Replies

Whatever you call yourself there should be a historical record of those who hold the same beliefs as you do from the time of the Apostles to the present.

There is good evidence for many Protestant doctrines from the time of the first century. The hang-up for you is that there is not a continuation of those early beliefs to the present. The interesting thing is that if there is support for the Proddie beliefs in the 1st century why should we have to prove that they existed in the middle? Shouldn't that make for some interesting questions for you? Why haven't you continued in the doctrines and practices of the church of the first century? Why haven't you continued in baptism by immersion (which was the preferred method from the earliest documents we have)? Why don't you speak in tongues?

You view this as a continuity thing. We see it as a restoration thing.

Why don't you speak in tongues?

I won't try to jump in on your whole argument here (I wasn't invited and haven't read all your posts), but the Catholic Church certainly does believe in the existence of speaking in tongues (both flavors). It's just not a common occurence

There are lots of "charismatic" Catholics, and they are not at odds with any doctrine I'm aware of (they were certainly supported by the parish I grew up in).

Which brings me to a confusion I've often had on these threads... I thought the original idea was a "debate" primarily between Catholic and Southern Baptist beliefs. Baptists are really the ones that view the gift of tongues in a negative fashion (not that RCs go full-boar Toronto-blessing kind of tongues). I'll try to answer the question for them: My understanding of their theory is that the gift of tongues was primarily a temporary gift for use until the cannon of Scripture was closed. I haven't got my Bible with me, but I think it's 1 Cor 13 that deals with seeing unclearly until the perfect comes etc.etc... Essentially, the fuller revelation of Scripture removed the need for the implied authority of tongues and the interpretation of tongues.

You view this as a continuity thing. We see it as a restoration thing.

How is the answer to the collapse of a unified, if in need of reformation from corrupt practices, Church an utter fragmentation of Christian belief?

To put it another way, why was the banner of the Reformation not just reforming of the existing Church, but rejection of the entire idea of a unified Christendom?