Tradition and the Early Church Fathers...

kelly1

This thread is primarily aimed at non-catholic Christians. I'm trying to understand why Protestants reject Sacred Tradition as being invalid. The nature of the Church has been central to all the debates I've started and every time it boils down to whether the person accepts the authority of the Church or the authority of scripture. So for example there no point in debating Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist if Tradition in the Church is seen as invalid.

The writings of the ECFs prove to me that Tradition was alive and well and that the early Church didn't have a "bible alone" approach.

How do you generally view the writings of the Early Church Fathers? If you reject the traditions they wrote about such as confession, ordination of priests, infant baptism etc, why do you reject them?

Some people seem to think that the Church went off the rails i.e. departed from the teaching of the apostles very early on. I totally reject this. To admit this is to say that the Holy Spirit is incapable of guiding the Church "into all truth". Some people seem to think the Church was "lost" for 1200 or so years until Luther came along as if Luther was some kind of messiah!

I would like an honest answer to this simple question:-

Why do people accept the bible alone and reject Tradition? The amusing thing is that bible never claims to be the final word on truth and actually says this is the role of the Church (1 Tim 3:15). The bible also upholds tradition in 2 Thes 2:15.

So isn't it a bit hypocritical to trust scritpure alone when scripture says the opposite is true. I'd really appreciate some direct and honest responses to this question.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.earlychurchfathers.org

I've made several attempts now to defend the CC and show that it is the same Church that Christ founded. If I make no progress at all this time, I'll just shut up and stick to answering questions from people who are genuinely interested in learning about the Catholic faith and defending the Church where it is attacked (which is quite often around here).

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

From the homepage on earlychurchfathers.org:-

There are numerous takes on Church history, many of which focus on when the Catholic Church went "wrong." These are usually amended with a theory as to what happened to the "true" Christian church during the time period between when the Catholic Church went "wrong" and when the "true" church came back into visible existence.

Very few attempt to use the wealth of early church documentation to argue for the existence of some Christian church other than the Catholic Church . Most of these theories refer to small churches that remained persecuted, hidden or unseen throughout the course of documented Church history. However, the lack of documentation on these small churches would seem to be indicative of their actual lack of existence.

Moreover, there is significant documentation that highlight certain heresies throughout the history of the Church. It seems at nearly every turn the title of a patristic work is "Against Such and Such." It is most difficult to believe that early proto-Protestant (contra-Catholic) churches would not have been amongst those rebuked by the patristic writers, especially since the early church fathers appear to hold doctrines consistent with Catholicism and in conflict with Protestantism. This evidence must be considered when drafting a theory about Church history.

The goal of this site is simply to show Catholic doctrines have existed from the beginning of Church history as indicated by these patristic writings. The goal is not to refute other theories but rather to present the Catholic model for comparison. The validity of those competing theories is up to the inquisitive reader.

It should be underscored that the writings of the early church fathers and authors do not supercede Scripture. A lot of the problems that divide Christianity today come down to one thing: interpretation of Scripture. If you look hard enough you can most likely find at least 3 interpretations for nearly every line of Scripture. This is why it is important to read what some of the earliest Christians believed and taught.

philologos

I flick through the Church History by Eusebius occasionally to get some background behind what exactly happened in the early Church but asides from that I don't focus on the writings of Church Fathers too much.

I am looking to read some writings from the Reformers though, I recently got the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, quite a long read, but I can do a bit each day instead of rushing it.

Also the Church wasn't lost for 1200 years, the Church was seriously misguided in the period before the Reformation though, and it needed to be addressed.

Keeping the Bible as primary, but using secondary texts to point out a point of view from Scripture is acceptable. However keeping the Bible, and then coming up with doctrine contrary to it isn't in my view and it can lead to serious distortion. Yes you should listen to secondary sources, but you should also make sure that they are coherent to the Biblical narrative.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

I flick through the Church History by Eusebius occasionally to get some background behind what exactly happened in the early Church but asides from that I don't focus on the writings of Church Fathers too much.

Why? Are you just uninterested or do you think their writings are irrelevant?

philologos

I'd be interested in reading Aquinas, and Augustine at some point, I however do not see them as being the be all and end all of Biblical viewpoint.

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

Why do people accept the bible alone and reject Tradition? The amusing thing is that bible never claims to be the final word on truth and actually says this is the role of the Church (1 Tim 3:15). The bible also upholds tradition in 2 Thes 2:15.

Obviously Protestants have their own view on the meaning of 1 Tim 3:15 and 2 Thes 2:15 that they are absolutely happy with and that perfectly fits into the "Scripture only" doctrine from their point of view.

Historically I think it was very logical for Reformation to reject the tradition. In Continental Europe there was a high degree of discontentment with the fact that the Church hierarchy had too much power and too much property in the "foreign" lands. It was RC bishops that were targeted by Reformation. So there was a dilemma either go get bishops on your side or to reject them altogether. The later was much easier but it led to a number of issues:

a) No bishops -- no Church (at least in it's form known to the RCC)

b) No bishops -- no priesthood (at least in it's form known to the RCC)

c) No bishops -- no Eucharist (in form of the real presence as it was described by the Early Church Fathers)

All this needed a theological development and proclaiming Scripture as the only source was a logical and sound doctrine that addressed all those issues at once.

On the other hand the story was completely different in England. English Monarchy was strong enough just to cut the branch of the RCC and plant it in King's own garden. Instead of Pope now he owned all the Church property bishops authority. There were no reasons for serious theological developments and so we did not see many of them.

Reformation is a historical fact. It was unavoidable and was very likely to go that very route it went. Now in the 21st century there is no point to attack RCC from the Protestant position or vice versa. This makes no good to anyone in particular and to Christianity in general. It's OK (and in fact it's a good thing) to disagree on each other doctrines but I think it's mandatory now to understand and respect other views.

philologos

There are bishops in forms of Protestantism. So the lack of a bishop isn't a problem really.

I disagree that the English Reformation was just due to Henry VIII and it's an oversimplification.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6101527704063312894&hl=en

^^ Watch that video it shows that the monarchy was merely the figurehead to an overall feeling of Reform in England especially in relation to the translation of the Bible to English.

Slav

Jakkass wrote: »

There are bishops in forms of Protestantism.

Absolutely! That was exactly my point.

So the lack of a bishop isn't a problem really.

It was not a problem but required to reject Tradition. A bishop in RCC and a Protestant bishop are very different things. Reformation rejected the bishops in its RCC form and came up with its own bishops. They are not bishops as all the traditional Churches see them. The key point is apostolic succession and the consequences to which its rejection leads from the Tradition perspective. The rejection of RCC bishops and the succession would not be possible without rejecting Tradition.

I disagree that the English Reformation was just due to Henry VIII and it's an oversimplification.

That would be silly to assume such a thing can be done by one person, even if it's a King of England. I don't think I ever said that English Reformation was a result of Henry's private life difficulties. The ground for the Reformation in England and Germany is very similar. However, the results from the theological point of view are different. My point is that they kept RCC bishops in England thanks to the power of English Monarchy. As a result Anglicans did not go as far from RCC beliefs and practices as Lutherans did for instance.

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Absolutely! That was exactly my point.
It was not a problem but required to reject Tradition. A bishop in RCC and a Protestant bishop are very different things. Reformation rejected the bishops in its RCC form and came up with its own bishops. They are not bishops as all the traditional Churches see them. The key point is apostolic succession and the consequences to which its rejection leads from the Tradition perspective. The rejection of RCC bishops and the succession would not be possible without rejecting Tradition.

Actually Anglicans do claim apostolic succession for their bishops. My understanding is that Orthodox churches recognise this in Anglicanism but that Roman Catholicism does not.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Actually Anglicans do claim apostolic succession for their bishops.

Yep, that's the point I'm trying to make. English Reformation kept RCC bishops.

My understanding is that Orthodox churches recognise this in Anglicanism but that Roman Catholicism does not.

I think you're right, they are recognised by both Orient and Eastern Orthodox. With Roman Catholic I think it's not that clear; as far as I remember there was a papal bull in late XIX century that stated that Anglican orders are not recognised by RCC. However (please correct me if I'm wrong) I've heard that all Anglican bishops are now of Old Catholics lines and Old Catholic bishops are recognised by Rome.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

The writings of the ECFs prove to me that Tradition was alive and well and that the early Church didn't have a "bible alone" approach.

I agree - if we distinguish the early Church from the apostolic Church. Error gradually crept into the Church after the apostles departed this life. Indeed, they had to root out several evil teachings that had sprung up when they were here - the need of circumcision, that the resurrection day had passed, etc.

When they left this world they left their teachings in the documents sent to the various churches, teachings which they had also verbally committed to faithful men. Now those men had to preserve those writings and pass them on as doctrine to the Church and to other faithful men to likewise preach and teach.

The problem came both when false brethren introduced error deliberately, and when good brethren introduced error by foolishness. The Word was there to check error, and it often exposed it. Gnosticism, for example. But some error was not picked up in some places and became increasingly accepted. One bishop rule, for example. As the years went on, the Church erred more and more. The sanctions promised by Christ in Revelation 2+3 were always in effect, and as the main churches became wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked and refused to repent, Christ spued them out of His mouth. The witness continued in the twos and threes, the tens or hundreds who remained faithful in each place. Down the centuries they were persecuted by the corrupt Church, but at the Reformation God gave them liberty to spread the word in a more open way.

How do you generally view the writings of the Early Church Fathers? If you reject the traditions they wrote about such as confession, ordination of priests, infant baptism etc, why do you reject them?

Many of them seem to be good men, holding some error - just like today. We reject their errors, just as we reject good men's errors today.

Some people seem to think that the Church went off the rails i.e. departed from the teaching of the apostles very early on. I totally reject this. To admit this is to say that the Holy Spirit is incapable of guiding the Church "into all truth".

What happened to the Laodicean church? Why would Rome and any other church not be treated likewise? The Holy Spirit led the apostles into all truth, and they passed that on to us in the New Testament Scriptures.

Some people seem to think the Church was "lost" for 1200 or so years until Luther came along as if Luther was some kind of messiah!

Luther, Calvin, etc. were just ministers of the gospel. Not apostles. Not infallible. But they preached from the infallible word, and God gave them light to remove the rubbish that covered over His gospel in the RCC. Others had that gospel long before Luther existed - a persecuted band of brothers in every age who held to the essentials of the faith. They also were not perfect, but the root of the matter was in them. With the Reformation, they too eventually found liberty to openly preach and teach the Word.

I would like an honest answer to this simple question:-

Why do people accept the bible alone and reject Tradition? The amusing thing is that bible never claims to be the final word on truth and actually says this is the role of the Church (1 Tim 3:15). The bible also upholds tradition in 2 Thes 2:15.

Because your Tradition contradicts the Word, and where the Word is silent we take no commands from men.

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth - but not the corrupt church, be it is Laodicea or Rome. The true Church, the total number of believers whom Christ died for - they hold the Truth.

The tradition passed by mouth by the apostles is not different to what they passed by letter to the whole church. It was only the individual churches at that time who are mentioned: they did not have all the NT, just some of it and some verbal teaching. When the full Scripture was completed, that incorporated all the teaching.

So isn't it a bit hypocritical to trust scritpure alone when scripture says the opposite is true.

It doesn't.

I'd really appreciate some direct and honest responses to this question.

Hope I've done so, without being unnecessarily offensive.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.earlychurchfathers.org

Thanks for these; the latter is especially helpful.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree - if we distinguish the early Church from the apostolic Church. Error gradually crept into the Church after the apostles departed this life. Indeed, they had to root out several evil teachings that had sprung up when they were here - the need of circumcision, that the resurrection day had passed, etc.

OK, so you see the error as coming from within the Church while I see it as attempting to come in from the outside. The latter makes no sense to me. The Holy Spirit guarantees that the Church cannot err when it comes to matters of faith and morals. I've taken scriptural proof from an article about infallibility at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II

Matthew 28:18-20

In Matthew 28:18-20, we have Christ's solemn commission to the Apostles delivered shortly before His Ascension: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Now it cannot be denied by anyone who admits that Christ established a visible Church at all, and endowed it with any kind of effective teaching authority, that this commission, with all it implies, was given not only to the Apostles personally for their own lifetime, but to their successors to the end of time, "even to the consummation of the world". And assuming that it was the omniscient Son of God Who spoke these words, with a full and clear realization of the import which, in conjunction with His other promises, they were calculated to convey to the Apostles and to all simple and sincere believers to the end of time, the only reasonable interpretation to put upon them is that they contain the promise of infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching made to the Apostolic College in the first instance and then to the hierarchical college that was to succeed it.

In the first place it was not without reason that Christ prefaced His commission by appealing to the fullness of power He Himself had received: "All power is given to me", etc. This is evidently intended to emphasize the extraordinary character and extent of the authority He is communicating to His Church -- an authority, it is implied, which He could not personally communicate were not He Himself omnipotent. Hence the promise that follows cannot reasonably be understood of ordinary natural providential guidance, but must refer to a very special supernatural assistance.

The rest of that section is well worth reading as it develops the argument further.

Matthew 16:18

In Matthew 16:18, we have the promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church that is to be built on the rock; and this also, we maintain, implies the assurance of the Church's infallibility in the exercise of her teaching office. Such a promise, of course, must be understood with limitations according to the nature of the matter to which it is applied. As applied to sanctity, for example, which is essentially a personal and individual affair, it does not mean that every member of the Church or of her hierarchy is necessarily a saint, but merely that the Church, as whole, will be conspicuous among other things for the holiness of life of her members. As applied to doctrine, however -- always assuming, as we do, that Christ delivered a body of doctrine the preservation of which in its literal truth was to be one of the chief duties of the Church -- it would be a mockery to contend that such a promise is compatible with the supposition that the Church has possibly erred in perhaps the bulk of her dogmatic definitions, and that throughout the whole of her history she has been threatening men with eternal damnation in Christ's name for refusing to believe doctrines that are probably false and were never taught by Christ Himself. Could this be the case, would it not be clear that the gates of hell can prevail and probably have prevailed most signally against the Church?

John 14-16

In Christ's discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16, 17). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ's teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false.

1 Timothy 3:15

In I Timothy 3:15, St. Paul speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"; and this description would be something worse than mere exaggeration if it had been intended to apply to a fallible Church; it would be a false and misleading description. That St. Paul, however, meant it to be taken for sober and literal truth is abundantly proved by what he insists upon so strongly elsewhere, namely, the strictly Divine authority of the Gospel which he and the other Apostles preached, and which it was the mission of their successors to go on preaching without change or corruption to the end of time. "When you had received of us", he writes to the Thessalonians, "the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christ commissioned the apostles to go to all nations and teach the truth.
When they left this world they left their teachings in the documents sent to the various churches, teachings which they had also verbally committed to faithful men. Now those men had to preserve those writings and pass them on as doctrine to the Church and to other faithful men to likewise preach and teach.

The problem with the scripture only approach is that there is nobody on earth with the authority to correctly interpret scripture when disputes arise. There has to be someone with the authority to settle disputes. Do you think Jesus didn't realize this?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The problem came both when false brethren introduced error deliberately, and when good brethren introduced error by foolishness. The Word was there to check error, and it often exposed it.

By the Word, I presume you mean scripture? But the fact is that scripture can't interpret itself. There needs to be an authority.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What happened to the Laodicean church? Why would Rome and any other church not be treated likewise? The Holy Spirit led the apostles into all truth, and they passed that on to us in the New Testament Scriptures.

As already stated, there needs to be an earthly authority competent to interpret scripture.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Luther, Calvin, etc. were just ministers of the gospel. Not apostles. Not infallible. But they preached from the infallible word, and God gave them light to remove the rubbish that covered over His gospel in the RCC. Others had that gospel long before Luther existed - a persecuted band of brothers in every age who held to the essentials of the faith. They also were not perfect, but the root of the matter was in them. With the Reformation, they too eventually found liberty to openly preach and teach the Word.

I don't believe you have any sound argument to back this up. This may suit your particular beliefs but that doesn't make it true.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because your Tradition contradicts the Word, and where the Word is silent we take no commands from men.

Tradition might contradict *your* understanding of scripture but not the correct interpretation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth - but not the corrupt church, be it is Laodicea or Rome. The true Church, the total number of believers whom Christ died for - they hold the Truth.

Sorry I don't understand this at all. I thought you believed scripture to the the final word on truth?? If by church you mean all Christian believers, this doesn't hold water at all because the numerous denominiation don't agree! It's no good getting some of it right and some wrong. When it comes to salvation you have to have absolute certainty. e.g. it's important to know whether sins can be mortal or venial and whether mortal sins can be forgiven without sacramental absolution and whether eating eating the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. The questions need to be definitively answered.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The tradition passed by mouth by the apostles is not different to what they passed by letter to the whole church. It was only the individual churches at that time who are mentioned: they did not have all the NT, just some of it and some verbal teaching. When the full Scripture was completed, that incorporated all the teaching.

We seem to have different notions of what tradition is. I see it as complimentary to scripture. The bible doesn't explicitly mention confession to a priest but does refer to the Church's ability to forgive sins.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It doesn't.

Sorry but it does. Show me where scripture claims to be the authority on truth and I'll believe you. Show me where the bible shows that scripture has primacy over the Church. The Church wrote the New Testament so suggesting that the bible is the authority on truth is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

kelly1

Any more views on the traditions written about in the writings of the ECFs?

e.g. see references to Apostolic Success at http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Were these men (Pope Clement I, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine) preaching something contrary to the Gospel?

DublinWriter

kelly1 wrote: »

Some people seem to think the Church was "lost" for 1200 or so years until Luther came along as if Luther was some kind of messiah!...

Why do people accept the bible alone and reject Tradition?

The combination of the Borgia popes, Simony and the selling of Indulgences made the Catholic church rotten to the core during the middle ages.

This was naturally unpalatable to Luther, as it would have been to any right thinking Catholic of the time.

Reform from within was not an option due to the absolute corruption that abounded at the time. It would have required the necessarily patronage and money required to achieve high Church office to effect change in the first place.

Luther was a man of limited means and could only effect change from without and certainly didn't claim to be a messiah of any sort.

Noel, you should really study works of objective history on your chosen faith before getting all 'rose-tinted' regarding the question of the validity of tradition.

If you really think tradition is all that important then you might as well go the whole hog (no pun, honestly!) start undertaking Jewish rites and observations.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Any more views on the traditions written about in the writings of the ECFs?

e.g. see references to Apostolic Success at http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Were these men (Pope Clement I, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine) preaching something contrary to the Gospel?

If you read the ECF, there are two things apparent. 1. They don't agree with each other. 2. They don't agree with themselves.

From our viewpoint, we would take it for granted that I may write differently about a topic than I did 20 years ago, but how do we explain that with the ECF, as both versions are true?

When the RCC invaded Ireland around 1100, they rejetced the Irish form of Priests and Bishops (and many other things) ... but these were often either consistend with the Eastern orthodox view or the view/tradition of the 4th century.

What can we learn from tradition? Nothing except that it is a moving target. The teaching of the Bible is solid.

kelly1

DublinWriter wrote: »

The combination of the Borgia popes, Simony and the selling of Indulgences made the Catholic church rotten to the core during the middle ages.

This was naturally unpalatable to Luther, as it would have been to any right thinking Catholic of the time.

Reform from within was not an option due to the absolute corruption that abounded at the time. It would have required the necessarily patronage and money required to achieve high Church office to effect change in the first place.

Luther was a man of limited means and could only effect change from without and certainly didn't claim to be a messiah of any sort.

Noel, you should really study works of objective history on your chosen faith before getting all 'rose-tinted' regarding the question of the validity of tradition.

If you really think tradition is all that important then you might as well go the whole hog (no pun, honestly!) start undertaking Jewish rites and observations.

I realize how corrupt the Church had become. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the Church still had the God-given authority to teach the truth and to forgive sins. They said one thing and did another, I know!

Some people have claimed that there were groups who broke away from the Church and that these people faithfully continued in the faith of the apostles. I don't see that as possible.

Can someone please tell me which Christian group (singular) remained completely faithful to the apostolic teachings?

kelly1

santing wrote: »

If you read the ECF, there are two things apparent. 1. They don't agree with each other. 2. They don't agree with themselves.

From our viewpoint, we would take it for granted that I may write differently about a topic than I did 20 years ago, but how do we explain that with the ECF, as both versions are true?

Really, have you read their writings extensively? And what if they did disagree? What would that prove? Opinion is always fallible.

santing wrote: »

What can we learn from tradition? Nothing except that it is a moving target. The teaching of the Bible is solid.

The point I'm making is that there is a consistency in the writings about confession, ordination the Eucharist etc. And I'm asking why do people reject this evidence that tradition was a fundamental part of the early Church.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I realize how corrupt the Church had become. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the Church still had the God-given authority to teach the truth and to forgive sins. They said one thing and did another, I know!

Some people have claimed that there were groups who broke away from the Church and that these people faithfully continued in the faith of the apostles. I don't see that as possible.

Can someone please tell me which Christian group (singular) remained completely faithful to the apostolic teachings?

Firstly, Noel, I don't believe that the apostles had a body of teachings that was absolutely perfect in every detail. Therefore the task of the church is not just to preserve some doctrinal body of truth, but also to think through and develop the teachings of Jesus to meet the demands of an ever changing world.

For example, it took the early Church in the Book of Acts a very long time (at least 14 years) to come to a definite position regarding whether Gentiles could be saved and received into the church without undergoing circumcision. This major decision - that Christianity was more than just a subset of Judaism, was consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament and of Jesus, but they had to tease it out and develop ot rather than just preserve something.

Another example is the Trinity. The truths that make up the doctrine of the Trinity (monotheism, the divinity of Father, Son and Spirit and the distinctions between them) was already contained in Scripture, but was not fully stated as a doctrine. As false teachings began to arise, then the doctrine had to be more fully outlined, more to heead off false interpretations than for any other reason.

However, this development was not to include anything that was contrary to the teaching of Scripture or of Jesus, nor was it to mean inventing stuff out of thin air. Therefore purgatory and limbo are examples of illegitimate doctrinal innovation.

Also, it was not for one individual or hierarchy to make a decision. Instead, that would be the role of the entire Body of Christ - studying the Bible, airing different views, and eventually reaching a consensus. We see this in the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. Apostles and elders all had an input, with James the brother of the Lord appearing to take a leading role (Acts 15).

A similar process occurred with developing the Canon of Scripture. Individual churches discovered which books were useful as Scripture and which were not, with subsequent Church Councils simply ratifying what had already become standard practice in most churches through a very organic and grassroots process.

Where things went wrong was when one particular church began to lord it over the rest of the church. Eventually they gained the political clout to be able to arrest and kill those who disagreed with their view on any particular matter - from then it was a rapid downhill slide.

So, to answer your question, I don't think any one group was perfectly faithful to every aspect of the truth, or had their beliefs and practices perfect in every respect. No such group exists today. Everyone has their blindspots. However, when we see the church as bigger than one organisation then we can see the hand of God at work through different expressions of His Church. So, Mother Theresa, William Wilberforce, and Billy Graham are fine examples of God working through His Church (even though one was a Catholic, one was an Anglican, and one is a Southern Baptist).

Any definition of the Church that labels Mother Theresa or Billy Graham as heretics who are not part of the true Church is too narrow for me.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Firstly, Noel, I don't believe that the apostles had a body of teachings that was absolutely perfect in every detail. Therefore the task of the church is not just to preserve some doctrinal body of truth, but also to think through and develop the teachings of Jesus to meet the demands of an ever changing world.

I hope you're saying that scripture could contain spiritual errors (historical and factual errors aside) or that Jesus imperfectly handed down Truth to the apostles or that the apostles made errors even under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?!

PDN wrote: »

For example, it took the early Church in the Book of Acts a very long time (at least 14 years) to come to a definite position regarding whether Gentiles could be saved and received into the church without undergoing circumcision. This major decision - that Christianity was more than just a subset of Judaism, was consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament and of Jesus, but they had to tease it out and develop ot rather than just preserve something.

OK, this is an example of the power to "loose and bind".

PDN wrote: »

Another example is the Trinity. The truths that make up the doctrine of the Trinity (monotheism, the divinity of Father, Son and Spirit and the distinctions between them) was already contained in Scripture, but was not fully stated as a doctrine. As false teachings began to arise, then the doctrine had to be more fully outlined, more to heead off false interpretations than for any other reason.

Agreed. Heresy was taken very seriously.

PDN wrote: »

However, this development was not to include anything that was contrary to the teaching of Scripture or of Jesus, nor was it to mean inventing stuff out of thin air. Therefore purgatory and limbo are examples of illegitimate doctrinal innovation.

Purgatory is no invention. Prayers for the dead were common in the early Church and is commended in 2 Machabees *

2 Machabees 12:46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.


There are also a few references to purification in scripture in a place that cannot be Heaven. See http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

PDN wrote: »

Also, it was not for one individual or hierarchy to make a decision. Instead, that would be the role of the entire Body of Christ - studying the Bible, airing different views, and eventually reaching a consensus. We see this in the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. Apostles and elders all had an input, with James the brother of the Lord appearing to take a leading role (Acts 15).

It's clear that consenus isn't being reached outside the CC. Why do you think there are so many separate denominations with different doctrines? All churches can't agree on what's necessary for salvation. Some believe full immersion is necessary for valid baptism, others prefer sprinkling. There's no unity! The Truth can only come from God so the consensus of men isn't enough.

PDN wrote: »

A similar process occurred with developing the Canon of Scripture. Individual churches discovered which books were useful as Scripture and which were not, with subsequent Church Councils simply ratifying what had already become standard practice in most churches through a very organic and grassroots process.

Individual churches?? Christ founded ONE Church. What about the Pope? How can individual churces reach consensus?

PDN wrote: »

Where things went wrong was when one particular church began to lord it over the rest of the church. Eventually they gained the political clout to be able to arrest and kill those who disagreed with their view on any particular matter - from then it was a rapid downhill slide.

There various churches you refer to were presided over by bishops who were in turn subject to the Pope ultimate forming one united Church. The other so-called churches committed apostasy and cut themselves off from the Body of Christ.

PDN wrote: »

So, to answer your question, I don't think any one group was perfectly faithful to every aspect of the truth, or had their beliefs and practices perfect in every respect. No such group exists today.

That's a shocking conclusion to reach when you think about it. You're basically saying that every Christian denomination teaches error and that the Holy Spirit has been remiss in preserving the Truth in the Church.

The Truth is vital in order to worship God in "truth and spirit" and in order to be avoid sin. How can we be perfect as our Father is perfect is we commit sin having been misled by teaching error? I would encourage you to read the following article on the necessity of infallibility in the Church (see II. Proof of the Church's Infallibility)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II

As Jesus said, "the Truth shall set you free". And I'm sure He didn't mean *most* of the truth!

* http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm and
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I hope you're saying that scripture could contain spiritual errors (historical and factual errors aside) or that Jesus imperfectly handed down Truth to the apostles or that the apostles made errors even under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?!

No, I'm not saying that the Scripture contains any errors (spiritual. historical or factual) at all. I believe Jesus handed down perfect truth to the apostles, and indeed to the entire Church - but that the truth was not comprehensive to cover every conceivable eventuality. He gave us the basic principles and gave us the brains to develop them for our cultures.

It's clear that consenus isn't being reached outside the CC. Why do you think there are so many separate denominations with different doctrines? All churches can't agree on what's necessary for salvation. Some believe full immersion is necessary for valid baptism, others prefer sprinkling. There's no unity! The Truth can only come from God so the consensus of men isn't enough.

The consensus is reached on major issues relating to salvation. There is a consensus that salvation is by faith in Christ, that water baptism is commanded by God but is not a prerequisite for salvation, that the Bible is the sole authoritative source for doctrine etc.

The truth can indeed only come from God - but where we differ is that I don't accept the notion that God will only reveal that truth through an organisation that has killed millions of people.

Individual churches?? Christ founded ONE Church. What about the Pope? How can individual churces reach consensus?

Christ founded one Church which still exists today. It comprises all truly born again believers be they Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Pentecostal or non-denominational.

However from the earliest chapters of the Book of Acts that one church is manifested in different congregations (the church in Jerusalem, the Church in Antioch etc).

There various churches you refer to were presided over by bishops who were in turn subject to the Pope ultimate forming one united Church. The other so-called churches committed apostasy and cut themselves off from the Body of Christ.

No. The Book of Acts and the New Testament letters indicate that the churches were governed by overseers, pastors, and elders - with apostles, prophets and evangelists travelling aroung to serve various churches across geographical boundaries. The only 'priesthood' that existed in the apostolic early church was the priesthood of all believers. There was no Pope to bully other churches.

That's a shocking conclusion to reach when you think about it. You're basically saying that every Christian denomination teaches error and that the Holy Spirit has been remiss in preserving the Truth in the Church.

The Truth is vital in order to worship God in "truth and spirit" and in order to be avoid sin. How can we be perfect as our Father is perfect is we commit sin having been misled by teaching error? I would encourage you to read the following article on the necessity of infallibility in the Church (see II. Proof of the Church's Infallibility)

Every Christian denomination will be in error in regard to at least one or two minor points -yes. That is hardly shocking. The Holy Spirit has preserved truth in that different movements within the overall Body of Christ preserve different emphases that we can all learn from.

We can be perfect in that we love the Lord our God with all our mind and strength and love our neighbours as ourselves. In this respect I look to people like John Wesley, George Fox, William Booth, Mother Theresa etc. I believe God is far more pleased with those who might be mixed up over a minor point of doctrine, but demonstrate His love, than with those who claim to possess perfect knowledge of the truth but demonstrate bigotry and hatred.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that the Scripture contains any errors (spiritual. historical or factual) at all. I believe Jesus handed down perfect truth to the apostles, and indeed to the entire Church - but that the truth was not comprehensive to cover every conceivable eventuality. He gave us the basic principles and gave us the brains to develop them for our cultures.

The truth was revlealed to the apostles but not directly to the laity. The Apostles and their successors were charged with teaching this truth - "Teach ye all nations", "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" said Paul.

PDN wrote: »

The consensus is reached on major issues relating to salvation. There is a consensus that salvation is by faith in Christ, that water baptism is commanded by God but is not a prerequisite for salvation, that the Bible is the sole authoritative source for doctrine etc.

No there is no consensus on these questions! Some churches teach baptism is necessary for salvation and is regenerative and others that it's purely symbolic. The answer to this question is very important! It's the difference between Heaven and Hell.

Do we have consensus on the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation, the existence of Purgatory, distinction between venial and mortal sin among all Christian denominations/churces?? No we don't and these examples aren't just found in the Catholic Church. Your point about consensus is clearly wrong and simplistic. Sorry.

PDN wrote: »

The truth can indeed only come from God - but where we differ is that I don't accept the notion that God will only reveal that truth through an organisation that has killed millions of people.

For God's sake, do you have to resort to such tactics? If you're referring to the Inquisitions, please remember that the these were carried out by state authorities before the Church got involved. Executions resulting from Church trials were rare. BTW, Protestants were guilty of burning witches too (e.g. Salem witch trials).

PDN wrote: »

Christ founded one Church which still exists today. It comprises all truly born again believers be they Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Pentecostal or non-denominational.

Do you really think all these Churches are free to have different beliefs in view of Gal 1:8?

PDN wrote: »

However from the earliest chapters of the Book of Acts that one church is manifested in different congregations (the church in Jerusalem, the Church in Antioch etc).
........
No. The Book of Acts and the New Testament letters indicate that the churches were governed by overseers, pastors, and elders - with apostles, prophets and evangelists travelling aroung to serve various churches across geographical boundaries. The only 'priesthood' that existed in the apostolic early church was the priesthood of all believers. There was no Pope to bully other churches.

Why do you believe the churches were autonomous? How can there be true unity of faith if the bishops weren't all united under the Pope?
(Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism). The writings of the ECFs show that Peter was based in Rome and that he was the head of the Church (not churches).

See:-

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

PDN wrote: »

Every Christian denomination will be in error in regard to at least one or two minor points -yes. That is hardly shocking. The Holy Spirit has preserved truth in that different movements within the overall Body of Christ preserve different emphases that we can all learn from.

Do you realize how flaky that sounds and worse still how it makes the Holy Spirit look incompetent to preserve the Truth on earth??

PDN wrote: »

We can be perfect in that we love the Lord our God with all our mind and strength and love our neighbours as ourselves. In this respect I look to people like John Wesley, George Fox, William Booth, Mother Theresa etc. I believe God is far more pleased with those who might be mixed up over a minor point of doctrine, but demonstrate His love, than with those who claim to possess perfect knowledge of the truth but demonstrate bigotry and hatred.

Yes I take your point but please see the point I'm trying to make. A good example is the question of the nature of baptism - sacrament or symbol. If it's only a symbol then it's not required for salvation. If it's a sacrament which actually washes away the guilt of original sin then it is very necessary and the earlier it's done the better. Is this a trivial point in your view? We absolutely need to know the truth in this matter!

Jesus revealed the truth to the apostles and they were charged with teaching all nations under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Now do you really think part truth and part error is acceptable to God when the salvation of souls is at stake? I'd be very pleased if you read that article on infallilibility in the Church ie http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

This probably would be best done in a new thread but I think I've started enough already

Many Churches believe that baptism is symbolic and is a kind of rite of passage into the Christian family. Other churches teach that it is a sacrament which washes away original sin and has the effect of bestowing sanctifying grace, making us sons and daughters of God. There's obviously a huge difference between the two! Non-catholic Christians for the most part say that you just need to accept Jesus as your personal saviour to be saved, if I'm not mistaken.

If baptism is a sacrament, then infant baptism should be strongly encouraged in case the child might die before the age of reason. This would also make baptism mandatory and not just an outward sign of acceptance of Christ.

Now a passage from Scripture supporting the remission of sins through baptism:-

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

And quotes from the ECFs:-

From St. Justin Martyr First Apology, 61:- (AD 155)
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

From St. Irenaeus Fragment 34:- (AD 190)
'And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan? [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ?Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]

From Tertullian On Baptism 12:1 (AD 203)
When, however, the prescript is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life")

From St. Cyprian of Carthage Letter 71:1 (AD 253)
unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, "Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Does anyone think the truth about baptism is irrelevant? Couldn't it be the difference between salvation and damnation?

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

How can there be true unity of faith if the bishops weren't all united under the Pope?

It's probably worth mentioning that the history of Church proved that it's perfectly possible. These days the faith and even practices of Eastern Churches are the same as they used to be at least some 12 centuries ago. While organisationally they are autonomous they still demonstrate unity and lack of any significant schisms as opposite to the 16th century schism that was born within the Church with a single administrative centre.

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

It's probably worth mentioning that the history of Church proved that it's perfectly possible. These days the faith and even practices of Eastern Churches are the same as they used to be at least some 12 centuries ago. While organisationally they are autonomous they still demonstrate unity and lack of any significant schisms as opposite to the 16th century schism that was born within the Church with a single administrative centre.

Hmm. My answer to this isn't like to go down very smoothly but it is my belief that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ and for this reason it is the primary target for Satan's attacks. Hence the reason why the Church is the most persecuted Christian church in existence, IMO. These attacks will continue to the end of the world but the Church will never be destroyed. Sure many have left and will leave but the Church will survive. The Church has certainly scored plenty of own-goals but Christ never promised impeccability of all members, only that He would be "with the Church to the end of ages". Jesus and the Church are inseparable and this spiritual marriage will culminate in the marriage of the Lamb foretold in Revelation.

Lead balloon?

Slav

Just to clarify, you mean the Roman Catholic Church is the most persecuted Christian church in existence?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Hmm. My answer to this isn't like to go down very smoothly but it is my belief that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ and for this reason it is the primary target for Satan's attacks. Hence the reason why the Church is the most persecuted Christian church in existence, IMO.

Change that to "the most persecuting Church in history".

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

Just to clarify, you mean the Roman Catholic Church is the most persecuted Christian church in existence?

Yes, I think so.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I think so.

Wow -- I'm (almost) speechless.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Hmm. My answer to this isn't like to go down very smoothly but it is my belief that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ and for this reason it is the primary target for Satan's attacks. Hence the reason why the Church is the most persecuted Christian church in existence, IMO. These attacks will continue to the end of the world but the Church will never be destroyed. Sure many have left and will leave but the Church will survive. The Church has certainly scored plenty of own-goals but Christ never promised impeccability of all members, only that He would be "with the Church to the end of ages". Jesus and the Church are inseparable and this spiritual marriage will culminate in the marriage of the Lamb foretold in Revelation.

Lead balloon?

How can you think the RCC is the most persecuted church Blomin' eck, thats just mental! Like PDN said, try 'most PERSECUTING' and you'd be right. Also, this thing about satan attacks. That is one of the best brainwashing techniques religions deploy. I remember having such feelings, to the extent that when I would have little niggles of concience, I'd start thinking, 'Its the devil trying to turn me away from God'. Luckily, it wasn't, it was just my God given concience telling me something wasn't quite right.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Any more views on the traditions written about in the writings of the ECFs?

e.g. see references to Apostolic Success at http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

Were these men (Pope Clement I, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine) preaching something contrary to the Gospel?

Some things they taught were true, others false. Some were very serious errors, others less so.

You agree with these men when they teach Roman Catholic doctrine; I agree with them when they teach Bible doctrine. I feel free to reject their teaching when it contradicts Scripture. How do you deal with them when they contradict Roman doctrine? What about Tertullian's Montanism? Or Augustine's propogation of the doctrine we now call Calvinism?

In short, they were not infallible apostles, they were only men and cannot be appealed to as proof of doctrine.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

This probably would be best done in a new thread but I think I've started enough already

Many Churches believe that baptism is symbolic and is a kind of rite of passage into the Christian family. Other churches teach that it is a sacrament which washes away original sin and has the effect of bestowing sanctifying grace, making us sons and daughters of God. There's obviously a huge difference between the two! Non-catholic Christians for the most part say that you just need to accept Jesus as your personal saviour to be saved, if I'm not mistaken.

If baptism is a sacrament, then infant baptism should be strongly encouraged in case the child might die before the age of reason. This would also make baptism mandatory and not just an outward sign of acceptance of Christ.

Now a passage from Scripture supporting the remission of sins through baptism:-



And quotes from the ECFs:-



Does anyone think the truth about baptism is irrelevant? Couldn't it be the difference between salvation and damnation?

I'm with Noel here. Some of the doctrines that divide Evangelicals from the Roman Catholic Church are relevant to say the least - crucial, at times.

The necessity of Baptism however is not as clear cut as it may appear. For what Noel said, it might have appeared that the physical act was necessary in Rome's view.

That is not the case. Rome teaches Baptism is essential for salvation, but can be achieved by the mere intention in those who cannot be baptised. Or indeed, in the case of those who reject Romanism, if they would have been baptised had they been reared in more conducive circumstances.

The Evangelical says that the willingness to confess Christ, of which baptism is a prime example, is necessary for salvation. The intention of the heart is the determinant in each system, not the physical act, as far as I can see.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Hmm. My answer to this isn't like to go down very smoothly but it is my belief that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ and for this reason it is the primary target for Satan's attacks. Hence the reason why the Church is the most persecuted Christian church in existence, IMO. These attacks will continue to the end of the world but the Church will never be destroyed. Sure many have left and will leave but the Church will survive. The Church has certainly scored plenty of own-goals but Christ never promised impeccability of all members, only that He would be "with the Church to the end of ages". Jesus and the Church are inseparable and this spiritual marriage will culminate in the marriage of the Lamb foretold in Revelation.

Lead balloon?

What you say of Jesus and His Church is true. It is just that you are confusing the Church of Christ with the RCC. I've already showed you what Christ does with churches that err from the truth and refuse to repent, Revelation 2 & 3. He does not bear with them for centuries, tolerating their evil doctrines and behaviour. He cuts them off, and continues the Church with the holy remnant, gathered in many places. Where those assemblies become corrupt and refuse to repent, He does the same to them, and so on.

His Church is His people in every location - not a corrupt organisation.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Wow -- I'm (almost) speechless.

Why don't you name a Christian church which is more vilified than the CC?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

How can you think the RCC is the most persecuted church Blomin' eck, thats just mental! Like PDN said, try 'most PERSECUTING' and you'd be right. Also, this thing about satan attacks. That is one of the best brainwashing techniques religions deploy. I remember having such feelings, to the extent that when I would have little niggles of concience, I'd start thinking, 'Its the devil trying to turn me away from God'. Luckily, it wasn't, it was just my God given concience telling me something wasn't quite right.

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

John 15:18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. 19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some things they taught were true, others false. Some were very serious errors, others less so.

You agree with these men when they teach Roman Catholic doctrine; I agree with them when they teach Bible doctrine. I feel free to reject their teaching when it contradicts Scripture. How do you deal with them when they contradict Roman doctrine? What about Tertullian's Montanism? Or Augustine's propogation of the doctrine we now call Calvinism?

In short, they were not infallible apostles, they were only men and cannot be appealed to as proof of doctrine.

I think you may be missing the point. I'm talking about ECF evidence for traditions such as the papacy, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, Purgatory etc. Do you really believe these early bishops and popes were all wrong? Why were these practices so commonly written about by central Church leaders if they were false? I think you're too dismissive.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Why don't you name a Christian church which is more vilified than the CC?

Sometimes the crimes a group commits tend to catch up with them. Any organisation which hides Child rapists, murders folk in the name of religion etc is going to be vilified.

The Nazi's are vilified too. Vilification can sometimes be warranted. The RCC used to have a hell of alot of power. a power which they abused. They oppressed, murdered etc for years. So they can hardly whinge about people vilifying them now that they are free of their power, and their attrocities come more to light.

BTW, by all accounts, the chinese christians are far more persecuted than the RCC. Actually, how exactly is the RCC the most persecuted?

philologos

I think it would be in the Christian interest to not vilify a fellow Church though, I don't think that agrees with what the Bible says about treatment of fellow Christians.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it would be in the Christian interest to not vilify a fellow Church though, I don't think that agrees with what the Bible says about treatment of fellow Christians.

I disagree completely. Should we condone the western baptist church? If there is a group draging Christs name through the mud, they should be condemned.

As a Christian i have to put up with accusations about the crusades, inquisition, child abuse etc etc. What should we do? They have stumbled many, yet claim to be the 'one and only true church'. What do you suggest we do to make it clear that their behaviour does not represent Christianity?

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I think so.

With all the respect to the Roman Church martyrs do you really think the Roman Catholics were all the way under attack while the rest of Christian world enjoyed peaceful and relaxed life? Any historical evidence that Catholics suffered near as that of, for instance, Eastern Christians (as long as we started comparing them)? What would be the equivalent of the Crusades, Islamic attacks on Eastern Christians or persecutions in Communist Russia?

If by attacks you mean the mass media attitude or fellow Protestants from boards.ie than I'd probably agree with you: the RCC attracts more attention then the rest of Christianity altogether. However I think that Christians of Kosovo and Metohija or China would swap with you without a moment's hesitation.

kelly1 wrote: »

and for this reason it is the primary target for Satan's attacks.

That's certainly a sound argument (just in case: I'm not sarcastic) but I think it can only be used as a last resort when we give up to logically explain something based on our knowledge. Are we really at that point where History, Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, etc. are helpless?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Sometimes the crimes a group commits tend to catch up with them. Any organisation which hides Child rapists, murders folk in the name of religion etc is going to be vilified.

The Nazi's are vilified too. Vilification can sometimes be warranted. The RCC used to have a hell of alot of power. a power which they abused. They oppressed, murdered etc for years. So they can hardly whinge about people vilifying them now that they are free of their power, and their attrocities come more to light.

BTW, by all accounts, the chinese christians are far more persecuted than the RCC. Actually, how exactly is the RCC the most persecuted?

Apart from the crimes commited by Church members, the Church comes in for a lot of stick for daring to teach the truth on morality e.g. contraception.

Also I know for a fact that countless myths are constantly being propagated about the Church e.g that Constantine paganized the Church or that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin or that the Pope is the anti-Christ. Why do you think people are only too happy to keep these myths going?

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Apart from the crimes commited by Church members, the Church comes in for a lot of stick for daring to teach the truth on morality e.g. contraception.

So do all groups that take a moral stand on things. The RCC are certainly not alone in that.

Also I know for a fact that countless myths are constantly being propagated about the Church e.g that Constantine paganized the Church or that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin or that the Pope is the anti-Christ. Why do you think people are only too happy to keep these myths going?

Are you saying Satan is doing this?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Why don't you name a Christian church which is more vilified than the CC?

hmmm... depending on your definition of "vilify" and who's doing the vilifying, off the top of my head, I could name the outfits that belong (or belonged to) Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts (I just love that name!), Edir Macedo, João Teixeira de Faria, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Uniate church, the Maronites, Jim Jones, Fred Phelps, and no doubt, our very own Ian Paisley. Not to mention PDN's friends in China and India

I'm sure there are plenty more I've not heard of.

PDN

Slav wrote: »

If by attacks you mean the mass media attitude or fellow Protestants from boards.ie than I'd probably agree with you: the RCC attracts more attention then the rest of Christianity altogether. However I think that Christians of Kosovo and Metohija or China would swap with you without a moment's hesitation.

To be fair, most of the attention given to the RCC on boards.ie is at Noel's own invitation. He does have a habit of starting threads that demand to know why we all don't admit that the RCC is the only true Church and that the rest of us are deluded heretics. Then, when we don't give him the answers he would like to hear, it is persecution against the RCC.

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

As a Christian i have to put up with accusations about the crusades, inquisition, child abuse etc etc. What should we do? They have stumbled many, yet claim to be the 'one and only true church'. What do you suggest we do to make it clear that their behaviour does not represent Christianity?

In approach there is a different way to do it. Yes we should recognise that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the child abuse scandals are vile and horrific crimes that are repugnant to Scripture, but at the same time we should be there as Christian brothers and sisters to influence the Catholic Church positively rather than negatively. Yes we should state that their behaviour when it is indeed wrong does not represent Christianity, offering an alternative view to Catholic believers, and to push them in the right direction, as I hope other Christians would correct me and push me in the right direction when I fail.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

In approach there is a different way to do it. Yes we should recognise that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the child abuse scandals are vile and horrific crimes that are repugnant to Scripture, but at the same time we should be there as Christian brothers and sisters to influence the Catholic Church positively rather than negatively. Yes we should state that their behaviour when it is indeed wrong does not represent Christianity, offering an alternative view to Catholic believers, and to push them in the right direction, as I hope other Christians would correct me and push me in the right direction when I fail.

Jakkass, that is true, and I think we should be able to recognise that the Catholic Church has changed enormously. However, that is difficult when Catholics want to wear their past as a badge of honour.

I think it would be wrong to be bitter against Catholicism for its past persecution of dissidents. However, it is a bit galling when we read posters insisting that the persecutors were part of the apostolic succession who preserved the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while those who were persecuted were 'heretics'.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Really, have you read their writings extensively? And what if they did disagree? What would that prove? Opinion is always fallible.

In our opinion, it doesn't matter. However, the Romanist Church is build on the perception that the so-called Fathers always declared the same doctrine - which they didn't

kelly1 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that there is a consistency in the writings about confession, ordination the Eucharist etc. And I'm asking why do people reject this evidence that tradition was a fundamental part of the early Church.

Nonsense. There is no consistency. There are selected quotes in the New Catechism, but that is equal to a diliberate deception.

Again look at the Celtic Church. After romanism was introduced - in official history a "reformation" of the Church in Ireland - there were new rules for ordinations, new rules for confessions, and all churches needed some work so they could host the host - you can actually see that the tabernacles are later additions to churches predating 1100.

Why was this? because the CEltic Church had no notion of these things - they are later (post 500 AD) additions to Romanism.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, most of the attention given to the RCC on boards.ie is at Noel's own invitation. He does have a habit of starting threads that demand to know why we all don't admit that the RCC is the only true Church and that the rest of us are deluded heretics. Then, when we don't give him the answers he would like to hear, it is persecution against the RCC.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm trying to have a rational and respectful debate. In all these debates, time and time again I see insults launched at the CC. My only reason for starting these threads is to attempt to show that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ. I'm also trying to combat the numerous myths being propagated about the Church. There are so many mis-understandings and lies being told and they tend to become generally accepted with repetition e.g. Constantines paganization of the Church. I believe the Church is constantly being portrayed, often unfairly, in a negative light. I think many people are only too happy to propagate negativity towards the Church and will repeat the lies and misunderstandings without having made any effort to find out what the Church actually teaches or whether historians might have had a bias against the Church. The Church has no shortage of enemies.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Jakkass, that is true, and I think we should be able to recognise that the Catholic Church has changed enormously. However, that is difficult when Catholics want to wear their past as a badge of honour.

I don't think any Catholics wear the Church's past crimes as a badge of honour!

PDN wrote: »

However, it is a bit galling when we read posters insisting that the persecutors were part of the apostolic succession who preserved the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while those who were persecuted were 'heretics'.

Are you really comfortable with the idea that the truth is somehow scattered among the various disunited churches? Are you not concerned that there is no authority on earth with the competence to settle disputes over doctrine? I certainly wouldn't be!

kelly1

Am I the only one here who cringes at clearly derogatory terms like "Romanism" and "Romanist Church"?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think any Catholics wear the Church's past crimes as a badge of honour!

Are you really comfortable with the idea that the truth is somehow scattered among the various disunited churches? Are you not concerned that there is no authority on earth with the competence to settle disputes over doctrine? I certainly wouldn't be!

Very comfortable indeed. I think it provides a wonderful protection against tyrants.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church has no shortage of enemies.

Indeed, it doesn't -- but have you considered that there may be good reasons for disliking the organization?