Here is your chance Protestants!


#1

Here is your chance Protestants.

Here is your chance to show us where we have gone astray.

I would like you to show us a Protestant view of Church history and how it developed after the time of the Apostles until the Reformation.

Please provide evidence for you historical assessment, for we do not want this to be just a bunch of name calling.

So, here it is.

  1. A Protestant assessment of Church history.

  2. Evidence that backs the assessment up.

Thanks,

Peace


#2

Good questions. Why don’t you post them on a number of protestant boards and see what kind of answers you get?


#3

I don’t see any replies :whistle:


#4

[quote=shannin]I don’t see any replies :whistle:
[/quote]

There are no answers. They cannot backup their claims.


#5

I posted something similar a few months ago. It had to do with Baptism in the early Church whether to baptist infants or not. It asked what would parents do since there was no bible for them to read.

I addressed it mainly to Protestants, but got no response.


#6

I’m Protestant and I know the Catholic Church’s history. To me the only parts that are sketchy are from a short while after Jesus’ death until the Pope in Rome actually had influence outside of Rome (452 AD?).


#7

[quote=wabrams]I’m Protestant and I know the Catholic Church’s history. To me the only parts that are sketchy are from a short while after Jesus’ death until the Pope in Rome actually had influence outside of Rome (452 AD?).
[/quote]

So what happened?

Peace


#8

[quote=wabrams]I’m Protestant and I know the Catholic Church’s history. To me the only parts that are sketchy are from a short while after Jesus’ death until the Pope in Rome actually had influence outside of Rome (452 AD?).
[/quote]

Apostolic Christianity acknowledged two types of Christians within its ranks according to St Augustine,one is represented by the apostle Peter the other by the apostle John representing an ideal complimentary situation between Johaninne and Synoptic theologies.This of course is represented with the texts themselves as the difference between Martha and Mary.

Catholics to a great degree hold much of tradition which represent the complimentary situation where the complimetary theories co-exist but the energies are diluted by the main denominational split .John Paul II was such a good man in presenting Christ to the Protestant colleagues rather than Catholicism and the sooner this awful split is healed the better for all.

Do not bait each other for some of the best writers on Apostolic Christianity have been from Protestants or my fellow Christians as I would like to think.


#9

[quote=oriel36]Apostolic Christianity acknowledged two types of Christians within its ranks according to St Augustine,one is represented by the apostle Peter the other by the apostle John representing an ideal complimentary situation between Johaninne and Synoptic theologies.This of course is represented with the texts themselves as the difference between Martha and Mary.

Catholics to a great degree hold much of tradition which represent the complimentary situation where the complimetary theories co-exist but the energies are diluted by the main denominational split .John Paul II was such a good man in presenting Christ to the Protestant colleagues rather than Catholicism and the sooner this awful split is healed the better for all.

Do not bait each other for some of the best writers on Apostolic Christianity have been from Protestants or my fellow Christians as I would like to think.
[/quote]

What does this have to do with history?

I am looking for a history lesson from a Protestant perspective.

Peace


#10

[quote=dennisknapp]What does this have to do with history?

I am looking for a history lesson from a Protestant perspective.

Peace
[/quote]

Luther lost control almost immediately to the political agenda which drove Christianity towards secularism and even if his intents were a reaction to institutional corruption, the momentum was always for political convenience in untangling papal authority from national interest.

If you wish to know what literature was influencing Luther ,the Theologia Germanica and the history which surrounds that great Apostolic work is the place to begin.While it is difficult to like Luther’s commentary which falls along national lines it should not stop Catholics from loving this work within the Apostolic tradition.

ccel.org/t/theo_ger/theologia.htm

You are baiting a fellow Christian without fully comprehending that the resolution to the denominational divide is more Christ and less Catholicism as a struture.Our late Pope was such a good man in understanding this.


#11

Ok, at the risk of being banned. I’ll try.

Remember you asked for it. :slight_smile:

Peter went to Rome where he found a power base. The other apostles were preaching but didn’t find a support structure to build a church. Peter was much smarter. He went to Rome.

The church was into it’s 5th pope while apostles were still alive. These popes apparently knew Christ and His message better than the men who walked with Jesus and slept on the same dirt with Jesus. Isn’t that curious to anyone else why they weren’t popes?

Did Peter appoint his sucessor?

Why weren’t existing living disciples named as popes?

Could it have been the Roman Power structure had something to do with the sucess of the early Roman Church while the other apostles were floundering trying to get a following in other regions?

Try this thread:
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=41607

Some questions. Some doubts about the formation of the early church.

If the early church was not formed correctly, every single sucession thereafter would not be authentic.

Maybe you have answers based on historical fact and not church sources. Don’t expect to get the truth from Bill Clinton’s memoirs.

.


#12

[quote=dennisknapp]So what happened?

Peace
[/quote]

What happened when?


#13

[quote=ruzz]The other apostles were preaching but didn’t find a support structure to build a church. Peter was much smarter. He went to Rome.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that the Churches in Asia were somehow not in communion with the Church at Rome?

The church was into it’s 5th pope while apostles were still alive. These popes apparently knew Christ and His message better than the men who walked with Jesus and slept on the same dirt with Jesus.

Where does this observation come from?

Isn’t that curious to anyone else why they [living apostles] weren’t popes?

How so?
Did Peter appoint his sucessor? How does this question support or contribute to the Protestant view of early Church history?

Why weren’t existing living disciples named as popes?

This is your game, what is your thought on this?

Could it have been the Roman Power structure had something to do with the sucess of the early Roman Church while the other apostles were floundering trying to get a following in other regions?

How do you figure that? Nowhere were Christians connected to the “power structure” before Constantine in the 4th Century.

Try this thread:
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=41607

I’m not sure why you link to this thread – it was just hashing out the distinction between Apostolic Succession in general and the privilege of the Petrine Chair.

Some questions. Some doubts about the formation of the early church.

If the early church was not formed correctly, every single sucession thereafter would not be authentic.

Your sentence is correct. But what are you trying to tell us? That the early Church, contrary to the promise of Christ to the Church “was not formed correctly?” Truly, I am confused.

Maybe you have answers based on historical fact and not church sources. .

Church sources do not qualify as “historical fact?” Nobody BUT the Church would have had any interest in it at all. Do you reject Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen and such because they wrote within the Church?


#14

Dennis can you help your bigotry against Protestants or is that just something that afflicts you?
Almost every thread you start ,here, is nasty and hatefilled against Protestants are you a closet Protestant or something?


#15

[quote=ruzz] Maybe you have answers based on historical fact and not church sources. Don’t expect to get the truth from Bill Clinton’s memoirs.

[/quote]

ruzz, I might not expect “truth” from Bill Clinton’s memoirs but I would expect a sense of how he views his own life. I might be skeptical of reasons he might give for doing something but I would accept the “facts” that he married Hillary Rodham and that he was elected President of the United States. Certainly, Protestants and Catholics both trust the truth of Scripture – and I believe the New Testament delivers “historical fact” despite the fact that it is a church source. What are you trying to say?


#16

[quote=mercygate]But what are you trying to tell us? That the early Church, contrary to the promise of Christ to the Church “was not formed correctly?” Truly, I am confused.
[/quote]

If I understand the original post correctly. There is an interest to know why protestants don’t accept the history and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

I am only trying to illustrate where protestant doubts lie with the formation of the early church and therefore the historical succession of the papacy. Doubts about the historical presentation that has been laid out.

I don’t think the purpose of this thread is to take a tangent and get into Mat. 16:18 discussions. That’s another topic. Just where protestants are coming from with their take on church history.

Church sources do not qualify as “historical fact?” Nobody BUT the Church would have had any interest in it at all. Do you reject Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen and such because they wrote within the Church?

Well, if you ask my opinion, I take it with a grain of salt. I don’t doubt certain sincerity, but I don’t trust completely.
For example, I wouldn’t turn to Bill Clinton’s memoirs to get an acurate depiction of his Presidency. That doesn’t mean everything he wrote is false.

My opinion. I’m not pushing it on you. But the question was asked and I thought the author was interested in the an other opinion and take on it from the RCC position.

.


#17

[quote=mercygate]ruzz, I might not expect “truth” from Bill Clinton’s memoirs but I would expect a sense of how he views his own life. I might be skeptical of reasons he might give for doing something but I would accept the “facts” that he married Hillary Rodham and that he was elected President of the United States. Certainly, Protestants and Catholics both trust the truth of Scripture – and I believe the New Testament delivers “historical fact” despite the fact that it is a church source. What are you trying to say?
[/quote]

Well… perhaps the Clinton example is getting exhausted. I’m sure Bill would write how HE sees himself. This may not be how Hillary sees him or the country sees him. Not that he would even deliberately lie. But he might not feel led to say it all.

I agree that all Christians trust the truth of scripture. However, it is not a Church source, it is the word of God. The Church organized them and cannonized them, but didn’t write the NT. I am so grateful for the church for preserving these texts and so many things.

It is surely something all citizens of this planet can be grateful for. This trancends the name on the building. Jesus Christ is the center of ALL Christianity and that is universal.

.


#18

[quote=wabrams]I’m Protestant and I know the Catholic Church’s history. To me the only parts that are sketchy are from a short while after Jesus’ death until the Pope in Rome actually had influence outside of Rome (452 AD?).
[/quote]

Pope St. Clement of Rome excised the Authority of the Chair of St. Peter as early as the first century. A little research of publicly available sources will reveal that he, Justin Martyr, Iraneaus, Maximos, and virtually all faithful first, second and third century writers attest to the deference given to the See of Peter.

May G-d Bless and watch over you.


#19

[quote=ruzz]Ok, at the risk of being banned. I’ll try.

Remember you asked for it. :slight_smile:

The church was into it’s 5th pope while apostles were still alive. These popes apparently knew Christ and His message better than the men who walked with Jesus and slept on the same dirt with Jesus. Isn’t that curious to anyone else why they weren’t popes?

Did Peter appoint his sucessor?

Why weren’t existing living disciples named as popes?

Could it have been the Roman Power structure had something to do with the sucess of the early Roman Church while the other apostles were floundering trying to get a following in other regions?
[/quote]

Your post does not answer the original question. Sorry if the original question was not clear. Let’s try it again.

Please provide the following:

  1. A Protestant assessment of Church history.
  1. Evidence that backs the assessment up.

Thanks.


#20

[quote=Ignatius]Pope St. Clement of Rome excised the Authority of the Chair of St. Peter as early as the first century. A little research of publicly available sources will reveal that he, Justin Martyr, Iraneaus, Maximos, and virtually all faithful first, second and third century writers attest to the deference given to the See of Peter.

May G-d Bless and watch over you.

[/quote]

But at that time there were 5 centers of Christianity, Rome was just one of them. It really wasn’t until 452 AD that anyone paid attention to the authority of the Bishop of Rome outside of Rome. History attests that after Pope Leo “convinced” Attilla the Hun to cease is campaign through Italy; this was used as a propaganda tool that showed the Bishop of Rome as the true head of the Church. 1st thru 3rd century scholars might have written about his authority before this event, but it seems very few cared or took notice until 452AD.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.