When did the Church Go off the Rails

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
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.
 
The “off the rails” crowd is really on the horns of a dilemma, which is, if the Church went off the rails early, then none of the early theology of the Church is trustworthy, even though most Protestants believe much of it. That includes things like the nature of the Trinity, the nature of the hypostatic union, the condemnation of the various early heresies and of course, the canon of the New Testament. Too much fundamental Protestant theology is at stake for the early off-the-rails theory to work.

On the other hand, if the Church went off the rails later, then before it went off the rails it was clearly and indisputably Catholic! Catholic understanding just shows up too often and too early for the late off-the-rails theory to work.
Truthstalker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, Protestant private interpretation applied to history. 🙂
 
Truthstalker said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Church has not and CANNOT go off the rails as you put it. It was established by Christ himself and if it went off the rails it would mean Jesus had lied when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Stephen_C said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
Indeed this is a formidible difficulty.
 
So in my humble thinking The Catholic church (all rites in communion with the Bishop of Rome) is that one true Church. And as Jesus promised “not even the gates of hell will prevail”
So to prove this wrong you will have to prove it is not the true Church as she claims.
 
Truthstalker said:
Indeed this is a formidible difficulty.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Anyway don’t quit searching for truth. And let the holy spirit be your guide.
Nuff said from me sorry…not trying to hijack your thread or go off topic.
back to your question…
 
jmcrae said:
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?
Click to expand...
I love it!
 
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I thought this was going to be a thread asking when the Church got rid of the Communion rails!!!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: [SIGN]Where’s my V-8?[/SIGN]
 
Stephen_C said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to add a little bit to your simple yet beautiful summary. If there never was a one True Church then anything or any teaching that would come as a result of having a one True Church could not be from God, like the bible.

So if there is no one True Church then it stands to reason that there is no Christianity.

I don’t think any of us could ever accept that.
 
GK Chesterton was convinced Catholicism is true because it was attacked with so many contradictory arguments–it was the skeptics that convinvced him rather than the faithful 😃
 
jmcrae said:
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
Click to expand...
Hi Jmcrae,
Do you have any online references to this? I know a little about how the Japanese kept the faith but I am curious to read more especially if it goes back further than the 1500’s. Thanks 🙂
 
Leon_Miguel said:
Hi Jmcrae,
Do you have any online references to this? I know a little about how the Japanese kept the faith but I am curious to read more especially if it goes back further than the 1500’s. Thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
Not online, no - but I’ll see if I can dig something up if I get a few minutes. I got this information from reports that I read in the Western Catholic Reporter, as they were occurring, several years ago. I don’t know if the Western Catholic Reporter keeps an archive on line, though.
 
Truthstalker said:
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.
Click to expand...
How could God EVER let his Church go off the rails???
 
thistle said:
The Church has not and CANNOT go off the rails as you put it. It was established by Christ himself and if it went off the rails it would mean Jesus had lied when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Click to expand...

Of course it can go off the rails 😃 ! It must, unless its Shepherd-King preserve it with His inescapable vigilance & power.​

Or rather, the Church can speak according to mind of Christ in one respect, while behaving in a totally unChristlike manner in another. It can be guided by the Spirit of Christ in recognising something as God’s Truth, while inviting God’s Righteous Judgement upon itself for crucifying Christ afresh by its of torture and exile and violence & all our other sins. God hears the opporessed, and acts for them - even when those who oppress are His own, & are name by His Name. God’s Righteousness cannot be deflected or bought.

And it can do that constantly - the Church in the High Mediaeval Period had severe problems with simony. St.Peter denounced Simon Magus with great severity in Acts 8:9-25, for wanting to pay money for the gift of the Holy Spirit: I can’t believe that simoniacal clerics - including Popes - would not get as severe a tongue-lashing from him. This shows, ISTM, that in the Church there is both the wretchedness of sinful man, seeking to serve only self, & also the faithfulness of God, victorious despite our sins and wickedness. God subdues His sinning people to Himself, by the invincible grace of His Spirit, Who can be grieved, but never thwarted - that is why we are not destroyed in our sins, IMO.

It is **not the orthodoxy, the good works, the other acts, or any other thing done by man, that is fundamental to the Church: it is the gracious purpose of God that keeps the Church as the Church. IOW, The Church is the Church, not because it is infallible, immune from deviating from the Will of Christ, free of heresy, has an Apostolic Succession, or valid orders, a priesthood, true doctrine, or any such stuff - non of this is of any value or importance, in comparison with the faithfulness of Christ. In fact, Christ has no need at all of Catholicism, none whatever - if the Church betrays and denies Him, if it makes His Good News a means of selfish tyranny and all-too-human pride, He can always raise up a people to Himself from elsewhere, who will obey, will serve, who will hear what He says. Christ the LORD has no favourites - only we, who are blind, poor, naked, needy & lacking in wisdom, could possibly think that God the King, Whose sole Word sustains the universe, is going to be impressed by numbers or size or junk like that.

What God wants - and must have, no matter what the cost - is Righteousness. His Kingdom is a Kingdom of Righteousness. And if His Church perverts His grace and mercy into unRighteousness, He will vomit out His Church and raise up a people for Himself Who will be righteous, not in their way, but in His. The Church does not exist for her own selfish purposes - she exists to promote His Good News & Kingship; her mission, is greater than she is.

Does this make Christ a liar ? No. He cannot deny Himself - so He cannot sacrifice His Righteousness to His promises made to His Church. The Jews received His promises, but they mistook as a giaarantee that however they might sin, the Temple, & the city of God, would stand for ever. They sinned, & persecuted & slew His prophets - so He poured out His fury upon them, and scattered them to the four winds, sending the Babylonians against them, killing their priests, defiling & destroying His holy Temple, ending the kingship of which He had sworn to David, “There shall not be a man lacking to sit upon your throne”. If God’s Chosen People defy Him, He punishes them:

1Pe 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

ISTM that the passages we take as guarantees of the Church’s faithfulness, are in fact guarantees of His - & that leaves no end of room for us to sin in every way imaginable. It His faithfulness, not ours (which we don’t have, unless He give it) that is the centre of attention. That, & nothing in sinful us, is our one security. The Church must crumble & vanish, unless He protects us against ourselves. ##
 
G of G,

You seem to be implying the Church believes in a corporate “once saved always saved” mentality, attacking it for complacency, and arguing for a corporate conditional salvation. Hmmmm.
 
Gottle of gerr

Wow! Just Wow!
How very refreshing to read that.
I really needed to read something like that.

Doxiemom
waiting and watching and listening for that trump call
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top