When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Charlemagne_II]

You go out of your way to embrace a doctrine usually rejected by Catholics. . . . but I guess that’s your choice.

I embraced which doctrine usually rejected by Catholics? Sola Scriptura? How do you get that out of what I said? Are you being deliberately irritating?

Of course you can back up all Catholic teaching from Scripture. You can back up nearly anything from Scripture if you are clever enough.

Can you back up abortion from Scripture? Can you back up gay marriage from Scripture? Etc., etc.? Of course, that won’t stop some people from trying.

But that’s very different from claiming that he gave rock-solid, convincing proof that no reasonable person could deny,

Even normally reasonable people can deny what they don’t want to hear.

The plain truth of the matter is that when you say everyone has a right to interpret doctrine according to his own taste because there is no “rock hard evidence” in these matters, you are conceding not that every man is right (how is that possible when so many disagree?), but that each man has made himself his own infallible pope.

“No, the Pope, the successor of Peter the bishop of Rome, is wrong. But I am indisputably right.”

Do you seriously believe Christ wanted to give us the truth, spoke the truth as simply and plainly as he could without equivocation, and then would bless a thousand different interpretations of what he said?

What I do know is that he blessed Peter with authority, authority above and beyond that of the Scriptures, since the New Testament was not yet written.

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

He certainly did not say, “Thou art Martin, Thou art Henry, etc.etc. and upon your thousand rocks I will build my thousand churches.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AmateurAtheist

As I said above, you have not shown me a single passage of scripture where Christ says, “I will build a thousand churches and bless them all with their raging lies and contradictions as if they were the one true Church I built upon the rock called Peter.”

When you can show me something comparable to that coming from the mouth of Jesus or Paul, I will join the Assembly of God!

Honestly!

 

[defenderoftruth]

To the OP,

I ask my husband this one all the time in our “I want to be Catholic…oh no you’re not” arguments. (I want to be Catholic he’s a hard core prod-Anglican.)

His response is 325 A.D. or just before that when the church “sold itself out” to Constantine. He believes in the whole organic church theory, loves very Catholic liturgies, hates the Pope/Marian Dogmas.

So he tells me that the “church” is made up of believers that have faith in Christ and hold to the core doctrines ie eucharist (he rejects transubstantiation as “gnostic” yet believes the whole “mystery” thing like the O’dox do) and baptism for remission of sins. So he believes that there are REAL Catholics in the Anglican, O’dox, churches of the East, and Roman Catholic church but not in the TRUE CHURCH thing Catholics do.

I’ve tried to nail my very jello-y husband (I love him and mean no offense) to the wall with the “oh so the gates of hell prevailed against the church in 325?” Then he just slips out of that with “no there have been real Christians in all these sacramental churches throughout the centuries. One need not be part of one particular church.” It’s really sad. He thinks it’s “worldly” to think that the church is an organization visible to the world instead of it being an organism. (now that sounds gnostic to me!)

I love him dearly but he’s whacked.

DoT

I think a quote from John Henry Cardinal Newman is called for…

“If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must, humanly speaking, have an infallible expounder, else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties; between latidudinarian and sectarian error. You must accept the whole or reject the whole… it is trifling to receive all but something which is as integral as any other portion. Thus it would be trifling indeed to accept everything Catholic except the head of the body of Christ here on earth.”-John Henry Cardinal Newman

(In layman’s terms: Either you will sacrifice agreement on doctrine in order to maintain a semblance of unity or you will have agreement on doctrine and practice, but end up in a little sect. The only way to have both agreement on doctrine and inner unity is to have a central, recognised authority.)-Fr. Dwight Longenecker (former Anglican priest now Roman Catholic

 

[Nicea325]

To the OP,

I ask my husband this one all the time in our “I want to be Catholic…oh no you’re not” arguments. (I want to be Catholic he’s a hard core prod-Anglican.)

His response is 325 A.D. or just before that when the church “sold itself out” to Constantine. He believes in the whole organic church theory, loves very Catholic liturgies, hates the Pope/Marian Dogmas.

So he tells me that the “church” is made up of believers that have faith in Christ and hold to the core doctrines ie eucharist (he rejects transubstantiation as “gnostic” yet believes the whole “mystery” thing like the O’dox do) and baptism for remission of sins. So he believes that there are REAL Catholics in the Anglican, O’dox, churches of the East, and Roman Catholic church but not in the TRUE CHURCH thing Catholics do.

I’ve tried to nail my very jello-y husband (I love him and mean no offense) to the wall with the “oh so the gates of hell prevailed against the church in 325?” Then he just slips out of that with “no there have been real Christians in all these sacramental churches throughout the centuries. One need not be part of one particular church.” It’s really sad. He thinks it’s “worldly” to think that the church is an organization visible to the world instead of it being an organism. (now that sounds gnostic to me!)

I love him dearly but he’s whacked.

DoT

I think a quote from John Henry Cardinal Newman is called for…

“If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must, humanly speaking, have an infallible expounder, else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties; between latidudinarian and sectarian error. You must accept the whole or reject the whole… it is trifling to receive all but something which is as integral as any other portion. Thus it would be trifling indeed to accept everything Catholic except the head of the body of Christ here on earth.”-John Henry Cardinal Newman

(In layman’s terms: Either you will sacrifice agreement on doctrine in order to maintain a semblance of unity or you will have agreement on doctrine and practice, but end up in a little sect. The only way to have both agreement on doctrine and inner unity is to have a central, recognised authority.)-Fr. Dwight Longenecker (former Anglican priest now Roman Catholic

Oh indeed,the notorious: 325 A.D. or just before that when the church “sold itself out” to Constantine.

Many non-Catholics teach that the Catholic Church is not the same Church which Jesus Christ founded. They say the original Church apostatized during the time of Constantine, or around 320 A.D. However there is plenty references of Early Church Fathers which mention the Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that if the apostasy were true, that the Fathers made no mention of it whatsoever from two centuries before Constantine and continuously until two centuries after.

My Challenge is for any believer of the"Constantine" is to blame to show me documented proof of this so-called apostasy. If you cannot produce the documents, then why do
you persist in perpetuating this lie?

Read Rev 21:27 to see what happens to those who perpetuate lies.

 

[PJM]

There is another very active string entitled:** “Where did Rome go wrong”**

There seems to be only one consecus; and that is; that ROME DID GO WRONG!

Because so many non-Catholic posters are from “Bible Churches”, I am compelled to ask:

***How can this be IF, If, he Bible is true? ***

2 Tim. 3: 14-17 “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ***All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ***[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

**John 14: 15-18 ** "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor,[God can’t deny Himself] to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. **"I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.” **

**John 17: 14-19 ** "I [JESUS] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou should take them out of the world, but that thou should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; [GOD cannot deny HIMSELF] thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [19] And for their sake I [JESUS] consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth

**Matt. 28: 18-20 **“And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

So the un-answered questions seems to be HOW CAN THE CC BE WRONG AND THE BIBLE BE RIGHT?

With Love and prayers,

 

[defenderoftruth]

*Bluegoat said:
The non-Lutheran reformation groups that broke off were not doing it primarily because Luther had shown it could be done. He was simply the first in a series of groups that broke away, largely because of conditions created by the Catholic Church - many of them political conditions that made political change identical with religious schism. Such an interpretation fits the historical facts much better I think. People put way too much on Luther’s shoulders. *

This is a favorite thing I hear among Anglicans “oh it’s Rome’s fault that Henry left the church” “it’s Rome’s fault Luther left the church” sorry but the blame shifting is just ridiculous…they chose their bed and decided to wallow in it.

So is it Rome’s fault that Anglicans are divided now over female priests/homosexual bishops/high church/low church? Really Anglicanism is turning into 39 flavors of Christianity. Sorry if I sound offensive and such I get sick of listening to this tripe.

DoT

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat said:
The non-Lutheran reformation groups that broke off were not doing it primarily because Luther had shown it could be done. He was simply the first in a series of groups that broke away, largely because of conditions created by the Catholic Church - many of them political conditions that made political change identical with religious schism. Such an interpretation fits the historical facts much better I think. People put way too much on Luther’s shoulders.

This is a favorite thing I hear among Anglicans “oh it’s Rome’s fault that Henry left the church” “it’s Rome’s fault Luther left the church” sorry but the blame shifting is just ridiculous…they chose their bed and decided to wallow in it.

So is it Rome’s fault that Anglicans are divided now over female priests/homosexual bishops/high church/low church? Really Anglicanism is turning into 39 flavors of Christianity. Sorry if I sound offensive and such I get sick of listening to this tripe.

DoT

Are your comments meant to make some actual argument? I haven’t seen anyone say that the Catholics are responsible for the Anglicans current difficulties, and that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said. Are you trying to be rude and inflammatory, or do you have nothing more substantial to say? If you have some reason to doubt this interpretation that has some actual ground in history, please feel free to present it. FWIW, the Catholic Church no longer follows those practices that caused such difficulties, and I would suggest that it is because they realized they were a bad idea.

 

[defenderoftruth]

What “practices” would those be? (that they have given up)

Didn’t mean to sound nasty but I’m getting sick of hearing how evil Rome is at church on Sunday-not your fault I know.

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurAtheist

As I said above, you have not shown me a single passage of scripture where Christ says, “I will build a thousand churches and bless them all with their raging lies and contradictions as if they were the one true Church I built upon the rock called Peter.”

When you can show me something comparable to that coming from the mouth of Jesus or Paul, I will join the Assembly of God!

Honestly!

I have absolutely no interest in converting you to Assembly of God. Unlike Catholics, I do not believe that my organization alone is the one true church, is superior to all other Christian organizations, that salvation only exists through my organization, and that God intrinsically blesses my organization in ways that He just will not bless other Christian organizations.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AmateurPianist

I* do not believe that my organization alone is the one true church…*

I always have trouble following this line of reasoning. Maybe you can help me out?

You seem to be saying your church is the one true church among other churches that are also the one true church.

Does this mean that the “true church” can consist of a thousand different sects all teaching contrary doctrines that are equally true?

Doesn’t this go contrary to Christ’s prayer that we would all be one as He and the Father are one?

As I asked you several times before, please show me a passage from scripture that justifies your belief that churches teaching contrary doctrines can be the “one true church.”

If you cannot supply such a passage, how can this be a belief based on scripture? Are you* Sola Scriptura*?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bluegoat

*FWIW, the Catholic Church no longer follows those practices that caused such difficulties, and I would suggest that it is because they realized they were a bad idea. *

If you really believe that, then why aren’t you Catholic instead of Anglican?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

By the way, though Catholics are called “Catholics,” that makes them no less Christian. They first came to be called Catholics to distinguish themselves from the rival churches that were sprouting up all around them, or what we might call the “first wave of protestantism.”

The word “catholic” means “universal.” To be a universal church means that it is the same church everywhere. There is one church only and it is united in its teachings, thus corresponding to the injunctions of Christ, Paul, and Peter … that we all be one true church, not a thousand competing churches.

For the sake of quick reference I am repeating some quotes introduced in earlier posts.

Gospel of John 17:18 Christ praying to the Father:

“As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Paul’s epistle to Ephesians 4:11

“And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12
to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
13
until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14
so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.”

More from Paul emphasizing unity:

“if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8-9).

Also Peter warns, “There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them— bringing swift destruction on themselves” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Why was the Council of Jerusalem convened as recorded in Acts?

The apostles were concerned because division was rampant among the churches as to how to deal with the Gentiles. For the sake of unity, the council was held and clearly Peter claims authority to settle matters. He is supported by James. Paul’s case for the Gentiles is satisfied. Had this unity not been established by the authority of the apostles (as yet there was no New Testament to invoke) the churches may well have been scattered to the winds, each a law unto itself as the situation is today among thousands of Protestant denominations.

I’d welcome any biblical quotes (if anyone can find them) that seem to advocate contrary teachings within the true church, or that seem to suggest all churches are equally true, or equally a mixture of truths and falsehoods.

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurPianist

I* do not believe that my organization alone is the one true church…*

I always have trouble following this line of reasoning. Maybe you can help me out?

I will try…

You seem to be saying your church is the one true church among other churches that are also the one true church.

I don’t know what you mean by “true”. I prefer not to use the word “true” when talking about the entity known as “the church” (I know of no place where the Bible uses the word “true” with the word "church). I use the term "church of Jesus

Do I believe my organization is “incapable of being incorrect”. No I do not believe any organization is “incapable of being incorrect”.

Do I believe that the church of Jesus Christ only exists in my organization. No I do not believe the church of Jesus Christ exists exclusively in any one organization.

Does this mean that the “true church” can consist of a thousand different sects all teaching contrary doctrines that are equally true?

Sects is a demeaning term that I do not use. But yes I do believe that the church of Jesus Christ can exist in many organizations with these organization proclaiming contrary doctrines and dogmas (obviously not all equally true).

Doesn’t this go contrary to Christ’s prayer that we would all be one as He and the Father are one?

I have explained this before and it is getting frustrating for me to keep explaining, but No. The passages of Scripture you cite say absolutely nothing about different organizations and the possibility/impossibility of the church existing in different organizations. As I have said before “outside of God’s design” is a totally different concept than “impossible to coexist”. Please try to understand what I am saying here.

As I asked you several times before, please show me a passage from scripture that justifies your belief that churches teaching contrary doctrines can be the “one true church.”

The Bible is silent on the issue on whether or not it is possible / impossible for the church to exist in multiple, competing organizations proclaiming contrary dogma. The only respect in which the Bible is not silent is whether this condition is according to the design of God. Since the Bible is silent on this exact question, it is up to me to evaluate evidence. According to all of the evidence I have available, it seems quite apparant to me that today the church of Jesus Christ is existing in many organizations. I will admit that in the final analysis, it is my opinion.

If you cannot supply such a passage, how can this be a belief based on scripture?

Because as I said, the Bible is silent on the exact question I pose. The question in which the Bible is not silent is a different question. You are taking the answer to one question and applying it to my question which is different.

Are you* Sola Scriptura*?

It depends how you define Sola Scriptura. I prefer the term Prima Scriptura, but I do not object to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It depends how you define Sola Scriptura. I prefer the term Prima Scriptura, but I do not object to Sola Scriptura.

If Sola Scriptura, how is it that at the time of the Council of Jerusalem the church hierarchy had neither the Gospels nor the letters of Paul to guide them in the determination of doctrine concerning the Gentiles? Nor was Luke’s Acts written until long after the council. At that council the Church (not churches) set out a doctrine based on the Church’s authority (not on Sola Scriptura) which would be applicable to all Gentiles. Those Christians who wanted to hold on to circumcision as required in a Sola Scriptura sense (the OT requirement) were overridden by the authority of those assembled at Jerusalem. The Church was proving itself to be the court of last resort, not the Scriptures.

That situation continued for several centuries until the Church assembled and approved the texts of the New Testament, at which time those texts became a new source book for the teachings of Christianity (even though individually they had been around for centuries but had not existed in a single opus). Other books likewise existed, but were thrown out by the Church as of dubious authenticity. This fact alone proves that the final teaching authority comes not through Scriptures, but through the governing wisdom of the Catholic Church which assembled and approved all the books used by Protestants to this day.

 

[AmateurPianist]

It depends how you define Sola Scriptura. I prefer the term Prima Scriptura, but I do not object to Sola Scriptura.

If Sola Scriptura, how is it that at the time of the Council of Jerusalem the church hierarchy had neither the Gospels nor the letters of Paul to guide them in the determination of doctrine concerning the Gentiles? Nor was Luke’s Acts written until long after the council. At that council the Church (not churches) set out a doctrine based on the Church’s authority (not on Sola Scriptura) which would be applicable to all Gentiles. Those Christians who wanted to hold on to circumcision as required in a Sola Scriptura sense (the OT requirement) were overridden by the authority of those assembled at Jerusalem. The Church was proving itself to be the court of last resort, not the Scriptures.

That situation continued for several centuries until the Church assembled and approved the texts of the New Testament, at which time those texts became a new source book for the teachings of Christianity (even though individually they had been around for centuries but had not existed in a single opus). Other books likewise existed, but were thrown out by the Church as of dubious authenticity. This fact alone proves that the final teaching authority comes not through Scriptures, but through the governing wisdom of the Catholic Church which assembled and approved all the books used by Protestants to this day.

Like I say, it depends on how you define “Sola Scriptura”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If we are going by Sola Scriptura alone, here is more of it from Paul on Church unity rather than disunity:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Cor. 1:10.)

“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:9.)

How do you define Sola Scriptura?

 

[Joshua27]

I’m interested in the historical approach Protestants take to when and where the Roman Church ceased to be the Church of Christ. I often hear Protestants say the early Church was pure, but later corrupted by false teachings. For this to be true, there has to a point that Protestant historians can point to where it can be said, “Now the Catholic Church has broken with the true faith.”

When, and by what particular heresy (or general heresies), do Protestants believe that the Catholic Church broke away from the true Church. In the meantime, what happened to the true Church? Where is its history … its central teachings, its leaders?

I know you guys are deep in debate, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to answer the thread question (which probably already has been answered…forgive me for not reading earlier posts).

I sortof answered this question in another post found here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6671940#post6671940

Short Answer: The moment Rome began to change God’s laws through their own authority, assuming the authority to “bind and to loose” also extended and applied to God’s “ETERNAL” laws {Caps for emphasis}, Rome went into error.

God’s Laws are “eternal”. “Until heaven and earth passes away” was the condition of changing God’s laws…but (as we all know) heaven and earth have not yet passed away, so the original laws that God established are still effective, even today.

When did this occur? When Rome replaced all Messianic Jewish Bishops (original law-keepers) with Gentile Bishops (who then began to remove anything “Jewish” from the New Religion) well after the persecutions of 60AD, as Christianity was eventually funded by the Roman Empire to become the State Religion; 1st century AD (or CE).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Joshua 27

*When did this occur? When Rome replaced all Messianic Jewish Bishops (original law-keepers) with Gentile Bishops (who then began to remove anything “Jewish” from the New Religion) well after the persecutions of 60AD, as Christianity was eventually funded by the Roman Empire to become the State Religion; 1st century AD (or CE). *

The difficulty here is that you have to rewind the time line to the Council of Jerusalem, when all the bishops were Jews and began the process of revising the requirements of the OT to accommodate the Gentiles, specifically in the matter of circumcision. See Acts 15.

So were the apostles also undermining true Christianity from the start?

 

[AmateurPianist]

If we are going by Sola Scriptura alone, here is more of it from Paul on Church unity rather than disunity:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Cor. 1:10.)

“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:9.)

How do you define Sola Scriptura?

It is clear that you do not understand what I have been saying the last 2-3 pages.

I don’t know whether it is my fault for being unclear or what. I thought I was being clear in making a distinction between “outside of God’s design” and “impossible to coexist”. However, for some reason you are not getting it. Maybe I am not clear, I dunno.

However, since I am not going to repeat myself any more, I am going to bow out of this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*However, since I am not going to repeat myself any more, I am going to bow out of this thread. *

Thanks for participating. Sorry I can’t grasp the distinctions you were making.