Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[sambos671]

I understand your church’s position on that.

Do you think that’s the case with “Catholic Church” as well? Or is it simply not possible for “Catholic Church” to have had differing connotations from then to now?

The Catholic church has evolved somewhat and there would be some differences though overall I think the Early Church would feel more “at home” in a Catholic church with its liturgy and practices and would recognize many elements from these things from their own practices. The Eucharist would be the most immediately recognized sacrament for the Early Church members. Devotions and items of that matter would be different. I think if the members of the Early Church visited a “bible believing” church they would feel foreign to it. Of course this is my personal opinion but I see a consistency of Catholic Church teaching from the very begining.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is a question primarily for Protestants, but Catholics are welcome to add their own thoughts:

If the Jerusalem Council were Christians and not Catholics, and if the Catholic Church existed between that time and the advent of Protestantism, when did the Catholic Church make a wrong turn, and what was that wrong turn, that Protestantism seeks to correct?

 

[wisdomseeker]

An amazing question that says it all.

thank you. i bet you, we wont get an answer for this one either.

:byzsoc:

 

[sambos671]

This is a question primarily for Protestants, but Catholics are welcome to add their own thoughts:

If the Jerusalem Council were Christians and not Catholics, and if the Catholic Church existed between that time and the advent of Protestantism, when did the Catholic Church make a wrong turn, and what was that wrong turn, that Protestantism seeks to correct?

Having been protestant until just recently, I think most would use the Emperor Constantine and the Milan Edict as the begining of problems for the Church. There are some who believe that it was from the every begining of the New Church and the Gnostic and Mystery religions took over in what we know now as Catholic and evidence of “bible believing churches” were detroyed as a grand conspiriacy thats lasted as long as the church. The latter of these two is fringe but I’ve heard it.

 

[sandusky]

The Catholic church has evolved somewhat and there would be some differences though overall I think the Early Church would feel more “at home” in a Catholic church with its liturgy and practices and would recognize many elements from these things from their own practices. The Eucharist would be the most immediately recognized sacrament for the Early Church members. Devotions and items of that matter would be different. I think if the members of the Early Church visited a “bible believing” church they would feel foreign to it. Of course this is my personal opinion but I see a consistency of Catholic Church teaching from the very begining.

That’s the answer I expected; however, thanks for your candor, sambos671.

 

[sambos671]

That’s the answer I expected; however, thanks for your candor, sambos671.

What would be your answer? I think comparisons with Modern day Catholic practices compared to Justin Martyr Apology is key to the way I answered the question. If you differ what supporting evidence would you provide?

 

[Soutane]

The old 2Thess2:15 gambit.

Okay, please catalog what tradtions Paul was speaking of and tell me how you know this. I bet you, nor anyone else can do this, so why should I accept your prooftext? You have no way of knowing what Paul meant by “tradition” in that text.

The assumption didn’t even show up on the scene until centuries after the apostles. Didn’t the belief first make it’s way onto the scene via a heretical work?

Gambit???Puh-leeeze.The Church has always known what has existed in Tradition as ONLY the Catholic Church is the benefactress of Apostolic Succession and ONLY the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Assumption was proclaimed Dogma in 1950 yet was part of Holy Tradition from the very beginning.

 

[sambos671]

Continuing with the Early Church comparison with Catholicism I also have this point. With regards to communion the Didache has this to say:

Assemble on the Lord’s day (ie on Sunday the day of the Lord earliest referrance to Sunday worship), and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so your sacrifice may be a pure one

Very Catholic view of the celebration of the Eucharist. Note the term sacrifice. Protestants denying the Eucharist often stay away from the consept of Sacrifice because its symbolic rather that doing what it says it does.

With regards to Soteriology the Didache has this to say:

Be watchful over your life…come often together for spiritual improvement; because of all the past years of your faith will be no good at the end, unless you have made yourself perfect

Also you can find a similar teaching in the Catachism because salvation culminates at the end and only, as Paul says, when you’ve completed the race.

These are examples of church tradition writen down by early christians. So do you see why I can make comparisons between the Church of today and the EC? The difference in the Eucharistic celebration from the very early church is that the Eucharistic meal may have looked more like a meal or a seder but the the effect is the same. Its changed to just participation of the bread and the wine early in church history (most likely based on evidence). This is why Paul critizises those who over indulge in the Eucharistic meal. Abuses like this probably lead to minimizing the meal from the seder to the essentials of the body and blood. Still the sacrifice and pinnacle of the liturgical mass.

 

[SemperReformada]

Gambit???Puh-leeeze.The Church has always known what has existed in Tradition as ONLY the Catholic Church is the benefactress of Apostolic Succession and ONLY the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Assumption was proclaimed Dogma in 1950 yet was part of Holy Tradition from the very beginning.

Well, as for the assumption you can only show it dates back to around the year 400.

Other than that, you have completely missed my point.

 

[Pax]

For CR there are five, with the bet that there are more.

You were wrong when you questioned and objected to Teflon93 on this issue. When five ECFs that learned from the apostles were pointed out, you then made the above remark.

What you should have done is simply admitted that you were wrong in the first place.

 

[SemperReformada]

We are trying to determine the basis for your acceptance or rejection of Church tradition.

You claim—without offering any evidence whatsoever—that binding and loosing authority ended with the Apostles. That would have been no later than 100 AD.

Yet you accept the dogma of the Trinity from the Catholic Church, which while it appeared from the earliest times was not defined by your mistaken understanding until 325 AD. How was this so, since apostolic authority ended 225 years previously?

I don’t understand your point.

I have to believe the council was invested with apostolic authority (I don’t know exactly what you mean by “apostolic authority”) in order to be a Trinitarian?

And if the authority was withdrawn in 100 AD yet Protestantism of whatever stripe you profess die not come along until 1522 at the earliest, how does 1,422 years of darkness not equate with the Gates of Hell prevailing against the Church?

To you, apparently the gates of hell prevailing has to do with authority.

Do you believe non-Catholics can be Christians all the while rejecting the RCC?

 

[jblake]

sambos671;:

First of all it was an age when most people are illiterate.

Depending upon how literacy is defined, that rate can be anywhere between forty and one hundred percent of the population.

Next that we have their writings are pretty good as well.

What we have are the writings of the winners of the political battles. What we don’t have is the writings of those who lost the battles — except by inference. Writings that paint a radically different picture of Christ’s message.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Teflon93;:

learned directly from the apostles or from those who did. That’s what apostolic succession means.

The Gnostics also had/have Apostolic Succession.

jonathon

 

[sambos671]

The Gnostics also had/have Apostolic Succession.

jonathon

I thought this is where you were going by your previous statement. First of all gnostics didn’t have apostolic succession which is why they forged books under apostolic names to give credence to their works which were obviously written at a later period than the apostles. Next your assumption would state that Jesus was incorrect in saying that the gates of hell could not prevail against the church because in effect the Catholic Church would have surplanted the gnostic churches. And by your assumption, the true churches were defeated because not one of those gnostics churches are in existance today. Next compare gnostic writings to the gospels and you will find inconsistencies. You do not find inconsistencies in Catholic teaching with regard to the deposit of faith. Eusibius does an excelent Job of showing the churches founded on Apostolic succession and the Catholic Church. Nag Hammurabi text is the final bastion of the gnostics though there are faiths that incorporate aspects of gnosticism in their belief system.

 

[Hisalone]

True.

And members of the One Holy Catholic Church.

Was Peter sitting on the chair of Peter at the time? Was there a magesterium? Did anyone speak infallibly? Why was Mary not consulted?
Doesnt act like the “Catholic Church” to me.

 

[Teflon93]

thank you. i bet you, we wont get an answer for this one either.

:byzsoc:

Sandusky never answers questions—he simply makes infallible pronouncements of his own authority.

Waiting for Godot was more fruitful than waiting for Sandusky to answer a question or provide evidence—the aim is derailment of the thread.

 

[Teflon93]

Well, as for the assumption you can only show it dates back to around the year 400.

Other than that, you have completely missed my point.

Okay—let’s say the Assumption dates to 400.

Do you accept any Catholic tradition after 400?

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t understand your point.

I have to believe the council was invested with apostolic authority (I don’t know exactly what you mean by “apostolic authority”) in order to be a Trinitarian?

Yes you do. You will not find the Trinity explicitly defined in Scripture, indeed, evidence on a surface reading runs AGAINST it. (“Father, why have you forsaken me?” et al).

Since by your claim the binding and loosing authority of the Church ended with the Apostles, on what basis do you accept the Trinity—which speaks of the very nature of God—225 years after this?

To you, apparently the gates of hell prevailing has to do with authority.

Indeed, it can be no other. There is a separate thread I started to discuss this in the Apologetics Forum. You are welcome to provide examples of the Gates of Hell prevailing which do not impact the authority of the Church esp. thru apostolic succession.

Indeed, Sandusky places a high premium on apostolic succession—it’s why he foolishly tried to claim that the ECFs DIDN’T learn from the Apostles, as though they made their theology up out of whole cloth as he has done.

Do you believe non-Catholics can be Christians all the while rejecting the RCC?

I not only believe it, the Church teaches it. We call all who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Christians—they are our brothers and sisters.

Do you believe that Catholics are Christians, accepting as they do the authority of the Pope as Vicar of Christ on Earth?

 

[Teflon93]

Depending upon how literacy is defined, that rate can be anywhere between forty and one hundred percent of the population.

It was never that high and I challenge you to provide evidence for 40%.

I doubt you can show that even writing one’s name was that high for the general population of the period, much of whom were slaves.

What we have are the writings of the winners of the political battles. What we don’t have is the writings of those who lost the battles — except by inference. Writings that paint a radically different picture of Christ’s message.

jonathon

My, your education has failed you!

Read the ECFs—St Augustine for example gives large, detailed accounts of his foes’ writings and thought before countering them. Even had their writings not survived—do you have a copy of David Koresh’ books?—they exist in significant parts in the historical record.

Moreover, the only reason Bart Ehrman and his atheist’s brigade of Biblical scholarship can say anything at all about the Gnostics or anybody else—much less make money off of the gullible during Holy Week on TDC or History Channel—is that we DO have their writings. More appear all the time, in fact—just in time for Holy Week.

So another reason not everyone’s Catholic is that some are gullible.

 

[Teflon93]

The Gnostics also had/have Apostolic Succession.

jonathon

Oh, please.

Don’t we have sufficient quantities of people making bogus claims sans evidence already in this thread?

Next you’ll be claiming succession through Judas—whoops, the cranks have already gone there with the “Gospel of Judas” nonsense.