“At least consider that a lot of that comes from the Roman Catholic church’s own elitist claims to be THE, ONE, TRUE church Jesus established and all others aren’t even entitled to call themselves a “church” since they aren’t in communion with, and subordinate to, the RCC.”
I don’t know how to break this to you, but historically, they are! Knowing this caused John Henry Newman to convert to Catholicism, and it nearly caused me to convert. To think that there will be no sin at all in a Church of 1.2 billion is incredibly naive. Men are sinful, people need to come to grips with that, and not look to men, but to Christ.
What is it you imagine you are "breaking" to me??? It should be patently obvious that the Roman Catholic church - and ANY Christian church/assembly - is not the one, true church Jesus established since the Bride of Christ is the redeemed from all peoples, tongues and nations. THE church is all the saved, born again believers in Christ and affiliation with their chosen place of worship does not automatically confer salvation. Roman Catholicism took the adjective "catholic", meaning universal or of the whole, which was NEVER used by the Apostles and didn't come into use until the second century, and presumed to be the ONLY true one, denying even the Eastern Orthodox (at one time) as being a legitimate Christian church. Now, I admit that some denominations are better at teaching, holding to and preserving the truth than others, but Jesus' body is a "spiritual house", as Peter said, and we all are stones being built up into it.
When the secular world looks at the hypocrisy of the RCC, they aren't looking at the laity, they see rot coming from the very top of the hierarchy going back nearly from the start of the church of Rome claiming primacy over all churches. For an organization to make such claims of exclusivity, infallibility and chosen status from God, a much higher expectation of goodness and piety isn't unreasonable. Jesus even said unto whom much is given much is required. Imagine Chik-fil-a - with all the latest hoopla over one of the founder's rejection of homosexual marriage - if it was discovered that that same founder was homosexual and had left his wife and kids and was living with his lover of the past thirty years? Would the secularists have cause to criticize and accuse him of being a hypocrite? I'd say even Christians would agree he was and it would be a scandal. That really IS the point and not that it is expected for all Catholics to be impeccable.
John Henry Newman came up with the doctrine of development to explain the reason why so many RCC doctrines were not as the early church held and had changed. A good article discussing this is HERE, if you're interested. For someone who claims to not be a Catholic, you sure are defensive of them a lot. I get the impression that you have already "converted" and wonder why you lack the courage to admit it.
No... no, they are not. What you are saying simply cannot be proven.
Knowing this caused John Henry Newman to convert to Catholicism, and it nearly caused me to convert.
Funny thing how that could work - It is the history that causes me to avoid the Roman church like the plague. There is no_way_ever, because I know history.
I don’t know how to break this to you, but historically, they are!
I am not sure how to best break this to you, but historically, they are not! Authenticity under the New Covenant does not rest upon historical descent, but conformity of faith, most principally that of the gospel.
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: (Romans 2:28)
Meanwhile, even under the OT being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) did not mean that this entity possessed assuredly infallibility of office.
Nor was this essential for providing preserving Truth, and instead the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, but whom He reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
For the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Yet the RC argument is that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. And that this is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth,
As this is a fallacious foundation, than it cannot be the one true (or a true) NT church, which:
1. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people.
2. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made such distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7)
3. Never had apostles preaching receiving the Eucharist as the means by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54), versus believing the gospel, and the Lord's supper as focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift.
5. Never promised a perpetual assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium, or taught this is necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the steward of Scripture assured they had assured infallibility.
6. Never manifested where Peter is confirmed to be the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
7. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
8. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) besides for Judas (who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) and who was elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
9. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
10. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
11. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
12. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.
13. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as leave and cleave. ) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted as a demigoddess. All of which conspicuous absence is not characteristic of Holy Spirit who reveals notable aspects of its significant subjects, from long life, to escaping death or being bodily assumed to God, to extra toes, to unique diets, to being sinless, etc.
14. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
15. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
16. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
Knowing this caused John Henry Newman to convert to Catholicism, and it nearly caused me to convert. To think that there will be no sin at all in a Church of 1.2 billion is incredibly naive. Men are sinful, people need to come to grips with that, and not look to men, but to Christ.
Rather, what Newman "knew" or should have was that history could not be reconciled with Rome's reality expect thru the specious Development of Doctrine ,” which makes a Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) tree out of an acorn.
Even EOs state,
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development.
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html .
And which rests upon the premise that history, Tradition and Scripture are only what Rome says they are.
Thus Newman states,
"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
Consistent with this, no less a neo-ultramontanist as Manning stated:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.
In contrast, even Catholic and other modern scholarship provides testimony contrary to Roman revisionism,
The real history includes Damasus 1 who employed a violent mob to secure his papal seat from his rival, On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....
Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.... This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. -Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34; http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Popes-J-Kelly/dp/0192139649/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=#reader_0192139649
And who did not scruple to call in the secular power against theological dissidents, "His measures against the intransigently Nicene disciples of Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 370/ 1) [bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia known for his passionate opposition to Arianism] were particularly brutal." (ibid)
And as James Swan notes,
What genuinely gave bishops of Rome the impetus to expand further was the conversion of Constantine. Eamon Duffy noted that this event
“propelled the bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment. Already powerful and influential men, they now became grandees on a par with the wealthiest senators in the city. Bishops all over the Roman world would now be expected to take on the role of judges, governors, great servants of state..- “Saints and Sinners,” New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997, 2001, pp. 37-38; http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/scott-windsor-3-defense-of-papacy-from.html
Moreover, Klaus Schat [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] , in his Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, not only acknowledges that in the case of the process of the development of “the historically developed papacy” the initial phases of this long process “extended well into the fifth century” (Schatz pg 36)
New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
And John F. O'Grady, priest of the Diocese of Albany New York and professor of biblical theology at Barry University in Miami, and author of seventeen books, states:
”The study of the New Testament demonstrates that the apostles, in fact, had no successors, nor did the twelve.”
Many Roman Catholics assume that after the death of Peter every bishop of Rome was aware of the special authority he inherited as the successor of the chief of the apostles. To explain the lack of any evidence of the exercise of such a universal power, (emphasis added) apologists replied that the circumstances did not merit any intervention..
.Contemporary theologians are more aware of the lack of conclusive evidence documenting any understanding in the early Church of a universal role for the bishop of Rome. The earliest fathers of the Church cited to support these views, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Irenaeus, do not offer undisputed evidence and therefore their arguments cannot be used without some reservation.” pp. 119 ,125
More .
Sorry for the length, but this "to know history is to become Catholic" propaganda has gone on long enough. Not that the evangelical church is altogether the NT church but Rome is the one who claims to be "it," but is fundamentally perverse.