When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Texasgringo70]

You mean, as a spectator?

The other problem is that there is absolutely nothing in the Scritpture that references anything about a “public” aspect to baptism or it being any kind of witness or testimony to others, either in the church, or out. There are many references to the spiritual aspects and effects of it, but this is not one.

Yes. as a spectator. Good luck getting a non-believer to fill the pews, or line the river bank depending on how you have it done.

I don’t have a problem with not having a reference in scripture about it being public. We do have several examples of what a baptism was like in scriptures and most of them were public or at least out in the open. The point I was making is that baptism for an adult is a big deal and is considered a confession of faith in protestant churches.

It occurred to me just now that maybe some of the reaction could be because it wouldn’t apply to infant baptism. Let me be clear that I wasn’t going down that road. I am just explaining the protestant view of it, not commenting on who is right or wrong. My personal opinion is that God probably values both types of baptism. I think He is bigger than our differences.

 

[JonNC]

=brb3;6750523]
Luther should of done his reformation within the Church …

He tried.

…but he wished to leave and marry a nun, breaking his vows to Christ & Church.

Is this your interpretation of why he challenged the abuses and corruption within the Church of his time? Do you honestly believe that, at the Diet of Worms, when he said, “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” He really meant, “I wish to marry a nun, and break my vows to Christ and the Church?”

In his later years … he saw his many errors.

But he also continued to recognize the corruption within the Church. Clearly, the modern day Catholic Church does, too. CCC 817

“in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

Pray we can overcome the division caused by the sins of men on both sides.
Jon

 

[brb3]

But he also continued to recognize the corruption within the Church. Clearly, the modern day Catholic Church does, too. CCC 817

Pray we can overcome the division caused by the sins of men on both sides.
Jon

JonNC …

A man with a vision of re-unification for Christ’s divided brethren, and willing to pray for real ‘re-formation’. Work among your Protestant brethren to make it happen.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC …

A man with a vision of re-unification for Christ’s divided brethren, and willing to pray for real ‘re-formation’. Work among your Protestant brethren to make it happen.

brb3,
I will, with the help of God.

Actually, I think the man with the real vision for this is Pope Benedict. He is true to his faith, yet open to true ecumenical dialogue. He goes into a Lutheran Church in Rome and speaks of the need to continue dialogue, because we cannot yet share His body and blood at the same altar!! Your Church, and all of Christianity, has been blessed by his leadership, and that of John Paul II, John XXIII, and Paul XI.

Jon

 

[brb3]

Actually, I think the man with the real vision for this is Pope Benedict. He is true to his faith, yet open to true ecumenical dialogue. He goes into a Lutheran Church in Rome and speaks of the need to continue dialogue, because we cannot yet share His body and blood at the same altar!! Your Church, and all of Christianity, has been blessed by his leadership, and that of John Paul II, John XXIII, and Paul XI.

Sounds like your are close to Crossing the Tiber !

I’ve got a book for you that will blow your mind. It explains the Catholic position on ALL Bible prophesy in Old & New Testaments. It was written by a Protestant … who converted to Catholicism. Once you read this, you will know the Catholic Church has the Prophetic Mysteries deciphered, and the Protestants have only manufactured, poorly supportable explanations. Much of this is taken from the ECF’s understandings in first 3-4 centuries. It would take a lifetime to piece together the full picture that this book presents in a single day’s read.

RAPTURE, by David Currie, 2003, Sophia Institute Press … paperback @ 5-13$ range @ Barnes & Noble Books [used vs new prices].

Riveting !! PM me with your review of … after reading.

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

I think the Church went wrong when the preservation of tax exempt status became more important than condemning moral evils. The majority of our elected Catholics don’t value the sanctity of life or marriage, and aren’t excommunicated or banned from taking communion.

I think the Church went wrong when they began embracing religious groups that deny Jesus’ status as God and messiah, simply for the sake of political correctness and pleasing the world we live in.

I think the Church went wrong when the Popes began sitting in thrones and wearing fine clothes. Jesus did neither of those things while on the earth, so a man who is only his servant shouldn’t do so either.

Those are the only ones I can come up with.

 

[excubitor]

I haven’t read the entire thread but really the Protestants do not have a leg to stand on. When Luther broke away from the church he had some issues with indulgences, purgatory, salvation by faith and not much else. However protestantism has bred novel notions, for example that Mary is not assumed into heaven. No record of any Christian believing this is to be found prior to the 1800’s or not that I can find anyway. Even Luther and the other Protestant reformers believed that Mary was glorified in heaven. So clearly heretical new ideas have creeped into the protestant churches at an escalating rate from the time of Luther until this very age. In fact even Luther moaned about how people were coming to their own absurd conclusions, doctrines and beliefs even in his time.

Usually these new ideas come about when one organisation splits off from another. The new belief is introduced to justify breaking off from the old group. Therefore the natural progression for protestant churches is the steady loss of doctrine and sound theology to the point where the only thing that unifies is a vague notion of Christ saving mankind.

In our suburb the protestant pastors got together to pool their resources and work in unity to the local community. They had men’s breakfasts with visiting speakers. All was going well until some bright spark came up with the idea that they should come up with a statement of beliefs that was uniform amongst all of them. After much debate they failed to come up with anything. It was such a farce and such a cause of frustration and division that soon after the whole organisation broke up and people went back to work within their own denominations. How this is supposed to be evidence of recapturing the essence of the church during the time of the apostles before the Roman church twisted things up I will never know.

It seems to me apparent that the only belief which unites protestants is that there was a historical person called Jesus who saved us in some way and that the Roman Catholic Church corrupted all knowledge about him and about the apostles. Paradoxically to the extent of being an oxymoron they also uniformly accept the New Testament Canon which was assembled and preserved by the Catholic church as an authentic witness. So the organisation that they denounce as having corrupted doctrine is the same organisation which gave them their scriptures. On what grounds do they suppose that the Roman church corrupted doctrine without at the same time corrupting scripture. Surely if the Roman church was in the business of corrupting doctrine they would have corrupted the scripture also in order to support their corrupted doctrine. And yet very few protestants claim that the scriptures have been corrupted. So they are caught in a fallacy.

Therefore the notion that the Roman Catholic Church corrupted the teachings of the Apostles must be rejected on the grounds that whereas the protestant communion could not find a single thing to be in communion about, the Roman Catholic church is in agreement with a document issued by the Pope called the Catechism of the Catholic Church which runs at 800 pages 2865 paragraphs of very solid doctrine all of which is agreed by every single catholic (at least to their level of understanding).

Truly if we look at this phenomenon from a protestant perspective or from any perspective really, this is truly a miracle. By what other force but the divine Spirit of God could close to 1 billion people agree on SO MUCH doctrine. And from what wellspring could such uniform belief emanate other than the doctrine of the apostles.

To add to this argument we have the phenomenon of the Eastern Orthodox. These churches were to a large degree isolated even before the dissolution of the Roman Empire. And yet they maintained almost identical doctrines over a thousand years following. If protestants are to claim that the Roman church corrupted the doctrines of the church then how is it possible that all of the loosely bound Eastern churches also corrupted the doctrines in exactly the same way throughout the entire known world.

In fact what we see is certain regions in Christendom falling into heresy with the Roman church intervening to settle and resolve the dispute. To suggest that a church in Rome could orchestrate a universal corruption of doctrine over the entire world without leaving any records of having done so is utterly absurd. It is a conspiracy theory equal to any modern conspiracy theory that you might find on the Internet.

If anything we see the reverse circumstance whereby the Roman church tried to implement minor clarifications of doctrine such as the filoque clause in the creed only to be snubbed and rejected by the East. Therefore we know certainly that the tendency of the East is to resist the lead of the Church in Rome not to cave in to an alleged conspiracy to corrupt doctrine.

In short the protestant claim that the Roman Catholic Church corrupted doctrine is absurd and is easily refuted by a brief study of church history and the exercising of rather rudimentary common logic.

 

[PRmerger]

In our suburb the protestant pastors got together to pool their resources and work in unity to the local community. They had men’s breakfasts with visiting speakers. All was going well until some bright spark came up with the idea that they should come up with a statement of beliefs that was uniform amongst all of them. After much debate they failed to come up with anything. It was such a farce and such a cause of frustration and division that soon after the whole organisation broke up and people went back to work within their own denominations. How this is supposed to be evidence of recapturing the essence of the church during the time of the apostles before the Roman church twisted things up I will never know.

Indeed.

I’ve been on the CAFs a long time and every once in a while a Protestant will post a message a la “It doesn’t really matter what the minor differences are; Protestants all agree on the essentials”. I always ask, “Where are these essentials listed in Scripture?”

Not a single one has ever been able to provide a citation for how Christians know what’s an essential doctrine and what’s a minor doctrine.

Not to mention, every single time I’ve asked for a list of what these essentials are, it’s different for each poster.

 

[guanophore]

I think the Church went wrong when the preservation of tax exempt status became more important than condemning moral evils. The majority of our elected Catholics don’t value the sanctity of life or marriage, and aren’t excommunicated or banned from taking communion.

\

I agree with your principle that tax exempt status should never be more valued than moral fortitude. However, this is not a teaching or wrongdoing of the Church of Rome. The Church does not teach or promote this.

The faithlessness of individual Catholics is between themselves and their pastors. There is no way to know if they have repented at any given time. Some have been directed not to take communion and still disobey, to their eternal peril.

Those who commit such sins excommunicate themselves, so there is no reason to do so publicly.

 

[simspt]

I think the Church went wrong when the Popes began sitting in thrones and wearing fine clothes. Jesus did neither of those things while on the earth, so a man who is only his servant shouldn’t do so either.

.

How should the Pope and Priests dress? Like Evangelical pastors who go home to thier multimillion dollar homes and drive their 100k cars but come to church dressed modestly?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Yes. as a spectator. Good luck getting a non-believer to fill the pews, or line the river bank depending on how you have it done.

I don’t have a problem with not having a reference in scripture about it being public. We do have several examples of what a baptism was like in scriptures and most of them were public or at least out in the open. The[SIGN] point I was making is that baptism for an adult is a big deal and is considered a confession of faith in protestant churches.[/SIGN]

It occurred to me just now that maybe some of the reaction could be because it wouldn’t apply to infant baptism. Let me be clear that I wasn’t going down that road. I am just explaining the protestant view of it, not commenting on who is right or wrong. My personal opinion is that God probably values both types of baptism. I think He is bigger than our differences.

Believe it or not its a big deal in the Catholic CHurch also And in the Catholic Church Adult baptsim is also a confession of faith.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus left us the Church of Rome to be led by the Pope and to all that are in communion with Rome to be guaranteed that they indeed have the fullness of the truth.

So I think it is more important to dwell on What did Rome do Right, and what is Rome still doing right.

Rome is still leading the Catholic CHurch into the fullness of the Truth as promised by God by the power of the Holy Spirit

 

[Contarini]

It seems to me apparent that the only belief which unites protestants is that there was a historical person called Jesus who saved us in some way and that the Roman Catholic Church corrupted all knowledge about him and about the apostles.

Most Protestants do not believe this last. It’s a grotesque overstatement on your point designed to further your pro-Catholic propaganda.

By what other force but the divine Spirit of God could close to 1 billion people agree on SO MUCH doctrine.

They don’t. It’s quite obvious that many Catholics don’t agree with official Catholic doctrine, never mind that in fact there are a number of points on which Catholics can legitimately disagree, and that devout, self-styled orthodox Catholics differ on just what you have to believe in order to be Catholic.

To add to this argument we have the phenomenon of the Eastern Orthodox. These churches were to a large degree isolated even before the dissolution of the Roman Empire. And yet they maintained almost identical doctrines over a thousand years following. /QUOTE}

This indeed works against the sillier versions of Protestant polemic, which you falsely assume are basic to all Protestants. However, it works against Catholic claims far more powerfully. Clearly, by your own admission Rome is not needed in order to maintain orthodoxy or doctrinal unity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

He tried.

Is this your interpretation of why he challenged the abuses and corruption within the Church of his time? Do you honestly believe that, at the Diet of Worms, when he said, “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” He really meant, “I wish to marry a nun, and break my vows to Christ and the Church?”

But he also continued to recognize the corruption within the Church. Clearly, the modern day Catholic Church does, too. CCC 817

Jon,

Luther himself said very clearly that he wasn’t concerned with the moral corruption in the Church so much as the fact that (in his view) the Papacy and the scholastic theologians had gotten the Gospel wrong. So it seems unfair for Protestants to cite the corruption in order to justify the Reformation. Luther didn’t get excommunicated for challenging corruption. He got excommunicated for challenging doctrine. He admitted this without hesitation. So why do you paint a different picture?

If justification by faith alone as taught by Luther is the doctrine according to which the Church stands or falls, then Luther was right and the Papacy really is something close to the Antichrist. But if it isn’t (even if it’s a legitimate theological opinion), then Luther was a schismatic and all Protestants should repent on their knees.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Luther himself said very clearly that he wasn’t concerned with the moral corruption in the Church so much as the fact that (in his view) the Papacy and the scholastic theologians had gotten the Gospel wrong. So it seems unfair for Protestants to cite the corruption in order to justify the Reformation. Luther didn’t get excommunicated for challenging corruption. He got excommunicated for challenging doctrine. He admitted this without hesitation. So why do you paint a different picture?

If justification by faith alone as taught by Luther is the doctrine according to which the Church stands or falls, then Luther was right and the Papacy really is something close to the Antichrist. But if it isn’t (even if it’s a legitimate theological opinion), then Luther was a schismatic and all Protestants should repent on their knees.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,
Would you say that the Doctrine of Justification he faced and challenged in Germany (not necessarily Rome) is that which Rome teaches today? Is the JDDJ a clarfication of doctrine, or of misunderstandings of Luther’s time?

Jon

 

[Texasgringo70]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Believe it or not its a big deal in the Catholic CHurch also And in the Catholic Church Adult baptsim is also a confession of faith.

Oh, I believe it. I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t be for anyone. My emphasis was in response to guanophore’s comment about there not being anything in the Bible about it being public.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
By what other force but the divine Spirit of God could close to 1 billion people agree on SO MUCH doctrine.

They don’t. It’s quite obvious that many Catholics don’t agree with official Catholic doctrine, never mind that in fact there are a number of points on which Catholics can legitimately disagree, and that devout, self-styled orthodox Catholics differ on just what you have to believe in order to be Catholic.

And what age group are you referring to specifically? If you ask 15-25 years old,I am very cofident they will not agree more about moral issues,then doctrines such as the Trinity,etc. Most of that age group live in a world full of relativism,so your statement is a bit general.

 

[guanophore]

I think the Church went wrong when they began embracing religious groups that deny Jesus’ status as God and messiah, simply for the sake of political correctness and pleasing the world we live in.

Two questions on this. What is meant by “embracing religious groups”. Also, can you give an example? I am not sure what you are referencing here.

I think the Church went wrong when the Popes began sitting in thrones and wearing fine clothes. Jesus did neither of those things while on the earth, so a man who is only his servant shouldn’t do so either.

Jesus nevrer got married and had kids, either. Should we avoid those things because he never did them? He never owned a home, or transportation (even had to borrow a donkey). He told at least one person to sell all he had. Should we not all do this also? Do you own any material goods?

Those are the only ones I can come up with.

Thanks, it is good grist for the mill.

 

[excubitor]

Originally Posted by excubitor

Yes sorry it was a gross overstatement. May I rephrase it. It seems to me apparent that the only belief which unites protestants is that there was a historical person called Jesus who saved us in some way and that the Roman Catholic Church has corrupted the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles to one extent or another.

Is this correction sufficient for you to withdraw your claim that I am engaging in pro-Catholic propoganda?

I know about the High Church Anglicans and perhaps there are equivalent Episcopalians who basically teach everything the same as the Catholic church, some have even signed the Catechism and made overtures to Rome for reunification. I do not regard them as protestants. However these are the minority of Church of England Christians. The vast majority believe a variety of doctrines different to the Catholic church. Why else would they have accepted Cranmer’s innovations unless they believed that he was restoring truths of the Apostolic church which had been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church and left uncorrected by King Henry VIIIth, the ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’?

And if you or any other “protestant” (unfortunate over generalised label - not intended as a pro-Catholic anti-anybody slur) believes that the Roman Catholic Church has not corrupted the doctrine of the apostles in any way then on what grounds do you remain out of communion with the Pope and the Church?

The fact is that virtually all our protestants denominations have come from the Church of England, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians all of which began with severe anti-catholic dogmatic statements. The closest thing to a unified catechism that has come from these “reformed” fellowships is the Westminster Confession which states as a uniform belief that “Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God”

As a protestant who recently converted to Catholicism I can assure you first hand that this sentiment is alive and well amongst protestant fellowships. Of course people believe that the antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition has perverted the doctrines of the apostles.

To add to this argument we have the phenomenon of the Eastern Orthodox. These churches were to a large degree isolated even before the dissolution of the Roman Empire. And yet they maintained almost identical doctrines over a thousand years following.

 

[excubitor]

Originally Posted by excubitor

Yes sorry it was a gross overstatement. May I rephrase it. It seems to me apparent that the only belief which unites protestants is that there was a historical person called Jesus who saved us in some way and that the Roman Catholic Church has corrupted the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles to one extent or another.

Is this correction sufficient for you to withdraw your claim that I am engaging in pro-Catholic propoganda?

I know about the High Church Anglicans and perhaps there are equivalent Episcopalians who basically teach everything the same as the Catholic church, some have even signed the Catechism and made overtures to Rome for reunification. I do not regard them as protestants. However these are the minority of Church of England Christians. The vast majority believe a variety of doctrines different to the Catholic church. Why else would they have accepted Cranmer’s innovations unless they believed that he was restoring truths of the Apostolic church which had been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church and left uncorrected by King Henry VIIIth, the ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’?

And if you or any other “protestant” (unfortunate over generalised label - not intended as a pro-Catholic anti-anybody slur) believes that the Roman Catholic Church has not corrupted the doctrine of the apostles in any way then on what grounds do you remain out of communion with the Pope and the Church?

The fact is that virtually all our protestants denominations have come from the Church of England, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians all of which began with severe anti-catholic dogmatic statements. The closest thing to a unified catechism that has come from these “reformed” fellowships is the Westminster Confession which states as a uniform belief that “Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God”

As a protestant who recently converted to Catholicism I can assure you first hand that this sentiment is alive and well amongst protestant fellowships. Of course people believe that the antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition has perverted the doctrines of the apostles.

To add to this argument we have the phenomenon of the Eastern Orthodox. These churches were to a large degree isolated even before the dissolution of the Roman Empire. And yet they maintained almost identical doctrines over a thousand years following.