Why do Protestants rewrite history to fit there own views?

[Le_Cracquere]

This thread is not meant to offend any Non-Catholic Christians, but for those who view are so Anti-Catholic that they rewrite history of Christianity which contains many errors. Some claimed that the Papacy didn’t start until 500 A.D, or that the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine (another false claim).

Some of it may be genuinely mendacious. Sometimes, though, myths arise through misinterpretation of genuine historical issues. For example, I believe even most Catholics concede that the traditional list of popes from the first five centuries A.D. includes more than a few men whose actions, dates of rule, and even existence are, shall we say, dubious. There’s probably always been a Bishop of Rome from the 1st century onward, but some of the historical annals from that period contradict each other flatly, or carry a strong flavour of popular legendry. From these unremarkable observations, it’s a short step for careless, half-listening, and half-interested parties to get the impression that the history of the early papacy was some sort of put-up job, which isn’t at all the same thing.

 

[Sixtus]

Have you considered that those who call us ‘the antichrist’ may themselves be the antichrist.

Jesus said the devil was a liar from the beginning. Now if he was going to try to discredit the church of Christ, might he not use a quaisi church through which to persecute the true church of Christ?

Might he even be clever enough to pretend that he is the church founded by Christ, while condemning the REAL church as an imposter!

Would not he call her whom Timothy calls ‘the pillar of truth’: a liar!

Jesus also said ‘you will know them by their fruits’. Some groups out there are very offensive and mocking not only towards the Chruch but also those dearest things about which she holds dear: the blessed sacrament.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Some of it may be genuinely mendacious. Sometimes, though, myths arise through misinterpretation of genuine historical issues. For example, I believe even most Catholics concede that the traditional list of popes from the first five centuries A.D. includes more than a few men whose actions, dates of rule, and even existence are, shall we say, dubious. There’s probably always been a Bishop of Rome from the 1st century onward, but some of the historical annals from that period contradict each other flatly, or carry a strong flavour of popular legendry. From these unremarkable observations, it’s a short step for careless, half-listening, and half-interested parties to get the impression that the history of the early papacy was some sort of put-up job, which isn’t at all the same thing.

I don’t see that at all. I have taken Christian history and historicans agree that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ started.

There no such things as Protestants back then. St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D said, “where there is Jesus Christ, there is the Catholic Church.” You can look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, that the Christian Church is Catholic in belief and practice and not Protestant…

 

[Mannyfit75]

The reason some Protestants do this is the same reason some Catholics do it:

It’s easier to scan the data for damning “evidence” and crow about it than it is to be just with the record and accept nuance and context as essential parts.

The historical Church is Catholic Church not Protestant. It was Catholic in its beginnings, and in 110 A.D, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Jesus Christ Church “Catholic Church.”

St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, and ordained Bishop by St. Peter. It shows an unbroken Apostolic Succession.

 

[cheddarsox]

The historical Church is Catholic Church not Protestant. It was Catholic in its beginnings, and in 110 A.D, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Jesus Christ Church “Catholic Church.”

St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, and ordained Bishop by St. Peter. It shows an unbroken Apostolic Succession.

Though the name “Protestant” does not date back to the early centuries of Christianity, certainly there have been those who protested to this or that teaching/tradition/belief/practice of Catholicism all throughout history.

Many modern Protestants, look back in history and feel that earlier on, some group within Christianity went astray and began to teach that which was counter to Christ’s intent or teaching. Many feel that the Catholic church took up some incorrect practice or teaching at some point/s long before the reformation.

If Christ started a church, and that church was an early version of the Catholic church, but then at some point the group that had the most power strayed…that is how, even though the Catholic church can trace itself back to Christ, it does not guarentee that it has never taken on false teaching or practices.

In the USA, we can trace our history of leaders right back to those who fought the revolution and wrote the Constitution, yet we can see that there have been and are leaders who have not stayed true to those original beliefs and causes.

Protestant and non denominational churches usually feel that the Catholic church strayed from the teachings and practices, and charge given it by Christ, and that they are reconstructing or returning to Christ’s original plan for his people.

That is similar to many people today who wish the US to return to the Constitution as it was “intended” and written.

To many, the traditions of Catholicism appear as amendments, not always favorable ones, to Christ’s original “constitution”…ie, the Scriptures.

It is not that Christ did not start Catholicism, as much as there is a disagreement as to whether or not the Catholic church remained faithful along the way.

cheddar

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

I find this to be an interesting subject. I’m quite confident that our historical accounts (always written by the winners) is not the 100 percent truth. I believe the history of the Catholic church to be no different. I’ve known people who have attended Catholic universities and was amazed to hear they had classes taught by priests that not only questioned the record but also acknowledged transgressions committed by past church leaders. I believe some people take those questions as personal insults to their faith and their church and hastily dismiss any negative thing as “Catholic bashing”. Peter is credited with being the first bishop of the roman church. Yet Paul wrote to the romans while Peter was over the church in Antioch. Paul’s letters were written to churches he was in apostolic authority over. The honest truth is we do not know if Peter was truly the first bishop or was given that title posthumeously for his martyrdom in Rome. Historical accounts of Peter’s position are not contemporary to Peters life but after the fact. There are plenty of examples of oral tradition being slightly embellished over the years before committed to paper. It is likely that in our history, there are equal misunderstandings and embellishments that were done not out of malice but done nonetheless. To me, it really does not matter either way. The catholic church is not more or less legitimate based on history but on what they are doing today. I am becoming catholic because I truly believe that they are the most biblically sound expression of Christianity, not because they are perfect.

 

[RCCDefender]

Though the name “Protestant” does not date back to the early centuries of Christianity, certainly there have been those who protested to this or that teaching/tradition/belief/practice of Catholicism all throughout history.

True, of course. The Catholic Church had to denounce many heresies right from the begining. Do you know what these “protesters” were teaching?

Many modern Protestants, look back in history and feel that earlier on, some group within Christianity went astray and began to teach that which was counter to Christ’s intent or teaching. Many feel that the Catholic church took up some incorrect practice or teaching at some point/s long before the reformation.

Of course many Protestants feel this way. That does not make it so.

If Christ started a church, and that church was an early version of the Catholic church, but then at some point the group that had the most power strayed…that is how, even though the Catholic church can trace itself back to Christ, it does not guarentee that it has never taken on false teaching or practices.

Nope. Jesus gave His apostles the power to bind and loose. He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. He sent His Spirit on the apostles, giving them the power to forgive or retain sins. He told them that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

In the USA, we can trace our history of leaders right back to those who fought the revolution and wrote the Constitution, yet we can see that there have been and are leaders who have not stayed true to those original beliefs and causes.

One cannot compare the fallible US government to the infallible Church Christ himself instituted.

Protestant and non denominational churches usually feel that the Catholic church strayed from the teachings and practices, and charge given it by Christ, and that they are reconstructing or returning to Christ’s original plan for his people.

Of course they feel this way. That does not make them right. How do they know what His original plan was? They can’t even agree with one another on the correct interpretation of the Bible.

That is similar to many people today who wish the US to return to the Constitution as it was “intended” and written.

Comparing apples to oranges here.

To many, the traditions of Catholicism appear as amendments, not always favorable ones, to Christ’s original “constitution”…ie, the Scriptures.

Christ did not institute Scriptures; He instituted an infallible Church. He did not write a single word of Scripture, nor did do the Scriptures say that He told any of His followers to do so. However, He did say that if there was one in sin who would not listen to take him, not to the Scriptures to show him his error, but to the Church. And that if he would not listen to the Church to treat him as a gentile or tax collector

It is not that Christ did not start Catholicism, as much as there is a disagreement as to whether or not the Catholic church remained faithful along the way.

cheddar

To say this is to say Jesus is a liar. His Church went into total apostacy until the Protestanst and non-denominational churches came along? That would mean that the gates of hell did prevail against his Church. For there is no other church that can trace itself back to Christ, unless you are suggesting that one of those early “protesters” was right. If so, I’d be eager to know which one had it right because if you look at what they believed, you may be somewhat dismayed.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I don’t see that at all. I have taken Christian history and historicans agree that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ started.

There no such things as Protestants back then. St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D said, “where there is Jesus Christ, there is the Catholic Church.” You can look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, that the Christian Church is Catholic in belief and practice and not Protestant…

An interesting argument, and one with which I haven’t many quibbles. However, I’m a little stumped about what it has to do with my previous post, which you pasted above it. Can it be that you intended it as some manner of response to said post? Its obliqueness to any point I raised makes me think that you might actually be answering some other argument on this thread, and pasted mine in by mistake. Please advise.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

True, of course. The Catholic Church had to denounce many heresies right from the begining. Do you know what these “protesters” were teaching?

Yes there were errors taught. Even John The Revelator taught baptisms in Jesus’ name only to the Thessalonians which Paul later corrected. The system of checks and balances within the church remained that way until Constantine established the Roman Catholic church as the sole authority in the state sanctioned religion. The idea of 12 Apostles or even 4 running the show was completely foreign to Roman understanding so it was changed. Out of Constantine’s conversion and establishment came both good and bad for the church. The good was agreeing upon the Bible, and matters of major importance in the faith. Unfortunately, the council also decided that any reference to Christ being human was too dangerous. The authoritarian model introduced by the roman emperor led to great abuses by some men, and infused the church with state government…something our founding fathers (in church and country) wanted to avoid at all costs.

Of course many Protestants feel this way. That does not make it so.

Be careful! The same can be said of the catholic faith. Just because a Catholic says the earth is flat does not make it so. If the scripture below is mis-understood as it is below, then the earth would indeed become flat.

Nope. Jesus gave His apostles the power to bind and loose. He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. He sent His Spirit on the apostles, giving them the power to forgive or retain sins. He told them that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

Christ’s church was not a physical place OR a particular church. Christ’s church was a kingdom that had no boundries, no temple, etc. His kingdom was/is within the hearts and minds of each of his followers. Powers and principalities can never rule one’s mind or heart. Thus, even in persecution and death, the powers of heaven and earth can not prevail against it.

One cannot compare the fallible US government to the infallible Church Christ himself instituted.

Sure you can. Our country was founded by men of high moral and religious convictions. They based our laws and system of governance on Christian principles. They (as Apostles did in the church) laid a good foundation and entrusted it to future generations with the expectation that God willing, they would have the same zeal for the country as they did. Both the church and country have had times of reform and times of apostacy. To deny this is to be dishonest. Both are also led by ordinary men called upon to serve by God and men.

Of course they feel this way. That does not make them right. How do they know what His original plan was? They can’t even agree with one another on the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Again, touche. The same disagreements happen within the Catholic church, depending on who is in charge of theology. To be Catholic does not mean you are perfect in theology and to be any other sect means you are imperfect. Neither is true.

To say this is to say Jesus is a liar. His Church went into total apostacy until the Protestant and non-denominational churches came along? That would mean that the gates of hell did prevail against his Church. For there is no other church that can trace itself back to Christ, unless you are suggesting that one of those early “protesters” was right. If so, I’d be eager to know which one had it right because if you look at what they believed, you may be somewhat dismayed.

Just because the church had documented times of apostacy and reform does not mean “the gates of hell” prevailed against it. Prevailing would equal overcoming of the hearts and minds of the priesthood of believers as previously referenced.

Having been on both sides of this, I can tell you most catholics and most protestants that I’ve known do not believe this. It’s the few that believe their version of the truth is better than the others. Authoritarianism, pride, and religious arrogance is the anthesis of Christ. He went against religious authority when it was wrong. It is right for Christians to point out when the authority is violating the spirit of Christ. I don’t trace my “church” lineage to peter. I am not a peter-ian, I am a Christian. I am an heir to the kingdom not through my parish, my priest or the Catholic church but through Christ. I worship in a Catholic church because I experience the present presence of my savior there and believe my church to be functioning as Christ intended, not because someone can prove its true by a man-made tradition of apostolic succession. If my understanding makes me a bad Catholic, so be it.

 

[RCCDefender]

FromTheCrossroads,
Where do you get your teaching? It certainly is not Catholic teaching. From my understanding you are looking into converting? Why? If so you may want to clear up many of your misconceptions beforehand. Many of us here have been on both sides, myself included. I will reply at length when I am not so sleepy. Thank you.

 

[cheddarsox]

True, of course. The Catholic Church had to denounce many heresies right from the begining. Do you know what these “protesters” were teaching?

Of course many Protestants feel this way. That does not make it so.

Nope. Jesus gave His apostles the power to bind and loose. He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. He sent His Spirit on the apostles, giving them the power to forgive or retain sins. He told them that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.

One cannot compare the fallible US government to the infallible Church Christ himself instituted.

Of course they feel this way. That does not make them right. How do they know what His original plan was? They can’t even agree with one another on the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Comparing apples to oranges here.

Christ did not institute Scriptures; He instituted an infallible Church. He did not write a single word of Scripture, nor did do the Scriptures say that He told any of His followers to do so. However, He did say that if there was one in sin who would not listen to take him, not to the Scriptures to show him his error, but to the Church. And that if he would not listen to the Church to treat him as a gentile or tax collector

To say this is to say Jesus is a liar. His Church went into total apostacy until the Protestanst and non-denominational churches came along? That would mean that the gates of hell did prevail against his Church. For there is no other church that can trace itself back to Christ, unless you are suggesting that one of those early “protesters” was right. If so, I’d be eager to know which one had it right because if you look at what they believed, you may be somewhat dismayed.

I’m not arguing faith with you. I am discussing the topic of the thread. There is no doubt that Catholics and other Christians disagree concerning the interpretation of several Scriptures. Catholics back up their claim to authority using Scripture that others interpret differently.

That is the point. That different groups see things differenty, and that there are different interpretations. Catholics claim truth based on the Catholic interpretation, but some others disagree with their claim to truth. So around and around it goes.

History is a different matter from interpretation of Scriptures. While history (third party) may point to early Catholicism being the direct descendent of the church Christ established…history cannot “prove” interpretation of Scripture or who has remained faithful to the teachings of Christ. Those are matters of faith.

I am not a Christian, so I will not attempt to argue your faith with you. I do know what some of the early “heresies” taught. And the same things do rear their head throughout history.What is “truth” for Christians is not mine to decide.

I am not here to argue who’'s faith is true, only to discuss why/how Protestants “rewrite” history.

cheddar

 

[Steadfast]

The historical Church is Catholic Church not Protestant. It was Catholic in its beginnings, and in 110 A.D, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Jesus Christ Church “Catholic Church.”

St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, and ordained Bishop by St. Peter. It shows an unbroken Apostolic Succession.

Manny, you may not know this and if you do you may dispute it but Classical Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans and many Reformed believers) have a deep appreciation for history and rejoice in their communion with the church catholic, believing themselves to be every bit as catholic and, in many cases moreso, than yourselves.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, you may not know this and if you do you may dispute it but Classical Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans and many Reformed believers) have a deep appreciation for history and rejoice in their communion with the church catholic, believing themselves to be every bit as catholic and, in many cases moreso, than yourselves.

At least they aren’t denying their history is Catholic unlike those in Protestant circles I know that deny that the Catholic Church is the historical Christian Church that Jesus founded.

Before the Reformation what form of Christianity dominated Western Europe?

The Catholic Church.

You acknowledge the historical facts, and I appreciate that Non-Catholic Christians who know the historical facts of their faith is being honest to themselves.