When did the Church Go off the Rails

[guanophore]

I’m trying to understand the argument that the Church went off the rails…I was going to post this on a certain antiCatholic forum, but I am tired of talking to those people.

Not to worry, there are plenty of them here!

I have a post from another member and am looking for some (name removed by moderator)ut. Since you seem to be wondering the same thing, I will bring it here for discussion.

**I’m sure your Priest won’t like it but I will be glad to give you a history lesson of the church. I am not presumptuous enough however to say when Christ “left” the Catholic Church because I don’t believe He ever left the Catholic
Church. He may have left the Roman Catholic Church when they took over the Catholic Church but who knows the ways of God. For sure, it is not the same Church now.

Christ established His Church and gave explicit instructions in Scripture and through his apostles on how it was to be set up and operated. He gave power to the apostles to do many things as long as they lived but did not allow them to “hand down” these powers, but left them with ordination procedures and policies. The age of the prophets and inspiration died with the last apostle. From that point on, no one had the power to raise from the dead, etc.

Originally the Catholic Church was given all truth. It was as early as the first century, after Christ had gone, that the Gnostics and heretics began to preach their different doctrines, dogmas and practices. Several of the early church fathers combated them fiercely and always with Scripture as there was nothing else to prove them wrong. You won’t find one time that a heretic was confronted with tradition that did not come from Scripture.

These heretics continued and grew in number despite efforts of those like Irenæus and a few others. By the time of the 4th century, so many heretics were teaching false doctrines, etc. that it seemed necessary for as many of the churches as could, get together and establish certain rules of faith, etc. There was no central church at that time. Some claimed authority for the Church at Rome, some claimed authority for the Church at Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Philadelphia and Alexandria. The churches had not agree on one leader, no matter what you have been taught. A simply study of Church History will show this but most Roman Catholics don’t want to do this. They had rather believe what they’ve been told.

Well shortly after the beginning of the 4th century, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, decided to call a council and the Council of Nicæa was ordered. This was done by the Roman Emperor who was not even a Christian and later was baptized into the Arian Church. The biggest problem the Church faced was Arianism, Gnostics and Heretics. Constantine invited 1800 Bishops from all over the Roman Empire but only about 320 showed up. The Bishop of Rome was not one of them.

Constantine wanted control over the Church because his paganistic society was giving him a hard time about these “Christians” who they did not like. Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and that is when the Roman Catholic Church was begun. He introduced several pagan rituals and rites into the Christian Church in order to keep the pagans happy. The Pagans already had marvelous temples and expensive buildings, etc. and it only seemed natural to convert those to Christian buildings.

In addition to taking over the Christian Church, Constantine also built a beautiful new city and it became Constantinople, the new seat of the Roman Empire.

There were many Churches that did not agree with what Constantine had done and did not accept it. That is when the RCC locked up the Bibles so that the common man could not own or read one and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It took Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther to finally get the Bible into the hands of the common people again. That’s what brought on the Reformation because now the common person could read the Bible and see all that had been changed throughout the years.

The Bible is the infallible Word of God and nothing any man can say is infallible. The Bible hasn’t changed, it still means what it says and though many have tried to change it, God has promised to keep it accurate for Christians.**

According to this it appears to have happened at the council of Nicea? Constantine became “pope”?

 

[guanophore]

That’s a lot of rails, I must admit.

I have some questions for those people, too.

Why was the first Pope named “Pope Boniface III” (the third). Did his Mom name him that? Maybe she thought “the third” just sounded really cool, or something.

How did the Emperor Constantine get to be the supreme leader of the Catholic Church, if he wasn’t even baptized, yet? (He was baptized on his death bed, as I understand it.)

If there was an underground Baptist church that dates back to the Apostolic era, where were its leaders? Where are its records and writings? Why did they hide their lamp under a bushel basket, instead of evangelizing the whole world, as Christ commanded? How come we keep finding lost tribes of Catholics in remote corners of the world (India, Japan) who are still ordaining priests and Bishops, and still saying Mass pretty much the same way the Apostles did, but we never find any lost tribes of Baptists doing Billy Graham-style altar calls out there in the jungle or high up in remote mountains, other than in the southern United States?

If you don’t believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass, why do you call it an “altar?” Just what, exactly, do you sacrifice on it?

The baptists taught me that Catholics destroyed all the evidence, as they have always done with anyone who disagreed with them, including the Arians and the Gnostics.

 

[guanophore]

A lot of people seem to think He is mighty careless about such things.

It is a real mystery to me. People seem to have no trouble believing that God can save anyone who makes the appropriate profession of faith, because they are predestined to glory, no matter how sinfully they live, but cannot believe that He can maintain a pure Bride.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m trying to understand the argument that the Church went off the rails. I’ve read it happened with Simon Magus, who started the Catholic Church (!), with Constantine, who started the Catholic Church with a bunch of pagans (!), after Augustine, according to Calvin, when things slowly went to pieces (!), with the filioque (!),and then I guess the theory that the church just sort of went into slumber until Martin Luther knocked on a door and woke it up(!). Also that it went off the rails when the Pope discovered Papal Infallibility (!) or the Immaculate Conception (!) or Vatican 2 (!).
Constantine, Innocent I, Leo the Great, Leo X and others have all been personally blamed for the dirty deed.

The common thread to all these arguments, in my humble opinion, is that the Church went off the rails the moment the observer could no longer agree with the stated view of the Church. This may be too Catholic a thought, but then I guess I went off the rails. If it went off the rails, why can’t people agree on WHEN?

I was going to post this on a certain antiCatholic forum, but I am tired of talking to those people. Sorry if it this has an irritating tone.

There is no need to try to point to a date D at which it did so, as though it were Christian in 313, & satanically monstrous in 314. One could, if one were so inclined (which most of us probably are not), argue from the NT that it was gradually,slowly, but certainly, going apostate even in the days of the Apostles.​

Some form of this “gradualist” thesis is common in Calvinist writing. Boettner’s book is built on it. A fascinating academic thesis might be written to compare the various kinds of Calvinist “gradualism” - Hislop’s Two Babylons is another form of it. And Hislop was not the first person to come up with the idea that “Popery” = “the Babylonian Mystery Religion”. If we are to believe his thesis (not a good idea BTW), the Church was going bad in the first century, & went Babylonian properly when St. Damasus became Pontifex Maximus in 378.

And the process is still going on.

This Calvinist gradualism should be carefully distinguished from the Dispensationalist belief in the total apostasy of all Churches. The two are not the same.

For some people,the great sin of the Church was its mission to the Gentiles - St. Paul becomes a bad man on this view (which is a very ancient one).

I think Chesterton got it right - the Church apostatised on the Day of Pentecost

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is a real mystery to me. People seem to have no trouble believing that God can save anyone who makes the appropriate profession of faith, because they are predestined to glory, no matter how sinfully they live, but cannot believe that He can maintain a pure Bride.

The question is not of His Power, but of what He has in fact allowed: IOW, of His Providence.​

He could have kept Babylon the Great from becoming BtG, could have kept the Roman Church from apostasy - but did not. As is plain when one compares the NT plan of the Church, with the Roman one. The question is (almost) one of comparative religion - of Rome, as compared with the NT Church.

He could have kept Adam & Eve from their apostasy - He did not.

AFAICS, the idea makes sense - it just happens not to be the case; but I’m a “Romanist” too, so I would say that

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m trying to understand the argument that the Church went off the rails. I’ve read it happened with Simon Magus, who started the Catholic Church (!), with Constantine, who started the Catholic Church with a bunch of pagans (!), after Augustine, according to Calvin, when things slowly went to pieces (!), with the filioque (!),and then I guess the theory that the church just sort of went into slumber until Martin Luther knocked on a door and woke it up(!). Also that it went off the rails when the Pope discovered Papal Infallibility (!) or the Immaculate Conception (!) or Vatican 2 (!).
Constantine, Innocent I, Leo the Great, Leo X and others have all been personally blamed for the dirty deed.

The common thread to all these arguments, in my humble opinion, is that the Church went off the rails the moment the observer could no longer agree with the stated view of the Church. This may be too Catholic a thought, but then I guess I went off the rails. If it went off the rails, why can’t people agree on WHEN?

I was going to post this on a certain antiCatholic forum, but I am tired of talking to those people. Sorry if it this has an irritating tone.

To those who believe that the Catholic Church “went off the rails” at some point in history, I have several questions for you:

• In your opinion, when precisely did the Catholic Church go “off the rails” and can you p(name removed by moderator)oint an event or an era which illustrates that the Church was no longer on track?
• Does the fact that the Church faltered at some point (in your view) suggest that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church in some way?
• If so, does this imply that Jesus was not able to protect His Church or that He was wrong when he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church?
• If not, why not?
• Prior to that moment, was the teaching of the Catholic Church correct or were there errors in the Church’s teaching from the very beginning?
• If the Church taught error from the very beginning, what does this suggest about the God’s protection of His Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus?
• If the Church was in error from the beginning or if God was not able to protect His Church from error, then how do you know that the canon of the Bible (established by the Catholic Church in the fourth century) is reliable?
• If the Church’s early teaching was correct, how does your church’s theology today line up with the theology of the Catholic Church prior to its going “off the rails”?

I look forward to your responses. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no need to try to point to a date D at which it did so, as though it were Christian in 313, & satanically monstrous in 314. One could, if one were so inclined (which most of us probably are not), argue from the NT that it was gradually,slowly, but certainly, going apostate even in the days of the Apostles.​

Some form of this “gradualist” thesis is common in Calvinist writing. Boettner’s book is built on it. A fascinating academic thesis might be written to compare the various kinds of Calvinist “gradualism” - Hislop’s Two Babylons is another form of it. And Hislop was not the first person to come up with the idea that “Popery” = “the Babylonian Mystery Religion”. If we are to believe his thesis (not a good idea BTW), the Church was going bad in the first century, & went Babylonian properly when St. Damasus became Pontifex Maximus in 378.

And the process is still going on.

This Calvinist gradualism should be carefully distinguished from the Dispensationalist belief in the total apostasy of all Churches. The two are not the same.

For some people,the great sin of the Church was its mission to the Gentiles - St. Paul becomes a bad man on this view (which is a very ancient one).

I think Chesterton got it right - the Church apostatised on the Day of Pentecost

If the Catholic Church gradually slid into apostasy within four centuries, what are we to make of Protestantism after five?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If the Catholic Church gradually slid into apostasy within four centuries, what are we to make of Protestantism after five?

I can sort of see what you’re not getting at, but you’ll have to clarify. Better still, ask a Protestant ​

What I think you’re saying would be easier to agree with from a Dispensationalist POV than from some others. So:

• the argument that the Protestant churches are (so to say) going to Hell in a hand-basket is not an objection to Protestantism, if one is a Dispensationalist - it’s a confirmation of the rightness of the Dispensationalist understanding of the history of the Dispensations.
• If Rome is the Ho’, the apostate churches are daughters of the Ho’. If Rome is the “Mother… of the abominations of the earth” - there must be offspring; IOW, the abominations.
• True Christians are known to God alone, Who will rapture them out of the world, to save them from the Tribulation He is sending upon the earth.
• IOW - the empirical bodies named Churches are made up of “true Christians” (who will be raptured) & false brethren, who will not.
  As in Hislop, so in Scofield - a theological vision of the history of apostasy becomes something resembling a novel. “Left Behind” is from one POV simply Scofield with the gaps filled in & speeches & identities added. From another POV, Dispensationalism & " Spot the Antichrist" are the plots of Protestant “Evangelical/Fundamentalist” fantasy novels.

Despair of the state of the churches was one of the chief reasons that moved John Nelson Darby to give up on the established Church (in his case, the Church of Ireland) & to work up the Dispensationalist system, though not by himself.

That was in the late 1820s. It may be significant that Restorationism was getting off the ground in the USA at the time; & Mormonism is - in one its aspects - a form of Restorationism. There are several kinds of religion that might be reasonably be called Restorationist:

• orthodox Calvinism
• the Christian Church AKA Campbellites
• the Irvingites & Pentecostalism
• Dispensationalism-Darbyism-Scofieldism
• the JWs & the SDAs
• Mormonism
  Several of them have roots in Calvinism. This can be seen as a result of the success of Calvinism in spreading; it can also be seen as a manifestation of a tendency in Calvinism. People talk a lot of the divisions in Protestantism - many of these can be subsumed under one single type of Christianity, the Calvinist.

This is not to blame Calvinism - it is merely a fact that Calvinism has, for one reason or another, often tended to split. So however much one deducts from the common accusation that Protestantism is disunited, the accusation is not a fantasy - it is founded on facts; unfortunately.

Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, all had backgrounds in Calvinism, culturally at least; just as there is a Catholic or Fundamentalist culture. That does not make their theologies (the word may need to be used loosely) the fault of Calvinism. The question is not one of blame or fault, but of historical origin; historically, these persons were from the Reformed tradition. Had they been ex-Catholics or ex-Lutherans, their origins would have been different.

Calvinism and Dispensationalism both have their systematic theologies. This implies, without proving, that they have an all-embracing theological vision of reality; just as Catholic theology does, or Orthodoxy. Calvinism certainly has such a vision - Dispensationalism has a vision at least of the history of the Church & the economy of salvation; as its name implies.

IOW - Calvinism is a “total system” - just as Catholicism is, or Orthodoxy. And that may be one reason for the friction between them. If one has universal explanatory power, the explanations of the other, any other, don’t count for anything: at best, they are compatible with the other total system - they do not legitimise anything outside that total system. So it’s all very good that Catholics believe in the Resurrection of Christ, or the inspiration of the Bible: but it does not for one moment go to show that Catholicism as such is a Good Thing. The Christian things in it can be accounted for as “uncovenanted mercies” , bestowed on those in the BtG by God’s mercy, that they may “come out of her”.

I hope that makes sense

 

[jmcrae]

The baptists taught me that Catholics destroyed all the evidence, as they have always done with anyone who disagreed with them, including the Arians and the Gnostics.

Uh - we still have the writings of the Arians and the Gnostics. (Perhaps your Baptist friends don’t get The Discovery Channel? They are always getting all excited about the heretical writings of the early Church era, as though this were in some way “big news” to the modern Church that these guys had been around, saying these things - like we weren’t there, or something. )

But where are the writings of the proto-Baptists?

 

[krew555555]

the real decline for the church began the day the personal computer became as common a household item as paper towels. Many people ,including myself simply took what was told to them by their pastors as 100% true. It is a real effort to study the scriptures in depth. Now in the age of information someone can open 2,3,10 web pages at once…they can compare and contrast verses,they can use online bible concordances’ at the touch of a key…they simply did not have to time,but now it takes little time and effort to see the painfully errant, and contradictory bible for what it is…a book of stories and messages, not meant to be taken literally

 

[NotWorthy]

the real decline for the church began the day the personal computer became as common a household item as paper towels. Many people ,including myself simply took what was told to them by their pastors as 100% true. It is a real effort to study the scriptures in depth. Now in the age of information someone can open 2,3,10 web pages at once…they can compare and contrast verses,they can use online bible concordances’ at the touch of a key…they simply did not have to time,but now it takes little time and effort to see the painfully errant, and contradictory bible for what it is…a book of stories and messages, not meant to be taken literally

Really?!?

The more I study the more I"m drawn to the Church, the Bride of Christ!

I really don’t see where you are getting this theory. I know of several people that have used information drawn from the internet to teach them that the Church is the One Christ established.

 

[MariaG]

I think I see what you are getting at. Either it is the one true Church which was founded by Jesus. Which means that as Jesus promised “will not ever go off the rails” Or it was never the true church. Which means it has no rails to fall off from. It can either be one of these… Not the True Church and never was. Or it is the True Chruch in which case not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. It cannot be both.

Indeed this is a formidible difficulty.

I was a little excited and confused.

Alas, I see these posts were from a year and a half ago.

I miss that Truthstalker:crying:

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

there is a reason why the bible is called the king james version. truth be told, many righteous individuals denounced the church when it became the religion of kings, earthly kings that is.

Scary. Downright scary.

:banghead:

Robert

 

[guanophore]

the real decline for the church began the day the personal computer became as common a household item as paper towels. Many people ,including myself simply took what was told to them by their pastors as 100% true. It is a real effort to study the scriptures in depth. Now in the age of information someone can open 2,3,10 web pages at once…they can compare and contrast verses,they can use online bible concordances’ at the touch of a key…they simply did not have to time,but now it takes little time and effort to see the painfully errant, and contradictory bible for what it is…a book of stories and messages, not meant to be taken literally

Welcome to the forum, krew. What brings you here?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

He has discovered his brain and its capacity for error.

Give him time and experience (especially experience) and he will agree with Twain that he was amazed when he turned 21 that his old man had learned so much!

Robert

 

[trobinson017]

That’s a lot of rails, I must admit.

I have some questions for those people, too.

Why was the first Pope named “Pope Boniface III” (the third). Did his Mom name him that? Maybe she thought “the third” just sounded really cool, or something.

Um, the first pope was Peter. Pope Boniface III didn’t serve until 607 A.D. Prior to him there was Pope Boniface I (418-422 A.D.) and Pope Boniface II (530-532 A.D.). So Boniface III’s mommy didn’t have anything to do with that other than birthing/raising him.

This website has a kewl list of Popes with ancillary info: stuardtclarkesrome.com/pontiffs.html

JMJ,

trob

 

[rtconstant]

Um, the first pope was Peter. Pope Boniface III didn’t serve until 607 A.D. Prior to him there was Pope Boniface I (418-422 A.D.) and Pope Boniface II (530-532 A.D.). So Boniface III’s mommy didn’t have anything to do with that other than birthing/raising him.

This website has a kewl list of Popes with ancillary info: stuardtclarkesrome.com/pontiffs.html

JMJ,

trob

That was jmcrae’s point. If the church began in the 600’s then why was Boniface III the third not the first. In other words there had obviously been popes named Boniface before him.

 

[Truthstalker]

I was a little excited and confused.

Alas, I see these posts were from a year and a half ago.

I miss that Truthstalker:crying:

It’s interesting to read a thread I started way back when and look at it from the other side. Oh yeah, that was me then.

For those wondering where I am at:

I think there is a dynamic in the church, an ever-tension between the flesh of men and the Holy Spirit, not a little heated up by demonic interference. I agree with Chesterton that the church apostasized on the day of Pentecost. I do not agree that the leading of the Holy Spirit on the church is complete, so that we can say “this is infallible.” I think it is a matter of faith: we must trust Christ. Somehow He works through the Church - whatever that means. I suspect the OP question is unanswerable.

One thing that did cause my abortive conversion to Catholicism to come to a screeching halt was the realization that I was posting out of a particular brand of spiritual pride that is peculiar to converts to Catholicism from Protestantism. As a Catholic, I would know more than the Protestants. And as a convert, my spiritual act is better than most Catholics. I find some of my old posts on this thread and on others reeking of this, and I find it commonplace among converts or reverts to swagger and boast their superiority to the 33,000 denominations of ignorami who revolted against the true Church (not all are like that, and I have never seen that in MariaG). At least that’s the way I read many posters even if it is not meant. In my case it was not meant but I discovered it in myself. Converting to enhance one’s spiritual pride is not the best reason. I have not yet found sufficient reasons.

 

[utunumsint]

One thing that did cause my abortive conversion to Catholicism to come to a screeching halt was the realization that I was posting out of a particular brand of spiritual pride that is peculiar to converts to Catholicism from Protestantism. As a Catholic, I would know more than the Protestants. And as a convert, my spiritual act is better than most Catholics. I find some of my old posts on this thread and on others reeking of this, and I find it commonplace among converts or reverts to swagger and boast their superiority to the 33,000 denominations of ignorami who revolted against the true Church (not all are like that, and I have never seen that in MariaG). At least that’s the way I read many posters even if it is not meant. In my case it was not meant but I discovered it in myself. Converting to enhance one’s spiritual pride is not the best reason. I have not yet found sufficient reasons.

The point in becoming a Catholic is not only to be orthodox (having right teachings), but to become saints. To be holy. Many converts bash down the doors to the church full of joy and happiness at finally having come home, only to discover that the home they have found is only provisional. We are part of a pilgrim church, always in need of purification. The true journey’s end is everlasting life.

I wish you the best of luck on your journey TruthStalker, and I commend you for putting the breaks on your conversion. It is my opinion that pride is often a greater danger to the soul’s salvation than even the most off the wall branch of Protestantism.

God bless,
Ut

 

[reggieM]

One thing that did cause my abortive conversion to Catholicism to come to a screeching halt was the realization that I was posting out of a particular brand of spiritual pride that is peculiar to converts to Catholicism from Protestantism. As a Catholic, I would know more than the Protestants. And as a convert, my spiritual act is better than most Catholics. I find some of my old posts on this thread and on others reeking of this, and I find it commonplace among converts or reverts to swagger and boast their superiority to the 33,000 denominations of ignorami who revolted against the true Church (not all are like that, and I have never seen that in MariaG). At least that’s the way I read many posters even if it is not meant. In my case it was not meant but I discovered it in myself. Converting to enhance one’s spiritual pride is not the best reason. I have not yet found sufficient reasons.

You convert because you embrace the truth. But the fact that you recognize the truth and millions of others don’t does not make you a better or wiser person than others.