Will Someone answer

[Fredricks]

Flying Bison
This is my experience with this debate;

If I show you ECFs that hold views outside of your own, I will be told they are not official Catholic teaching.

If any ECF agrees with official Catholic teaching, it will be used as an example to prove your point.

If I ask for proof that the early church was THE Catholic Church, the CC apologist will point to the Bible. If there is something in the Bible that supports a Protestant belief, I will be told that the Bible and Sacred Tradition must be considered.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Flying Bison
This is my experience with this debate;

If I show you ECFs that hold views outside of your own, I will be told they are not official Catholic teaching.

If any ECF agrees with official Catholic teaching, it will be used as an example to prove your point.

If I ask for proof that the early church was THE Catholic Church, the CC apologist will point to the Bible. If there is something in the Bible that supports a Protestant belief, I will be told that the Bible and Sacred Tradition must be considered.

That’s great! I thought it was just me that felt this way.

 

[calchiquita]

You’re not going to get much of an answer as early church history is basically repressed in most protestant traditions. Most are simply unaware - and happily so, tragically.

Happily so?

Would you say any non-Christian is happily unaware of Christ? I’ll bet not. Then why do you assume most Protestants are happily unaware of Church history and what they are missing? Why do you think so many of us converts are joyful when we are finally shown the truth.

In other words, I think your bias is showing.

 

[O.S.Luke]

That’s great! I thought it was just me that felt this way.

Exactly. This isn’t Christian Apologetics, it’s a whizzing match. Before long a strawman will be erected, and each side will claim superiority through arrogant presumption.

Not helpful. Certainly not charitable. What’s the point of the thread?

 

[exiled]

Flying Bison
This is my experience with this debate;

If I show you ECFs that hold views outside of your own, I will be told they are not official Catholic teaching.

If any ECF agrees with official Catholic teaching, it will be used as an example to prove your point.

If I ask for proof that the early church was THE Catholic Church, the CC apologist will point to the Bible. If there is something in the Bible that supports a Protestant belief, I will be told that the Bible and Sacred Tradition must be considered.

The fact that ECF’s discussed the sinlessness of the Blessed Mother does not make it doctrine. It does, however, prove that the Roman Catholic Church did not make that doctrine up 1500+/- years later. Additionally, it proves that both opinions can be supported Scripturally, thereby requiring an infallible voice to make that final determination, hence the infallibility of the pope, the keys, and the opening and closing.
For anyone who wants to give an honest look at the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, it can be readily seen how these both magnify Christ Himself. They are NOT primarily about Mary, any more than the gift we receive from His Sacrifice is about us.

 

[Fredricks]

The fact that ECF’s discussed the sinlessness of the Blessed Mother does not make it doctrine. It does, however, prove that the Roman Catholic Church did not make that doctrine up 1500+/- years later. Additionally, it proves that both opinions can be supported Scripturally, thereby requiring an infallible voice to make that final determination, hence the infallibility of the pope, the keys, and the opening and closing.
For anyone who wants to give an honest look at the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, it can be readily seen how these both magnify Christ Himself. They are NOT primarily about Mary, any more than the gift we receive from His Sacrifice is about us.

We both know the Catholic church does not have a Catechism dated 150 AD. Thus the difficulty of a Protestant arguing on this board.
As far as Mary, I learned my lesson months ago. Not going to touch it.

 

[sterryfamily]

I am not attacking the catholic faith. I am merely pointing out historical facts. It is a fact that during the time of Martin Luther and other reformers, the catholic church was corrupt. And many of the popes and cardinals etc were living like pagans and incorporating pagan rituals into the Roman Catholic faith, thus the reformation. And yes Protestants do have a link with ancient christians. He is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Jokerz

Yes, individual Catholics were corrupt at the time of the reformation. Yes, there is corruption in the Church today. Yes, there was corruption in the Church at the time of the apostles. That does not change the fact that Christ established the Church and promised His eternal protection to her in Heaven and on earth and that we have His assurance that all matters of doctrine are taught correctly. By Christ’s promise, it is not sinful men who do the teaching, but rather the Holy Spirit who cannot err.

 

[Subrosa]

I honestly don’t see where this is going? I cannot think off the top of my head of any Protestant links to the ancient church. Why does it matter?

Jokerz

It matters because whoever does not carry the teachings of the apostles teaches something else - heresy.

Subrosa

 

[Hellisreal]

This thread is about tracing yourself back to the apostles. (The orthodox were specifically not addressed here- and I am only repeating that so if someone quotes me its noted)
No Christian faith after the Reformation can do this. There is no valid laying of hands from the apostles to their Churches, minus the foggy Anglican situation, and even so, that by no means makes all of their ordinations valid.

Can someone provide any evidence to the contrary please?

 

[chosen_people]

I don’t think it’s because they won’t answer your question, but more likely that they can’t, simply because it’s not true. The RCC is the One True Faith, carried to us through the ages since Christ walked the Earth.

You can’t defend something that has no basis in truth.

~Liza

Are Protestants Christians in your eyes and if not what are they?

 

[Eddy]

There are Anglican Benedictines. Surely they can prove that they ‘have a historical link to Early Christianity’?

Yes, much of the Protestant reformation threw the baby out with the bathwater in some ways. But I’ve studied theology among Protestants who quite happily saw much teaching up until the 12th Century at least, as a kind of ‘shared heritage’.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Several Protestants affirm the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. That’s a pretty good historical (and apostolic) link.

 

[artist3189]

Well … first of all, “the Catholic Church did bad stuff” isn’t what most Protestants I’ve known build their cases upon. Secondly, and more importantly, your argument contains a mighty weak “ergo.” One argument that’s fundamental among most Protestant churches is that a church’s validity does not stand or fall by the chronological unbrokenness of its “historical link” to the 1st-century church.

If I may offer an example: let’s say that Cletus Blow is the great-great-grandson of the great 19th-century theologian and philosopher Joseph Blow, and Cletus’s neighbor Watts Isphace is no kin whatsoever. However, Cletus is barely literate, thinks a “dialectic” is something that makes you urinate, and has appeared on four separate episodes of “Cops.” Watts, on the other hand, is a learned fellow who did his dissertation on Joseph Blow and is dedicated to furthering his ideas, when he’s not calling 911 to get a drunken, naked Cletus away from his picture window. In this scenario, Cletus has an indisputable “historical link” to his ancestor, while Watts can claim no such thing. In any meaningful sense, though, Watts is probably the better and truer heir to the elder Blow. Similarly, a Protestant might point out that even if every Catholic assertion about their unbroken link to the first centuries A.D. is true, being an institutional heir to the Apostles isn’t everything.

I’m not sure that I agree with the above, but use it to show that Catholics don’t quite have the slam-dunk here that some of the folks on this thread believe.

**Additional Disclaimer: I have devised the scenario in the preceding paragraphs for debating purposes. I freely admit that Catholics are generally fine upstanding folks, very few indeed of whom have ever appeared on “Cops,” and very few of whom hang around Protestants’ picture windows in an inebriated or unclothed state. Much.
**

This doesn’t really work, and frankly it is a little odd. The issue here is not even close to this crazy scenario you came up with, the issue is accepting or not accepting Apostolic Authority as PASSED through the Catholic Church through ‘succession’. It is CLEAR that very early on, within the time of the Apostolic Age, that the Roman Church was exercising authority, and being recognized as such by most of the other ‘churches’. That continuous line is clear and it does not exists in any other church, with the exception of the Orthodox Church. Until the 1500’s, this was not even a question. Now we have 30,000 Christian groups and counting, all with different views, all with different interpretations of the bible, which consequently had been modified by the Protestant’s to fit their ‘anything but Catholic’ view. Every Christian group now claims the ‘authority’ to re-invent the bible. How many more books get ignored, how many more versions can we come out with? Now we have Evangelical movements that cure people on cue, that promise that earthly health and enormous wealth is good and can be had with proper devotion and the right attitude, such as the ‘Word of Faith’ crowd. Is this what was meant to happen? But, as Catholics, we can’t just dismiss our non-Catholic brothers and sisters. They love Christ as much as anyone, more than many Catholics, and to deny THAT is ridiculous. If a person was raised in a certain denomination, and that is all they understand, why be surprised if the defend it. Faith, and Gods graces are not limited by the boundaries of denominations. If it is simply an argument of history, the Church wins hands down. If its an argument of faith, it’s a tie. But, the fullness of faith, the greatest avenues of grace, the power of the Saints, the strength of the Magestierium, the fullness of Christ in the Eucharist, the great Fathers and Doctors, the amazing private revelations like Fatima, this FULL revelation is made available through the Holy MOTHER Church. Sure, you can say, if we want to bolster a certain point we want to make, we use one of the Doctors views and then ignore another, and then, later use another viewpoint from that same one, but isn’t that what theology is? We have 2000 years of thinkers. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t all the great Protestant theologians differ on many ideas over time, which allowed certain denominations to work out their own theology? Be honest and look at what Luther actually taught and look at modern Lutheranism and then tell me how similar they really are. What one Father or Doctor THOUGHT about a subject not clearly understood or “defined”, was always held up to scrutiny, over time, and how it was understood within the Doctrines of the Church. Every word that came from St Thomas Aquinas’ mouth was not gospel. If you want to try to use ECF’s to PROVE anything, you better know more than just a quote here and there. The Church has been studying them for centuries, and I doubt you have the experience to make a arguement about the Authority of the Church that way. I wouldn’t try if I were you!!!

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Exactly. This isn’t Christian Apologetics, it’s a whizzing match. Before long a strawman will be erected, and each side will claim superiority through arrogant presumption.

Not helpful. Certainly not charitable. What’s the point of the thread?

I’m wondering that myself.