Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 01/27/2007 6:12:35 AM PST by NYer
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Good article, with my usual caveat that "Catholic" means The Church as we ALL, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, "Eastern Catholics" and Latins can and do define it in the Creed.
In all my years in the Methodist Church, I was never taught that paganism corrupted Catholicism. Now this may have been the view of John Wesley, but as far as I know his gripes were with the Anglican Church, which he broke from.
Of course, I can only speak for the Methodist pastors that I came in contact with, and have no idea about others in the denomination nor what other Protestant churches teach.
And a good article it was.
However, it also served as a hit piece on Protestants hiding behind the guidelines set forth yesterday.
If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar.
Come on!
bookmarking
"Protestantism is based on the allegation that the Catholic Church became corrupt shortly after 312 AD. That’s when the emperor Constantine converted and made Christianity the state religion. It is alleged that pagan converts came into the Church bringing with them many of their pagan beliefs and practices. According to Protestant historians the pagan practices that were brought into the Church became the distinctive doctrines of Catholicism. Thus the Catholic Church was born and true Christianity was lost until the Reformation. But history tells us a different story."
I don't know that this paragraph is accurate. I think it might be more genuine to say that Protestants believe(d) that the Catholic Church was corrupted over time, leading to the Reformation. The 1200 years between Constantine and Luther is a period of many movements, changes, tendancies and events in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church at the time of Luther was not something that today's Catholics would be happy with either. There were real, actual, serious problems, and they didn't appear overnight with Constantine. The Reformation didn't just happen because some people went loco 500 years ago. The Counter-Reformation was apparently a non-event to this author.
As is all to common, this author sets up a Protestant straw-man, and proceeds to pound it. Not to say that Protestants don't do the same thing when making the contra-argument.
This notion of a 'corrupted' Catholic Church, is more recent than the teachings of Wesley.
Thank you! Your insights as a convert are always appreciated.
On the contrary. This article is posted with the intent of educating both Catholics and Protestants, many of whom have never read the Early Church Fathers. If possible, put aside any personal prejudice and reread this article with an open heart and mind. It recounts the lives of the first christians. This is the early church. And, as Orthodox freeper Kolokotronis pointed out, it is clearly recognizable to both Catholics and Orthodox.
Agreed! Even today, the Catholic Church has traveresed some rocky roads yet, throughout it all, the doctrines of the Catholic Church have remained faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Her leaders may not be perfect (no one is without sin except Christ) but her doctrines are.
I can put aside personal prejudice (such as it is) while reading the article, but it's author didn't do so when writing it. It doesn't tell me that much about the Early Church Fathers. It tells me more about the author's lack of knowledge regarding Protestantism. It is a hit piece, with enough locical fallacies to corner the market on same.
well said, even though I don't agree with much of Catholic Doctrine. I wish the author had gone more into the early writings, and how they reflect certain doctrines that are contentious today. Like maybe pick three or four, and analyze them. That would be educational for all. Of course it would be fair to ask if I am too intellectually lazy to do it myself.......
I'm not aware of any Protestant hypothesis that states Hell prevailed against the church that Jesus founded...There was however, tremendous persecution thru-out the Dark Ages for Jesus' church as Foxes Book of Martyrs does attest to...
Protestantism is such a big umbrella...lots of shades of diversity involved, and lots of subgroups, and lots of different degrees of assumption about the history of the church.
I was raised in a church that alternately believed the church went bad with the death of the apostles, and that the church went bad with the Council of Nicea. And somehow believed this simultaneously.
And then there's the groups that believe the "true" church went underground, secretly meeting and baptising and teaching the truth and all those groups that were declared (usually) gnostic heresies are just members of the true church getting into trouble...or they think the Waldensens weren't a group that was formed in the middle ages, but the secret church that goes back to the apostolic age.
It would make an interesting study to see the development, shape and spreading of all the various viewpoints like this...tells a lot about people's points of views about the world as much as which teachers they've come in contact with.
Again, I agree! And, in fact, the author covers 23 such doctrines, all of which I planned to post, one at a time. But, since you are the first to ask, you get to pick the first one posted. Is there any one or two in particular that particularly pique your interest?
The author is suggesting that since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, true believers would not have left the Church. Even its sinful leaders have never erred in doctrine.
I am a Methodist Pastor and John Wesley had a typical Reformation view of Catholicism.
He commonly referred to "papists," and I believe (fairly certain of this) that I've read him using "antichrist" verbiage in regard to the pope.
His articles of religion, particularly the one on Holy Communion, are not flattering at all toward Catholicism.
RM:
Objection. This thread is protected by being ID'd as a Caucus, but even a cursory reading of shows that is a anti-Protestant polemic rather than a RC devotion.
Furthermore many of the posts are a discussion of alleged Protestant error.
I move this thread be opened to general discussion.
I will go back into lurk and while I await your ruling
Tell that to the author of the article.
Have already read the church fathers; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Timothy, Paul...
They were the immediate successors of the Apostles. Three of them were disciples of one or more of the Apostles. Clement of Rome was a disciple of the apostles Peter and Paul. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of the Apostle John.
The apostle Paul let us know that his most immediate successor was Timothy...We don't even know if your Clement is the same one Paul briefly mentioned...Wonder if there was more than one Clement way back then...
Naturally we would expect that those who were taught directly by the Apostles would themselves believe and teach correctly.
Unless of course they taught something differently than the apostles taught...Don't forget, there were many false teachers back then as well as now...
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.