B
BILL_PICK53
Guest
and this takes 1500 years,and did not are Lord say I will build MY Church and not I will build my churchs
- Status
B
BILL_PICK53
Guest
Can you please tell us what teaching did the Church move away from
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bill Pick
*
Can you please tell us what teaching did the Church move away from *
And also when the Church moved away from them.
To be fair, you have to set up a bill of particulars when you indict someone for something.
For example, was the early Church teaching on confession and the Eucharist false, as I believe many Protestants would argue? If so, then the Church went off the rails right from the start. Then where was the Church until modern Protestantism emerged to “correct” these teachings? If you say the “sale of indulgences,” then you cannot indict the Catholic Church that existed up until the sale of indulgences, which means that confession and the Eucharist are still intact by then, and should be intact today. If you say the veneration of Mary and the doctrine of papal infallibility, the same problem applies. The early Church also gave the nod to the Bishop of Rome, considered to be Peter’s successor, and Mary was also much venerated in the early Church, certainly more so than most Protestants venerate her today.
She was, after all, the first Christian, and the first Catholic to receive in her own flesh the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
We Catholics are looking for a time-line that demonstrates, from the Protestant perspective, exactly when and where the Catholic Church went of the rails and ceased to be the true Church. Absent any such time-line, there would appear to be no case to make, or at least no case to make that would stand up in a court of law or the judgment of history.
As to corruption of morals, the world has always been full of that, and I daresay Protestants are no exception to the rule since they have been as eager to persecute Catholics as Catholics have been eager to persecute them.
*
Can you please tell us what teaching did the Church move away from *
And also when the Church moved away from them.
To be fair, you have to set up a bill of particulars when you indict someone for something.
For example, was the early Church teaching on confession and the Eucharist false, as I believe many Protestants would argue? If so, then the Church went off the rails right from the start. Then where was the Church until modern Protestantism emerged to “correct” these teachings? If you say the “sale of indulgences,” then you cannot indict the Catholic Church that existed up until the sale of indulgences, which means that confession and the Eucharist are still intact by then, and should be intact today. If you say the veneration of Mary and the doctrine of papal infallibility, the same problem applies. The early Church also gave the nod to the Bishop of Rome, considered to be Peter’s successor, and Mary was also much venerated in the early Church, certainly more so than most Protestants venerate her today.
She was, after all, the first Christian, and the first Catholic to receive in her own flesh the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
We Catholics are looking for a time-line that demonstrates, from the Protestant perspective, exactly when and where the Catholic Church went of the rails and ceased to be the true Church. Absent any such time-line, there would appear to be no case to make, or at least no case to make that would stand up in a court of law or the judgment of history.
As to corruption of morals, the world has always been full of that, and I daresay Protestants are no exception to the rule since they have been as eager to persecute Catholics as Catholics have been eager to persecute them.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
The Oriental Orthodox broke in the 400s.
Why shouldn’t I. I don’t claim to speak for God so I don’t know how He sees things. So in my humble opinion charity would lead me to assume that all Christian organizations I see today are a part of the true Church unless a preponderance of evidence leads me to an informed opinion otherwise.
That is nice. And that would have been good for their lifetime + 1 generation. I don’t know anybody today that is an apostle or one that they had sent.
And that would be your opinion. God hasn’t seen fit to chime in here and tell us how he sees things now has he. So see my comment above concerning informed opinions and a preponderance of evidence.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. That’s why I don’t put that much weight on Constantine.
You’re assuming that “teaching false doctrines” is the same as “apostasy.” Some fundamentalists and other very conservative Protestants think this–most don’t.
Some Protestants–particularly the classical ones like the Lutherans and Calvinists–would agree with you. My grandmother and others from a Wesleyan Holiness heritage would see it the other way round.
But you’re very vague. The number of Protestant churches that believe Catholics to be “not even Christian” is pretty small. You’re painting with way too broad a brush (this is very common on this forum, to the point that I don’t know why I try to argue against it).
Those Protestants who do believe this take one of two approaches:
- Many fundamentalists believe in the “Trail of Blood” theory whereby the Catholic Church apostasized quite early (typically with Constantine, though they see error beginning even earlier) and the true Church was carried on through “underground” groups regarded as heretics by the mainstream Church. This view of course cannot simply be disproved historically, because we don’t have exhaustive documentation of what every single Christian historically believed. Proving a negative is pretty much impossible. However, it’s quite easy to show that the evidence we have does not bear out the idea that the various heretical groups all believed the same thing, or that any of them believed exactly what modern fundamentalists believe. (None of them believed in eternal security, for instance, with the possible exception of quasi-Manichaean groups like the Cathars who also seem to have believed a lot of things fundamentalists would rightly reject.) The typical move in response to this is to claim that what we know of these groups comes only from the Inquisitors, who lied. There are some counter-arguments to make to this (we have some primary sources, and one can show that many Inquisitors took pains–probably an unfortunately ironic phrase here!–to inform themselves about what the heretics actually believed). But when dealing with fundamentalists, there often comes a point where you have to throw up your hands and admit defeat, because their paranoia and suspicion of mainstream scholarship are so deep that no evidence really counts against them.
- More traditional conservative Protestants will often claim that the Roman Communion formally apostasized at the Council of Trent. Before that time you had a long process of increasing error and corruption, but the true Church still existed in communion with Rome in spite of this. When God raised up the Reformers to correct the problems, and Rome rejected their teaching, then and only then did the Roman Communion cease to be a true Church, replaced by confessional Protestantism. This is probably the traditional, mainstream Protestant view insofar as there is such a thing, but these days it’s hard to find–most Protestants have moved to a more ecumenical view of modern Roman Catholicism, and most of those who haven’t are fundamentalists who hold to some form of “Trail of Blood” theory.
C
Contarini
Guest
Which Protestants? And which teaching? As interpreted how? (After all, the Fathers are not necessarily any easier to interpret than Scripture itself!)
Taking confession: Calvin’s interpretation of this is that the early Church viewed confession as a penitential discipline rather than as something necessary for salvation in itself. I believe that the standard scholarly view is that private confession began with monasticism and was popularized in the West by the Irish monks around the Carolingian era. Before that time confession was only necessary for a few extremely grave sins and was a public act. A Catholic friend of mine has pointed out to me that St. John Chrysostom speaks of private confession, so obviously the claim that it all originated with the Irish is false, but I think it does seem pretty clear that the practice began with monks and spread gradually among the lay population.
As for Eucharist: it’s not until the fourth century that anyone (to my knowledge) propounded a view of the Eucharist clearly incompatible with Calvin’s teaching (I use Calvin because on these matters he’s pretty much in the center of traditional Protestantism, as well as being extremely influential, of course). Even then, this “metabolic” view is not found in all the relevant theological texts (Augustine more often expresses himself in a manner that Calvin would agree with–in fact Calvin and other Reformed theologians were clearly influenced by Augustine in the way they formulated their sacramental theology) and does not seem to have been imposed as orthodoxy. Only in the Carolingian era, with Radbertus and Ratramnus, does the matter seem to have become a subject of serious controversy (Catholics can use this too, of course–but I’m telling the story from the other side), and only with Berengar in the 11th century was the more spiritual/symbolic view clearly condemned as heresy. (Note: Berengar, Ratramnus, and Calvin all believed in the Real Presence in some form–we are not talking about pure memorialism.) Gary Macy’s The Banquet’s Wisdom stresses the diversity of views on the Eucharist until about the 13th century–I think Macy exaggerates somewhat, but he is a respected scholar (and a Catholic, although by your standards no doubt an extremely liberal one).
The point where I think this argument breaks down is with regard to the adoration of Christ in the Sacrament. At least by the fourth century, this seems to have been taken for granted–indeed, Augustine’s injunctions to worship Christ in the Eucharist are the main counter-examples to the more “Calvinist” things he said when speaking theoretically. It seems to me that the Reformers generally ignored this, no doubt in part because when they thought “adoration of the Sacrament” they thought primarily of extra-liturgical adoration which was so prominent a part of late medieval Western Catholic piety, and they could easily show that this didn’t go back more than a few centuries.
As I’m sure you are aware, that is hugely controversial. You show this by your extremely vague language. Of course they “gave the nod,” but a nod doesn’t establish much, does it!
As with the worship of Christ in the sacrament, I think this is one of the places where Calvin’s arguments (and those of other Reformers falls down badly. And as in that other case, the problem is that he focuses on formal theological writing. In part he can be excused, because not as many sources were available, especially archeological ones and less formal texts. Calvin would say that originally Mary was just seen as a holy woman and a model believer, and that gradually “superstitious” elements crept in. But when you put the veneration of Mary for which we have fourth-century evidence (or even earlier in the case of the “Sub Tuum Praesidium”–of course this wasn’t known to the Reformers) together with Calvin’s strong statements about Catholic devotion to the saints being idolatry, I think you have a serious problem for classical Protestantism. Philip Schaff put it well and honestly in his mammoth church history, pointing out that there’s plenty of evidence from the fourth century for devotions to the saints that would probably have made the Fathers of Trent rather nervous–that in fact the fourth-century Fathers were in many ways more problematic from a Protestant perspective than the documents of Trent. This is the kind of thing, of course, that got Schaff accused of being pro-Catholic (hard as this is to believe when you read much of his writing) and which eventually forced many Protestants to take a more ecumenical position.
Edwin
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
AmateurPianist
So in my humble opinion charity would lead me to assume that all Christian organizations I see today are a part of the true Church unless a preponderance of evidence leads me to an informed opinion otherwise.
Are you then willing to argue that churches teaching opposing doctrines (one or more of which must be false) are all part of the same true Church?
So in my humble opinion charity would lead me to assume that all Christian organizations I see today are a part of the true Church unless a preponderance of evidence leads me to an informed opinion otherwise.
Are you then willing to argue that churches teaching opposing doctrines (one or more of which must be false) are all part of the same true Church?
C
Contarini
Guest
Why not?AmateurPianist
So in my humble opinion charity would lead me to assume that all Christian organizations I see today are a part of the true Church unless a preponderance of evidence leads me to an informed opinion otherwise.
Are you then willing to argue that churches teaching opposing doctrines (one or more of which must be false) are all part of the same true Church?
Where do you get the idea that holding any theological error is incompatible with being part of the true Church?
Either the Dominicans or the Jesuits (or both!) must have been wrong in the sixteenth-century debate over predestination. Yet the Pope had no problem telling both of them to stop calling each other heretics and to live peaceably together in the same Church. I find this one of the most impressive exercises of papal authority in the history of the Church.
It’s easy to say “yes, but this isn’t a matter of dogma.” That’s circular. You assume first that those doctrines *Rome *considers essential are essential and no others.
The point is that on those matters where Catholics differ, no less than on those where Protestants differ from each other and Catholics are agreed, one side at least must be wrong to some extent.
Edwin
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
As I’m sure you are aware, that is hugely controversial. You show this by your extremely vague language. Of course they “gave the nod,” but a nod doesn’t establish much, does it!
I wasn’t aware that the language was vague. It establishes a recognition not only of a powerful tradition that would never die in the Cathoilic Church, but it is also consistent with the principle of apostolic succession established by Christ when he said: “Thou art Peter; upon this rock I will build my Church (not churches).”
If you want to argue that Peter and his successors are not the rock that Christ is speaking of, that Christ did not really mean he would protect his Church from the gates of hell, I’m all ears. If you want to argue that Christ did not pray that we would all be one, as He and the Father are one, I’m all ears.
I don’t see oneness anywhere in Christendom today. Do you?
I wasn’t aware that the language was vague. It establishes a recognition not only of a powerful tradition that would never die in the Cathoilic Church, but it is also consistent with the principle of apostolic succession established by Christ when he said: “Thou art Peter; upon this rock I will build my Church (not churches).”
If you want to argue that Peter and his successors are not the rock that Christ is speaking of, that Christ did not really mean he would protect his Church from the gates of hell, I’m all ears. If you want to argue that Christ did not pray that we would all be one, as He and the Father are one, I’m all ears.
I don’t see oneness anywhere in Christendom today. Do you?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Where do you get the idea that holding any theological error is incompatible with being part of the true Church?
Where do you get the idea that the true Church can teach error and still be the true Church?
Where do you get the idea that the true Church can teach error and still be the true Church?
C
Contarini
Guest
From the fact that the leaders of the Church can clearly sin and be corrupt in various ways. I recognize that it’s possible that teaching error is the one way they can’t goof up. But the burden of proof is on you to show this.Where do you get the idea that holding any theological error is incompatible with being part of the true Church?
Where do you get the idea that the true Church can teach error and still be the true Church?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Sure, but that doesn’t make it other than vague. I’m quite happy to nod at Pope Benedict any time of day
No point even trying to respond to this kind of rhetorical shell game. You lump three completely distinct things together. Why should I bother answering you when you are that sloppy?
This subject has been done to death. There are plenty of good reasons to question the claim that Matt. 16 establishes papal infallibility or gives carte blanche to all the forms papal supremacy has taken over the centuries. It is quite possible that the “rock” is primarily Peter’s confession, so that anyone sharing the confession is a successor of Peter and the promise is that there will always be some who confess Jesus as Lord. It is also quite possible that all bishops are successors of Peter. And it is quite possible that the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors in a unique way and that Jesus’ promise protects them from apostasy. It’s even *possible *that it implies infallibility as defined at Vatican I. But given all the other ways this passage and others like it can be interpreted, you won’t get very far claiming that it *must *mean this.
No. And I don’t see your arguments contributing to oneness!
Edwin
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
From the fact that the leaders of the Church can clearly sin and be corrupt in various ways. I recognize that it’s possible that teaching error is the one way they can’t goof up. But the burden of proof is on you to show this.
Why is the burden of proof on me? The Catholic Church was around long before the Anglican Church began with Henry VIII. Why aren’t you obliged to show how the Catholic Church fell into heresy?
Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church of England. Christ can hardly be said to have recommended any such thing. Never in the history of the Catholic Church has the Church fallen into the heresy of preaching that a head of state is permanent head or governor of the Church. Neither Constantine nor Charlemagne, with all the powers they exerted, ever claimed to be “supreme governor” of the Church.
But this royal role is acknowledged in the Preface to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562. It states that:
Why is the burden of proof on me? The Catholic Church was around long before the Anglican Church began with Henry VIII. Why aren’t you obliged to show how the Catholic Church fell into heresy?
Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church of England. Christ can hardly be said to have recommended any such thing. Never in the history of the Catholic Church has the Church fallen into the heresy of preaching that a head of state is permanent head or governor of the Church. Neither Constantine nor Charlemagne, with all the powers they exerted, ever claimed to be “supreme governor” of the Church.
But this royal role is acknowledged in the Preface to the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562. It states that:
"Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace ... We have therefore, upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following ... **That We are Supreme Governor of the Church of England **... "
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
No point even trying to respond to this kind of rhetorical shell game. You lump three completely distinct things together. Why should I bother answering you when you are that sloppy?
Well, that really helps to clear things up, doesn’t it?
It is quite possible that the “rock” is primarily Peter’s confession, so that anyone sharing the confession is a successor of Peter and the promise is that there will always be some who confess Jesus as Lord. It is also quite possible that all bishops are successors of Peter. And it is quite possible that the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors in a unique way and that Jesus’ promise protects them from apostasy. It’s even possible that it implies infallibility as defined at Vatican I. But given all the other ways this passage and others like it can be interpreted, you won’t get very far claiming that it must mean this.
I have to admit you are most prolific at suggesting possibilities. But truth does not rely on possibilities. It relies on itself, plain and simple.
*And I don’t see your arguments contributing to oneness! *
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
I do believe there are many more Anglicans today coming to see that oneness with the Catholic Church is better than open warfare among themselves.
Well, that really helps to clear things up, doesn’t it?
It is quite possible that the “rock” is primarily Peter’s confession, so that anyone sharing the confession is a successor of Peter and the promise is that there will always be some who confess Jesus as Lord. It is also quite possible that all bishops are successors of Peter. And it is quite possible that the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors in a unique way and that Jesus’ promise protects them from apostasy. It’s even possible that it implies infallibility as defined at Vatican I. But given all the other ways this passage and others like it can be interpreted, you won’t get very far claiming that it must mean this.
I have to admit you are most prolific at suggesting possibilities. But truth does not rely on possibilities. It relies on itself, plain and simple.
*And I don’t see your arguments contributing to oneness! *
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
I do believe there are many more Anglicans today coming to see that oneness with the Catholic Church is better than open warfare among themselves.
C
Contarini
Guest
Because you are making an assertion: “The Church cannot teach error and be the true Church.” The person making an assertion is obligated to prove the assertion. Surely that’s obvious? You can’t go around making assertions and challenging other people to prove them wrong.
That’s your side’s way of putting the question. We would say “the Ecclesia Anglicana [Anglican Church, or Catholic Church in England] was in communion with Rome before it was out of communion.” If you want to argue which of these two propositions is more correct, we could do that. Or we could get on with the present discussion without bringing in other assumptions.
Why would I be obliged to show something that I do not believe? At least, I am quite convinced that you are no more heretical than we are–probably less. If you fell into heresy and/or schism, it was in your breach with the Eastern Church. I think I indicated that in my earlier post.Why aren’t you obliged to show how the Catholic Church fell into heresy?
I am an Anglican only because I do not see decisive arguments for either your Communion or one of the Eastern Communions, not because I think Anglicanism can make a good case for itself on its own.
We are supposedly discussing the question of whether the Church can teach some error without being apostate, not the merits of Anglicanism. Prove that a church that teaches any error is apostate, and you have disproved Anglicanism, since I believe that the 39 Articles contain some error.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No dispute about that!
Union with both you and the Eastern Churches would be better yet.
Edwin
J
JJHIII
Guest
What I have been taught in the Fundamentalist Disciples of Christ style churches, is that the Catholic Church started to go wrong when the Bishops of the Churches…and i quote…“started to assume more power. The biblical practice of multiple elders was rejected for the metropolitan Elder who oversaw many churches. This lead the way to the developement of the Papal system.” The point of no return was when Constantine made Christianity legal and it became the State Religion. THus people corrupted its use for their own gains.
I’m not sure how people can corrupt an entire organization that is founded by divine inspiration and completely erase from history the presence of Christ’s “true” Church. Nor how these fundamentalists believe that man has the power to completely change the prophecy of the Son of God…“behold I am with you all days…the gates of Hell will never prevail against it…etc.”
I’m not sure how people can corrupt an entire organization that is founded by divine inspiration and completely erase from history the presence of Christ’s “true” Church. Nor how these fundamentalists believe that man has the power to completely change the prophecy of the Son of God…“behold I am with you all days…the gates of Hell will never prevail against it…etc.”
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Well, you can, but you won’t get invited to many parties!
2
2Chronicles
Guest
then why aren’t you Catholic?
Christ establsihed only one Church
isn’t it best to be a member of THAT one?
N
Nicea325
Guest
*Quote:
The early Church also gave the nod to the Bishop of Rome, considered to be Peter’s successor *
As I’m sure you are aware, that is hugely controversial. You show this by your extremely vague language. Of course they “gave the nod,” but a nod doesn’t establish much, does it!
And by simply rejecting it or denying it verbally without empirical historical evidence does not establish a strong argument either. To non-Catholics it is controversial,not to the early church. Opponents say its controversial,but I have yet to read the overwhelming writings from the early church declaring the primacy of Rome and the Bishop of Rome is in error,false, or a great usurpation from Christ.
The early Church also gave the nod to the Bishop of Rome, considered to be Peter’s successor *
As I’m sure you are aware, that is hugely controversial. You show this by your extremely vague language. Of course they “gave the nod,” but a nod doesn’t establish much, does it!
And by simply rejecting it or denying it verbally without empirical historical evidence does not establish a strong argument either. To non-Catholics it is controversial,not to the early church. Opponents say its controversial,but I have yet to read the overwhelming writings from the early church declaring the primacy of Rome and the Bishop of Rome is in error,false, or a great usurpation from Christ.
- Status