling of Catholics, for example, has shown that roughly 57% believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, while 43% do not believe that. That represents a very serious division, even if the 43% remain in the church. The majority seem to favor married priests, and they divide almost evenly re the ordination of women priests. Actually, Catholics as a whole seem more 'liberal' than evangelical Protestants. The majority voted for Obama, for example, while evangelical Protestants voted against Obama by a significant margin. Mainline Protestants were split, a slight preference for Obama. Remember that traditional political affiliation plays a role. The majority of Catholics have been traditionally Denocratic. Black Protestants voted about 95% for Obama, and Black Protestants are roughly 20% or a bit more of all American Protestants. 

 Back to the 'stickyest' issue. Protestants, almost by definition, emphasize  individualism, freedom of conscience and belief. The evangelicals as a whole accept the Bible quite literally, including Adam and Eve forward. The mainstream Protestants have been heavily influenced by modern thinking that have difficulty with certain supernatural teachings. They agree on some things that set them off from Catholics. St. Padre Pio, canonized not that long ago, claimed to have levitated, bilocated and much more. All Protestants would likely regard that as untrue. And with Catholicism, if one thing is untrue the whole system can be undermined. 

 There are hugely controversial issues regarding the priesthood as well as social ethics. Mainline Protestants generally favor the ordination of women, less popular among evangelicals - although the highest percentage of women clergy has been within the Salvation Army. which is evangelical. Mainline Protestants are likely to allow abortions in certain cases - e. g., to save the life of the mother, certainly. Most mainline Protestants and evangelical Protestants don't have a problem with artificial birth control. They might argue that we have artificial hearts and limbs, etc. They also may say that the Catholic approved method and artificial birth control both aim at avoiding pregnancy - so? If we truly believe that God decides whether or not pregnancy occurs, it will happen regardless. 

  Back to the theme: Protestants, as stated in an earlier post, believe that 'their church' goes back to Jesus, but reform was needed when it went so far off track. Different denominations provide a wide selection. Millions of Protestants, of course, have no problem switching denominations if they move and find a church nearby that they like, or are inspired by a certain preacher, or one church offers a much superior Sunday School to another, etc. They don't really 'convert' to another denomination. Among mainline Protestants, especially, theological differences don't play a big role as most of them accept the same basic beliefs and don't worry about the details. Evangelicals tend to worry more about theology and its details, which is a major reason as to why they keep dividing.

  More than enough sed. Hope it makes sense.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Which century? The 20th, I presume. And, like all Protestant and non-Catholic organizations, man-made. Would you care to share the name?

How do you know that all the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles are to be found in the infallible Bible? The Bible doesn’t make that claim.

Which Bible, Whose Canon? There are several collections of “Scripture” that different Christian groups call their “Bible.” gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

How do you know the Bible is infallible?

The Bible came from the Catholic Church. Logically, an effect (the Bible) cannot be greater than its cause (the Church). If the Bible is infallible, the Catholic Church is infallible.

Peace be with you. Jim Dandy

Come on, all Churches were founded by a human. Jesus was a human, albeit with the fullness of deity dwelling in him. If a church is founded by the movement of the Holy Spirit, then its also divine in origin. Jesus did found one church, one body of believers, but where is the proof that the church consists of solely of the institution of the Catholic Church?

In reality, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have different canons. Yet there are some books accepted by all three. Their divine origin is established by agreement among believers from all Christian faiths.

 

[Justin1982]

Back to the ‘stickyest’ issue. Protestants, almost by definition, emphasize individualism, freedom of conscience and belief. The evangelicals as a whole accept the Bible quite literally, including Adam and Eve forward. The mainstream Protestants have been heavily influenced by modern thinking that have difficulty with certain supernatural teachings. They agree on some things that set them off from Catholics. St. Padre Pio, canonized not that long ago, claimed to have levitated, bilocated and much more. All Protestants would likely regard that as untrue. And with Catholicism, if one thing is untrue the whole system can be undermined.

That’s the thing about the Church and miracles they are studied for years to ensure they are unexplainable, just because it has been deemed so does not mean that you yourself are now required to believe it. Even the people that study these proclaimed miracles are humans and make mistakes, so how can you set such a precedence that if one thing is untrue then the whole system is undermined? This is an organization started by God though run by humans for the past 2000 years, you can’t tell me that things are going to be perfect. Everything can be undermined, Christianity has been undermined since the beginning, that’s that whole free will thing that God gave us.

 

[Justin1982]

Come on, all Churches were founded by a human. Jesus was a human, albeit with the fullness of deity dwelling in him. If a church is founded by the movement of the Holy Spirit, then its also divine in origin. Jesus did found one church, one body of believers, but where is the proof that the church consists of solely of the institution of the Catholic Church?

In reality, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have different canons. Yet there are some books accepted by all three. Their divine origin is established by agreement among believers from all Christian faiths.

Jesus taught us how to worship, so how is it that people are given the authority to change that? Catholics and Orthodox are very similar yet many Protestants have fallen far from the tree.

 

[scottm]

You can have all the free thought you want as long as you follow what is commanded by God. Where the problem lies is the fact that without a central figure, there is a lot of room for digression from the original texts. Where do we get the ideas of homosexual unions, abortion, openly gay clergy? None of this is justified by the scripture yet many mainline protestants are going the way of extinction by allowing such things into their churches. I have found that in my parish, there has been a strong emphasis on tradition and reverence which has really shown in the upswing in attendance because most feel they are there to worship not be entertained. We would be far greater a society if we actually practiced what we preached.

Here here! I’ve made that same argument, about the inability to maintain a given teaching over time, amongst my friends and family. It’s so true. Look at the UMC – not the same. Look at any Lutheran synod in the USA – they’ve all changed over the decades. Etc. This is HUGE and SERIOUS problem.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Come on, all Churches were founded by a human. Jesus was a human, albeit with the fullness of deity dwelling in him. If a church is founded by the movement of the Holy Spirit, then its also divine in origin. Jesus did found one church, one body of believers, but where is the proof that the church consists of solely of the institution of the Catholic Church?

In reality, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have different canons. Yet there are some books accepted by all three. Their divine origin is established by agreement among believers from all Christian faiths.

Jesus Christ, who is God, founded only one Church (Mt 16:18-19) – the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church, born at Pentecost, A.D. 33, in Jerusalem. Christ promised to be with the Church ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20 KJV, Acts 9:1-5). Christ sent the Holy Spirit, who is God, to remain with the Church ALWAYS (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1, 15:28).

Members of the Catholic Church wrote the NT and formed the Bible, canonizing both the OT and the NT beginning in A.D. 382 and confirmed in 393, 397, 419. The Orthodox have added to it; the Protestants have subtracted from it.

Other ecclesial communities calling themselves “churches” began to appear in or after the 16th century founded not by the Holy Spirit, but by ordinary men. Many of them were founded in the 19th and 20th centuries in the U.S. All Protestant organizations are founded upon yet another interpretation of the same 66-book incomplete Bible cut by Martin Luther.

If you have any interest in historical Christianity, I would be glad to recommend some books. To believe that the Holy Spirit – Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself – founded thousands of Protestant denominations with conflicting and competing doctrines is, well, preposterous.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[JohnnyReb]

Jesus Christ, who is God, founded only one Church (Mt 16:18-19) – the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church, born at Pentecost, A.D. 33, in Jerusalem. Christ promised to be with the Church ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20 KJV, Acts 9:1-5). Christ sent the Holy Spirit, who is God, to remain with the Church ALWAYS (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1, 15:28).

Members of the Catholic Church wrote the NT and formed the Bible, canonizing both the OT and the NT beginning in A.D. 382 and confirmed in 393, 397, 419. The Orthodox have added to it; the Protestants have subtracted from it.

Other ecclesial communities calling themselves “churches” began to appear in or after the 16th century founded not by the Holy Spirit, but by ordinary men. Many of them were founded in the 19th and 20th centuries in the U.S. All Protestant organizations are founded upon yet another interpretation of the same 66-book incomplete Bible cut by Martin Luther.

If you have any interest in historical Christianity, I would be glad to recommend some books. To believe that the Holy Spirit – Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself – founded thousands of Protestant denominations with conflicting and competing doctrines is, well, preposterous.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

I don’t want to sound uncharitable, but these are Catholic church claims, and Catholic interpretations of Church history. What proof do you have that its correct? Catholics criticize non Catholics saying they have no way of knowing that their interpretation of the Bible is correct. Catholics have to put faith in what the church tells them, with no way of evaluating if it is correct or not.

I have studied plenty of church history. I had to take historical theology in grad school

Where we agree:

1. Jesus founded only one church
2. The church gave us the Bible
3. Protestant Churches were founded-in an institutional sense-by men

We disagree

1. The Church (body of believers) = the institution of the Catholic Church
2. The Church that gave us that Bible was entirely the Catholic Church-I contend that the church at that time eventually evolved into the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and later, Protestant Churches. When the Catholics and Orthodox split-they split from each other.
3. We cannot be sure that the Orthodox added and Protestants took away from the Canon. Perhaps the Orthodox have it right or the Protestants. Protestants believe both added to the Canon.

Catholics to me over exaggerate the conflicting nature that exists in Protestant Churches. Protestant churches do not claim to be infallible in those teachings. According to scholar Huston Smith, in his book the Worlds Religions, 85 percent of Christians belong to the 12 largest denominations in the world. 15 percent then must be small denominations, sects and the like.

This shows a timeline that shows the origin of different movements and institutions within Christanity. It also shows the number of adherents of each group. On a large scale, we see groups like Methodist and Lutheran, and other groups like Pentecostal, while at 150 million, has several organization bodies. These bodies may have minor differents related to church polity, worship and the like, they are all distinctly Pentecostal, agreeing far more than they disagree.

simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

Even Catholicism as divisions within it. Division in Catholicism is centered or rites and orders. They all submit to the authority of the Pope, yet there a differences that may be based on culture and local customs. I give Catholicism the benefit of the doubt, but it seems to me that Catholics do not want to do the same with Protestants, even when many Protestant groups share more in common than disagree.

gcatholic.com/dioceses/rites.htm