A
Augustine3
Guest
I would like to ask my Protestant friends in their point of view when the Church began teaching her corrupt of at least incorrect doctrines?
- Status
Use of the term “corrupt” implies a dishonest intent, which I reject. I don’t believe there is a dishonest intent regarding the teachings of the Catholic Church. It loads the question in a way that is unnecessary.
But as to the question, the biggest issues I personally have with Rome tend to be those that occur during and following the Schism (Lutherans generally accept the 7 general councils of the early Church), most notably the questions regarding the role and primacy of the pope.
Jon
B
BigFellaMick
Guest
I know this isn’t what you were asking but just felt obligated to point out that the Church is never corrupt. Might have a handful of sinners now and again but the Church is incorruptible. The only corruption that came from the schism was when the protestants broke off in rebellion (much like lucifer from our Lord) and created their own churches and their own beliefs.
Well, the Great Schism had nothing to do with Protestants, but that said, your comment about protestants in a comparison with Lucifer doesn’t match your Church’s teaching about us.
Jon
A
Augustine3
Guest
I obviously don’t believe it’s corrupt either, but certain circles do…
If you didn’t have an issue prior to this event then why don’t you believe in Catholic doctrines that was taught preceding this period e.g. the Eucharist was taught by the very early Church Fathers?
God bless,
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Every generation deals with corruption…it is the downside of human nature…
And we all have to deal with it.
And we all have to deal with it.
A
Augustine3
Guest
The question still stands from the Protestant’s point of view at what point of history did the Church start teaching incorrect doctrines?
God bless,
God bless,
P
PiousTemplar
Guest
I believe that it is commonly held that either:
A) Constantine founded the Catholic Church and loaded it with false teachings and pagan rituals. The true church was forced underground for 1200 years until the protestant reformers discovered it again.
B) The Church was originally correct but Constantine came along, made it the state religion, and corrupted it with false teachings and pagan rituals. Again, the true church was forced underground.
A) Constantine founded the Catholic Church and loaded it with false teachings and pagan rituals. The true church was forced underground for 1200 years until the protestant reformers discovered it again.
B) The Church was originally correct but Constantine came along, made it the state religion, and corrupted it with false teachings and pagan rituals. Again, the true church was forced underground.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Many times when Protestant and other non-Catholic Christians are discussing Church history, it is their proposition that the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church that Christ founded. They claim that the Catholic Church, as an institution, developed at some later date. One of the big difficulties with this theory is that no one can quite agree on when the Catholic Church was established. Some Protestants who hold the first seven Ecumenical Councils to be valid argue that it was after that time (this leads to more problems, such as Protestant rejection of many of the Catholic doctrines expounded by those councils). Perhaps the most popular claim is that the Catholic Church was an invention of Constantine, and developed during his reign after the legalization of Christianity.
Dr. Carroll, author the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313, the year that Constantine issued the Edict of Milan.
But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines that are specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the “invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to see none of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.
Dr. Carroll, author the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313, the year that Constantine issued the Edict of Milan.
But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines that are specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the “invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to see none of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The problem was essentially traced back to a particular priest in Germany who was literally selling indulgences, as well as the general German populace wanting a more defined jurisdiction farther from Rome.
There was indeed corruption among the clergy-- greed, pride, power…but not doctrine.
The Church has never ceased the practice of indulgences, just parameters because of the perception of buying one’s way into heaven – which nobody really believed in the first place.
Luther himself had chose to live in a very astute and penitential monastery. He lived in great self-denial, feeling ever unworthy of heaven. Today he would have heard of the devotion of Mercy.
Usually when a person leaves the Catholic church, it is not over doctrines or dogmas, but personal issues.
The past saints prior to Luther always taught none of us can save ourselves, but that we find our sanctification and justification in Christ alone. However, true faith proves itself in how it is lived out.
There was indeed corruption among the clergy-- greed, pride, power…but not doctrine.
The Church has never ceased the practice of indulgences, just parameters because of the perception of buying one’s way into heaven – which nobody really believed in the first place.
Luther himself had chose to live in a very astute and penitential monastery. He lived in great self-denial, feeling ever unworthy of heaven. Today he would have heard of the devotion of Mercy.
Usually when a person leaves the Catholic church, it is not over doctrines or dogmas, but personal issues.
The past saints prior to Luther always taught none of us can save ourselves, but that we find our sanctification and justification in Christ alone. However, true faith proves itself in how it is lived out.
My experience is you will not find this amongst Reformation era communions, but instead it is a later held belief, but I could be wrong. At least for Lutherans, to my knowledge, and based on the conclusion to the Augsburg Confession, this isn’t what we believe.
Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
The answer is never! Problem I encounter with most non-Catholics is they have the slighest idea about doctrinal development. They believe doctrines such as Papal Infallibility was invented in 1870,thus it is false. Well my counter argument is then why do the accept the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation all ratified over 300 years later after Christ? Jesus never said all Truth would be given by specific period in time. God is eternal so how would finite creatures even be capable of getting it "all’ in an instant point in time?
Greeting my friend. Hope you are well.
The first sentence is the correct Catholic answer.
I would just say, from my POV (which we’ve discussed before), that the difference between the doctrine of Infallibility ex cathedra and the Trinity is the nature of general councils - those that inculded all of the patriarchs, and the later ones that do not.
Again , from my POV, I see 1870 as a contradiction of Nicea, and not simply a development of doctrine.
Of course, this only partially responds to the OP, since we both accept the first seven councils, all of which happened after 313.
Jon
A
Augustine3
Guest
Based on your answers above I don’t understand why the Protestants have such a hardened heart against Catholic doctrines when they were taught by the very earliest Church Fathers. St Ignatius of Antioch for example wrote about the Eucharist at around 110 AD. How do Protestants respond to that?
God bless,
God bless,
Hardened hearts go both ways. I found BigFellaMick’s post rather hard-hearted, though he may not have meant it that way. A softening of hearts is something we all must strive for.
As for the eucharist, the Lutheran confessions quote Cyril and Vulgarius in support of the real presence. And Luther makes the point that all of the Church Fathers speak in favor of the real presence.
Jon
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Most protestant do not know Church history or only that part of history that supports their position.
I said most. You will find here, many protestants who know church history and with whom you can have good discussions.
As a protestant, the more I “discovered” church history, the closer I got the to Church. But each protestant is at a different place. As a baptist, never heard of the Church fathers until seminary. Did not really study them. A presbyterian friend gave me a book, started me on the road to the Church.
Mark
N
Nicea325
Guest
Blessings Jon. I am very well,thank you. Well actually Jon,if one were to really examine the early councils compared to Vatican II,they were not as ecumenical as Vatican II. Indeed,geography and technology were factors in the past,but nonetheless,Vatican II by large was much more ecumenical. Why is Infallibility a contradiction of Nicaea?Greeting my friend. Hope you are well.
The first sentence is the correct Catholic answer.
I would just say, from my POV (which we’ve discussed before), that the difference between the doctrine of Infallibility ex cathedra and the Trinity is the nature of general councils - those that inculded all of the patriarchs, and the later ones that do not.
Again , from my POV, I see 1870 as a contradiction of Nicea, and not simply a development of doctrine.
Of course, this only partially responds to the OP, since we both accept the first seven councils, all of which happened after 313.
Jon
Well, perhaps I should have said universal jurisdiction seems to contradict Nicea (canon 6). But, without universal jurisdiction, infallibility ex cathedra seems a non-issue.
As to your first point , none of the other patriarchs accept Infallibility, while they all do Trinity. In that way, Trinity’s dogmatic declaration is ecumenical, while infallibility is not.
Indeed, as I’ve said, this is the most vexing issue for me when considering either east or Rome.
Jon
L
lyrikal
Guest
Hi Jon,
I have been meaning to ask you. Have you ever considered the Orthodox church? What are some major doctrinal differences between the Lutheran church you attend and the EO church? Just curious.
Also, regarding Canon 6, have you ever read this?
Grace and peace be with you, brother.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
JonNC, you once told me that you trust/believe in Martin Luther, Is he your “pope”?
Do you truly believe that Jesus Christ would leave His Church without a leader/Pope to guide His Church and to guide the People of His Church? After Peter and the Apostles died, Jesus forgot all about us and left us without a leader/Pope?
JonNC, when you attend your Lutheran church is there a pastor? Yes, there is a pastor right? Your Pastor is your “Primacy/leader” who offers communion to you am I not right?
The Catholic Church is an institution founded on Rock being so it has a leader/Pope. Yes, yes, Jesus Christ is above all our Leader/corner stone but He is in Heaven now over seeing all, however from the Old Testament, God always had leaders to guide His people am I not right? Abraham, Moses, etc… Moses being leader, Please say you would have listen to Moses? lol I know you would have listen to Moses and if indeed you would have listen to Moses you should also listen to the Pope.
I, don’t like this, I don’t like that, about the Catholic Church I, I, I, I, I!
Who is I, to fight or disobey or argue with the Catholic Church?Ufamtobie
- Status