When do you claim that the Catholic Church began

[GregoryPalamas]

zooey and jmcrae and others,

The absence of a protesting delegation at Trent makes it difficult to sustain an argument that the “reformers” were really trying to reform the Church but had at some point joined forces with their lay protectors. In fact some of Luther’s writings seem t oindicate his preference for lay investiture and for an end of Christendom. I always figured that he wasn’t much of a theologian and so dismissed much of his polemical writings as mere bombast. Nevertheless, there are still Protestants today that argue that their reall calling is to reform the Church and not to create a separate religion.

Their argument, actually it was mine as well when I stubbornly remained a protestant, goes something like this. The original reformers were truely Catholic and were sincerely trying to reform some things within the Church that many looking back today and many other contemporaries realized needed changiong. At some point after the break some internal changes took place in the movement. Suggestions included the more the radical nature of some aspects of Calvinists theology, obviously the radical reformers demands, but perhaps most signicantly the later Enlightenment which made truth absolutley relative and dependent upon the whims of cynical lay leaders. Yes, I think most of modern non-Catholic and non-Orthodox 'christian" religion is extraordinarily cynical and based mostly upon power and money. Because of this I’m convinced that the best form of evangelization we have to those trapped in that system is to quietly tell the truth. As we do the duplicity of some of these rascals will be revealed and people will slowly see the light and come to Christ in His fullness. That’s what happened to my wife and I.

CDL

 

[Bennie_P]

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. John 1:1

Next question…

 

[mozart-250]

Upon reflection, I voted with the 80 percent majority.

But I would give the same answer had the question been Lutheran, Assembly of God, or Southern Baptist.

Reasoning:

When thinking through an issue I often like to shift to a similar…but non-controversial one. So I thought of Wesley and the Methodists.

What started out as one movement and one organization through the passage of time has morphed into several distinct organizations. You have some that retained the name Methodist (Free Methodist…United Methodist) and some that adopted different names (Church of the Nazarene, Wesleyan).

But I can’t look at these different organizations and decide that one and only one of these organizations is true Methodist and the rest have no valid claim to that name. Each organization in and itself has equal claim to the original Methodists at the time of Wesley. So if I were to say the United Methodist church began with Wesley, I must say the Free Methodist and Nazarene churches began with Wesley.

The issue then becomes…why should I view the division that occurred at Trent any different than the divisions that occurred within Methodism.

 

[jmcrae]

The issue then becomes…why should I view the division that occurred at Trent any different than the divisions that occurred within Methodism.

Because that entailed a complete and world-wide change in religious beliefs on the part of the Protestants (faith alone, Bible alone, double-predestination, once saved always saved, and so on) - not merely a local change in administrative structure.

All Methodists still share the same set of beliefs - if a Nazarene pastor were to preach at a Free Methodist Church or vice versa, the people wouldn’t notice any more difference in the theology being presented to them than if another minister of the same group as themselves were to give the preaching. It’s just that he reports to a different boss - but they all have the same basic theological beliefs.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

At Pentecost when St. Peter assumed leadership from Christ

Any other answer is wrong.

 

[mozart-250]

Because that entailed a complete and world-wide change in religious beliefs on the part of the Protestants (faith alone, Bible alone, double-predestination, once saved always saved, and so on) - not merely a local change in administrative structure.

All Methodists still share the same set of beliefs - if a Nazarene pastor were to preach at a Free Methodist Church or vice versa, the people wouldn’t notice any more difference in the theology being presented to them than if another minister of the same group as themselves were to give the preaching. It’s just that he reports to a different boss - but they all have the same basic theological beliefs.

Hmm…tell that to my United Methodist parents and Nazarene aunt that they share the same beliefs. They will both disagree with you.

 

[jmcrae]

Hmm…tell that to my United Methodist parents and Nazarene aunt that they share the same beliefs. They will both disagree with you.

In which case, they are two different religions.

It seems quite straightforward that having a different set of religious beliefs causes one to be of a different religion.

 

[Contarini]

In which case, they are two different religions.

It seems quite straightforward that having a different set of religious beliefs causes one to be of a different religion.

It’s nothing of the kind. The two sets of beliefs are not entirely different–they just differ in certain respects.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Because that entailed a complete and world-wide change in religious beliefs on the part of the Protestants (faith alone, Bible alone, double-predestination, once saved always saved, and so on) - not merely a local change in administrative structure.

There are so many errors in this statement it’s hard to know where to begin. Protestants did not completely change their beliefs–they kept most of the Catholic doctrines and practices (God the Father Almighty, Creation, Trinity, Incarnation, virginal conception, crucifixion, resurrection, baptism, Scripture with the exception of the deuterocanonicals which had always been marginal and controversial, Second Coming, salvation by grace, and so on and so forth). The differences were on relatively peripheral points (not that they’re not important, only that they are nowhere near as important as the things I mentioned). The Catholic Church recognizes this–why on earth do some Catholics want to be more zealous than their own hierarchy?

Furthermore, double predestination and OSAS were not and never have been doctrines held by all Protestants!

All Methodists still share the same set of beliefs - if a Nazarene pastor were to preach at a Free Methodist Church or vice versa, the people wouldn’t notice any more difference in the theology being presented to them than if another minister of the same group as themselves were to give the preaching.

They might not, but then again they might. There are differences between the two denominations, but they are matters of nuance rather than basic disagreement (the FMs are more Methodist in their theology and polity and have a more early-nineteenth-century doctrine of sanctification, while the Nazarenes would emphasize sanctification as a baptism with the Holy Spirit and owe more to turn-of-the-century dispensationalism). I certainly agree that the division of the Reformation was far more major than this.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

It’s nothing of the kind. The two sets of beliefs are not entirely different–they just differ in certain respects.

That’s not what he said. He said “Hmm…tell that to my United Methodist parents and Nazarene aunt that they share the same beliefs. They will both disagree with you.”

Example lay members (the parents and the aunt) of each group notice significant differences between their belief systems, to the point where they would not agree that they share the same beliefs.

If the people in the pews are noticing significant differences, then I’m sure their respective theologians are also noticing significant differences.

Two different sets of religious beliefs = two different religions.

 

[jmcrae]

Furthermore, double predestination and OSAS were not and never have been doctrines held by all Protestants!

Well, no, of course not. There is actually no doctrine that was ever held by all Protestants, since the original Protestantism was at least three completely different groups - the Calvinists (double predestination) the Lutherans (faith alone) and the Mennonites (Bible alone).

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I am sure you realise that most of the Christian Church’s dogmatic declarations came about as a result of an attack from the outside against things she had always held in belief.

Of course.

Because she chose to solemnly define a point of doctrine at a particular moment in history has nothing to do with inventing, creating, or changing a doctrine. It merely meant affirmation or definition/clarification of doctrine held from the beginning and passed down to us through the apostles.

I would agree or disagree with this depending on how you define the difference between “change” and “clarify,” but all in all I would disagree with it, because at the very least it’s extremely misleading. To claim (leaving the NT out of it) that Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, John Henry Newman (as a Catholic), and Pope Benedict all believe(d) exactly the same things is simply untenable. The faith of the Church *has *changed in the normal sense we give the word “change.” I.e., if you questioned a person in one age in detail about what he/she believed, you’d get one set of answers–if you questioned an equally orthodox and well-informed person several centuries later, you would get a somewhat different set. That does not mean that the Faith has changed in the sense of turning into a different religion.

I am sure you are aware of this, which confuses me as to why you choose to couch your responses in this way???

Because in case you haven’t noticed, I am not a member of the Roman Communion. I am not required to accept the spin that your Communion puts on the obstreperous facts of history, which show with abundant clarity that all forms of Christianity have changed significantly (though not, in the case of Trinitarian Christianity, fundamentally) from that of the New Testament. It’s like the equally disingenuous claim that the Church doesn’t sin, only its members sin; or the claim that the Catholic Church today still teaches “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” in a manner that is essentially faithful to the original meaning of the doctrine (or, in my own Communion, the claim that Anglicanism was never really “Protestant,” or the claim that we have historically been characterized by tolerance, or the claim that Anglicanism has historically held to a “three-legged stool” of Scripture, reason, and tradition). You can define things so as to make these claims mean something valid, but this involves way too much twisting and turning and getting red in the face for my conscience to handle. None of these claims are true in the sense that a thoughtful person is likely to give them upon first acquaintance. Giving them an abstruse definition in order to justify them amounts to false advertising, when more honest formulations are available (I would say that my “changed significantly, but not fundamentally” is such a formulation).

Edwin

 

[Evan]

If my understanding of the Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ, I have to agree with Hermas (who wrote in the first century) that the church began with Adam (ever ancient ever new).

If I look to the hierarchical structure, I have to agree with the poster who said when Chirst breathed on the apostles and confirmed them, and gave them the fullness of holy orders (ie they were then bishops and Jesus was Pope…the first Pope )

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I’d like to think that Protestantism is still Christian though the longer they remain separate from the Church the more this conglomeration of chaos looks more and more like separate religions and not Christian at all.

CDL

 

[mozart-250]

In which case, they are two different religions.

It seems quite straightforward that having a different set of religious beliefs causes one to be of a different religion.

Hmm…so when two sets of religious beliefs are not identically equivalent you have two different religions.

Well, let’s see…on this board I have seen Catholics disagree on:

• The Catholic charismatic movement
• The likelyhood of heretic Protestants (see Billy Graham) attaining eternal life
• What is and isn’t a mortal sin (see the one hour fast before the eucharist)
• Creation/Evolution
  .
  .

So how many religions of Catholicism are there since the standard for two different religions is non equivalent beliefs.

Hey…I did not say my parents and aunt were radically different from each other…they actually hold quite a bit in common. But they are not identical (which is the assertion that started this whole tangent).

But then again maybe in the big scheme of things you and I are not as radically different from each other as would appear as our arguing about Christianity over the internet would make it appear.

 

[Vaclav]

In fairness, I think I’ve stumbled across a few key problems with these types of discussions.

1. A number of Catholics tend to have a poor understanding of Protestantism. I’m not saying that to put anyone on the defensive. And yes, I’m a Catholic who converted from Protestantism too, but the truth is that there are a lot of Protestants who don’t understand the various denominations and histories of Protestantism either.
2. At the same token, a lot of Catholicism is unfairly represented especially in the United States - and especially by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.
3. These conversations tend to begin on a very adversial footing and I mean from both sides.
4. The Reformation period is viewed in generally two lights. Either A) A glorious revolt by the repressed underclass of Protestants who could not freely worship beforehand or B) A horrible string of heresies promoted by mediocre political monarchs and unfair repression of Catholics (see Ireland) at the expense of Christianity. Rarely is a fully objective view possible.

All this makes a decent discussion extremely (and sadly) difficult.

My answer to the original question is that the time of the Church began on Pentacost.

On a personal note, I think that Calvinism has been one of the absolute worst heresies to plague Christianity and western society in general. Whereas, a general historical view of Anglicanism or Lutheranism does not, IMHO, find the same horrible historical repercussions. But I freely admit that this is my personal view. I’d place Calvinism along with Arianism or the dualism of the Cathars and Manicheans in its theological duplicity, but it had a far worse impact due to its success.

On the other hand, I can see a day when possibly the Anglican and Lutheran churches could return home. Indeed, many Anglicans have done so and in the spectrum of Protestantism, the “High Church” Anglicans and Lutherans are not far separated from us Catholics (of course being a Lutheran convert to Catholicism, I could be biased ).

 

[sterryfamily]

Of course.

I would agree or disagree with this depending on how you define the difference between “change” and “clarify,” but all in all I would disagree with it, because at the very least it’s extremely misleading. To claim (leaving the NT out of it) that Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, John Henry Newman (as a Catholic), and Pope Benedict all believe(d) exactly the same things is simply untenable. The faith of the Church *has *changed in the normal sense we give the word “change.” I.e., if you questioned a person in one age in detail about what he/she believed, you’d get one set of answers–if you questioned an equally orthodox and well-informed person several centuries later, you would get a somewhat different set. That does not mean that the Faith has changed in the sense of turning into a different religion.

Because in case you haven’t noticed, I am not a member of the Roman Communion. I am not required to accept the spin that your Communion puts on the obstreperous facts of history, which show with abundant clarity that all forms of Christianity have changed significantly (though not, in the case of Trinitarian Christianity, fundamentally) from that of the New Testament. It’s like the equally disingenuous claim that the Church doesn’t sin, only its members sin; or the claim that the Catholic Church today still teaches “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” in a manner that is essentially faithful to the original meaning of the doctrine (or, in my own Communion, the claim that Anglicanism was never really “Protestant,” or the claim that we have historically been characterized by tolerance, or the claim that Anglicanism has historically held to a “three-legged stool” of Scripture, reason, and tradition). You can define things so as to make these claims mean something valid, but this involves way too much twisting and turning and getting red in the face for my conscience to handle. None of these claims are true in the sense that a thoughtful person is likely to give them upon first acquaintance. Giving them an abstruse definition in order to justify them amounts to false advertising, when more honest formulations are available (I would say that my “changed significantly, but not fundamentally” is such a formulation).

Edwin

Now, let’s be fair. The statement in question that you made started, “Because that is when the Roman Communion officially rejected Protestantism and made dogma a number of things that had not previously been dogma”

Now, conveniently, you are changing the argument to one of the evolution of generalized, local beliefs.

Of course, the ultimate questions are; Did Jesus come to establish His Church; Did He promise His eternal protection to her; Is it (as the apostles and early Christians taught) the visible, hierarchical, one, holy, catholic and apostolic church; Does Christ expect us to belong to His “new and everlasting covenant”; And, as He did in all His old testament covenants with His people, did God give us successors to the apostles (whom He guides through the promised Spirit) whom we are to follow (as the apostles and the early Christians taught)?

 

[Lantz]

I am not Catholic but I do know that they formed the first Church. I always thought it was when Jesus asked his who they thought him to be. It is found in Matthew 16:18.

Peter spoke up and answered Jesus, he said **“You are he, the Messiah, Son of the living God!”. **

Jesus responded: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (King James Version) IMO that is when the Church started.

AMEN

 

[jmcrae]

Hmm…so when two sets of religious beliefs are not identically equivalent you have two different religions.

When they are so noticeably different that the lay people involved would feel that they were betraying their faith by attending the other one’s church.

Well, let’s see…on this board I have seen Catholics disagree on:

• The Catholic charismatic movement
• The likelyhood of heretic Protestants (see Billy Graham) attaining eternal life
• What is and isn’t a mortal sin (see the one hour fast before the eucharist)
• Creation/Evolution

These are lay Catholics who are seeking understanding on these issues. Some of them actually disagree with what the Church teaches on these issues, and others are simply not aware yet of the teachings. The Church itself has official teachings on all of these issues - and they don’t contradict themselves.

There is only one Catholic Church, and it only has one set of teachings.

 

[Contarini]

Now, let’s be fair. The statement in question that you made started, “Because that is when the Roman Communion officially rejected Protestantism and made dogma a number of things that had not previously been dogma”

Now, conveniently, you are changing the argument to one of the evolution of generalized, local beliefs.

It’s true that I don’t draw the sharp distinction between Official Dogmas and what people actually believe and practice that seems so vital to Catholic apologists (because their arguments only breathe in the rarefied air of Official Dogma). But it is self-evidently true that what I have said applies to dogmas as well–the obvious (and hackneyed) example is Aquinas’s denial of the Immaculate Conception. No orthodox Catholic after Dec. 8, 1854 can believe what Aquinas believed about the BVM’s sanctification in her mother’s womb. That is a change, and it’s a change at the level of dogma.

That is what I was talking about in the case of Trent. Cardinal Contarini, from whom I take my alias, had the good fortune (from one point of view) to die before the Council’s decrees on justification were promulgated. I am certain from what I know of him that he would have conformed to the teaching of the Council, but it would have been painful–as it was for other proponents of “double justification,” such as Cardinal Pole.

Reading Hubert Jedin’s history of the Council of Trent, and reading the protest of devout, orthodox Catholic bishops at that Council against the views eventually dogmatized (particularly with regard to Scripture and Tradition, but also with regard to justification), was one of the things that determined me to go through with confirmation in the Episcopal Church, rather than becoming a Catholic (I did later on try to become Catholic anyway, but that’s another story). There are good grounds, based on the preceding tradition of the Church, for rejecting the view that Sacred Scripture and extra-biblical tradition (I use lowercase because using uppercase begs the question) should be treated with “equal veneration.” There are good grounds for preferring a double-justification theory (in which we always have to throw ourselves upon God’s mercy and can never rely on our intrinsic righteousness for our standing in God’s sight, even though good works and sanctification are necessary for final salvation) to the view dogmatized at Trent, though I’m less positive about this one. There are far better grounds for criticizing the practical decisions of Trent with regard to liturgical practice and lay Bible reading, but that I grant is not a question of dogma.

Of course, the ultimate questions are;

Rather: Of course, the stock propaganda leading questions parroted by legions of cookie-cutter Catholic “apologists” are. . . .

Did Jesus come to establish His Church;

Of course

Did He promise His eternal protection to her;

Of course–but there is no reason to believe that this protection can be adequately described as a protection from formal error in Official Dogma (however minute–even though there may be horrifying sins and errors that do not fit this narrow category), attached to a particular office or structure or institutional procedure within the Church.

Is it (as the apostles and early Christians taught) the visible, hierarchical, one, holy, catholic and apostolic church;

I would not put “hierarchical” on the same level as the traditional marks of the Church, but certainly the Church is rightly ordered when it functions as a fellowship of bishops in apostolic succession in union with the Pope–if this is what you mean by “hierarchical,” then go for it!

Does Christ expect us to belong to His “new and everlasting covenant”; And, as He did in all His old testament covenants with His people, did God give us successors to the apostles (whom He guides through the promised Spirit) whom we are to follow (as the apostles and the early Christians taught)?

As long as they do not command sin or error. There is no dispute that a successor to the apostles (a bishop) may do this.

Edwin