How could anyone believe this?


#1

Quoted from another thread:

I used to listen John Hagee on TV on Sunday mornings because I liked the way he didn’t sugar coat anything! But then, he began comparing the Catholic Church to paganism and to listen to him talk about the Old Testament theology like it came from the protestants - well it upset me. He would talk around the fact that the Church existed at that time - like we went straight from the Jews to Protesantism with no credit to the Catholic Church for any of the theology that he was now able to spew! I finally just tuned him out! He just totally missed the point!

Several times I have heard some Protestant denominations claim that there have been Protestants around since the time of the Apostles. Well, I have heard Catholics claim that some Protestants claim this, so I am assuming that it is true (feel free to rebut). Now when I was reading the above post, the hypocrisy of the entire situation suddenly hit me. How could any truth-seeking Protestant possibly believe that? First of all, it seems to violate sola scriptura in that (I am guessing) there is some kind of Tradition that I assume these Protestants are passing down. And secondly there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it (at least, not that I’m aware of). The former point is the one I would like to address in this thread, how is it not hypocritical for Protestants (not all of them, just the ones who fit the above criteria) to reject Catholicism because they don’t believe in Tradition, and then go and claim that their denomination has been around since the Apostles?

I hope this makes sense, it’s late and I’m sleepy and I’m not sure I understand the situation entirely, especially as I have only really heard it second hand.


#2

My friends at the Church of Christ claim that the Catholic Church was the Christian Church for 200-300 years. Then the Great Apostasy started creeping in. The true Christains then went underground for 1600 years!!! Then Alexander Campbell called them all up and started the CofC, which is the way the Church was before the Catholics steered it away.

Clear as can be, huh?

NotWorthy

P.S. Of course, all the other faiths broke away from the Catholics and are just as invalid as we Catholics are. They are not so clear on this point when Prot’s are around, but after they leave the room , this point is often made perfectly clearly.


#3

They never read the Church fathers. They can’t see the impressive continuity of Christian history.


#4

[quote=Atreyu]Quoted from another thread:

Several times I have heard some Protestant denominations claim that there have been Protestants around since the time of the Apostles. Well, I have heard Catholics claim that some Protestants claim this, so I am assuming that it is true (feel free to rebut). Now when I was reading the above post, the hypocrisy of the entire situation suddenly hit me. How could any truth-seeking Protestant possibly believe that? First of all, it seems to violate sola scriptura in that (I am guessing) there is some kind of Tradition that I assume these Protestants are passing down. And secondly there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it (at least, not that I’m aware of). The former point is the one I would like to address in this thread, how is it not hypocritical for Protestants (not all of them, just the ones who fit the above criteria) to reject Catholicism because they don’t believe in Tradition, and then go and claim that their denomination has been around since the Apostles?

I hope this makes sense, it’s late and I’m sleepy and I’m not sure I understand the situation entirely, especially as I have only really heard it second hand.
[/quote]

Something you obviously dont undestand is that Protestants feel ourselves to be the true catholics, similarly we feel the the RCC is something less/other than pure Christianity.

Also to believe that Protstants dont believe in Traditions is absurd because we have communion and Baptism etc. It does not in anyway violate Sola Sriptura to have traditions. Think Lutherans Angelicans Episcopailians.

If you think that Protestants never read the Church Fathers then you are misinformed.


#5

In parts of New England colonial cemeteries are filled with Old Testament names. Towns are named after OT towns. Common Mayflower names were John, Anne, William, Steven, Richard, Thomas, Francis, James etc with a few OT names found here and there. . As Puritianism grew, their descendents were named Ira, Seth, Jedediah, Elihu, Benjamin, Bezaleel, Habakkuk, Bathsheba etc.

They were the New Israelites with a new covenant in a new land taking OT names to separate themselves from the Godless (i.e. Catholics and everyone else).

Don’t know if this has anything to do with Hagee’s theology or not (I’m not familiar with him). But it does seem for a time some colonists went from the OT, to Christ and then to themselves skipping over much in between.


#6

[quote=UBERROGO]If you think that Protestants never read the Church Fathers then you are misinformed.
[/quote]

A majority of Protestants sure don’t. There are those who have read the early Church Fathers, but majority of Protestants are still woefully ignorant of them. You can do a search of the threads here yourself and find many such Protestants who have wandered here and dismiss offhand the early Church Fathers, which shows the lack of understanding and reading of them.


#7

If Protestants were familiar with the Early Church Fathers then:

Why don’t they believe in the Real Presesence?

Why do they use Sacred Tradition as an argument against the Catholic Church?

Where do they get Sola Scripture from?

Why did they take seven books out of the Bible?

Why did they add “alone” into the Bible?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

NotWorthy


#8

[quote=NotWorthy]If Protestants were familiar with the Early Church Fathers then:

1:Why don’t they believe in the Real Presesence?

2:Why do they use Sacred Tradition as an argument against the Catholic Church?

3:Where do they get Sola Scripture from?

4:Why did they take seven books out of the Bible?

5:Why did they add “alone” into the Bible?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

NotWorthy
[/quote]

Thats a lot of questions! :stuck_out_tongue:

1: I dont know

2:Never heard of that one…

3:
-Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

  • Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
    The Stromata, 7:16
    “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”
    -Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
    “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
    “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
    -Athanasius (c. 296–373)
    Against the Heathen, 1:3
    “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
    proclamation of the truth.”
    -Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
    On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
    “We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”
    -Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
    On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
    “For how can we adopt those things which Scriptures?”
    -St. Augustine (354–430)
    De unitate ecclesiae, 10
    “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops anything, but the result that their opinion Scriptures of God.”
    -Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
    Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8
    “For our faith rests on the revelation made Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”

4a) The New Testament never refers to any Apocrypha books as scripture with the common designation "it is written"
b)The Apocrypha wasnt accepted by palestinian Jews as Holy scripture as it wasnt written by prophets
c)The Apocrypha atests to the absents of prophets during its own time:1 Macc. 9:27
Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”
d) The deuterocanonical books were held in dispute for so long it would be hard to say they were the voice of God since they werent recognized by Christians to be His Voice:Jn. 10:27
“My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
e)Many Protestants believe that the Apocrypha is valuable for teaching history and is important for a Christian to read… its just not the Voice of God.

5: Not sure what you are refering to sorry.


#9

This a basic attack on the Church from a basic protestant view point. Some protestants unfortunately has this engrained into them and only through the Holy Spirit can they change their minds and see the truth. Our role is simple, to love and help show them the truth when they ask a specific qustion, and when we can’t answer, be truthful with them, go find the answer by asking for help, and get back with them later with the answer. One step at a time, if you approach them with everything at once they will not understand and you will probably get up set. This is in the nutshell what they “fundamentalist has been taught about our Church”

The church that Jesus built had no pope; such began A.D. 606 when the title of “Universal Bishop” was conferred upon Boniface III.

The church that Jesus built had no councils; such began A.D. 325 when the council of Nicea convened.

The church that Jesus built had no orders of priests, diocesan bishops archbishops, cardinals, synods, dioceses, parishes, monks, nuns, convents, monasteries or parochial schools; such things began without authorization far this side of the New Testament.

The church that Jesus built had no holy water; such was introduced about 120 A.D

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Penance”; such began around 157 A.D.

The church that Jesus built had no latin mass (nor any other kind of Mass); such began A.D. 394.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Transubstantiation”; such was formed in the 8th century.

The church that Jesus built did not worship Mary; such was introduced in the 4th century.

*The church that Jesus built did not use religious images and paintings; such were introduced in the 4th century.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of Purgatory; such was introduced in the 5th or 6th centuries.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Extreme Unction”; such began in the 6th Century.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Celibacy”; such was made a regulation in the 11th* century.

The church that Jesus built did not sell “Indulgences”; such had its roots in the early centuries, but was not fully developed until the 12th century.

The church that Jesus built did not use instruments of music in worship to God; such was introduced about 666 A.D.

The church that Jesus built did not practice “Auricular Confession”; such began in the 13th Century.

The church that Jesus built did not sprinkle for baptism; such was introduced in the 3rd century, but not formally adopted until 1311.

The church that Jesus built had no Rosary, lighting of candles, burning of incense, Sacraments, Christmas, Easter, Lent, Religious Titles, Religious vestures, choirs, prayers to dead saints, prayers for the dead, Sacramentals, Eucharist, Confirmation, or infant “Baptism” and membership, but the Roman Catholic Church has them all.


#10

My friends at the Church of Christ claim that the Catholic Church was the Christian Church for 200-300 years. Then the Great Apostasy started creeping in. The true Christains then went underground for 1600 years!!! Then Alexander Campbell called them all up and started the CofC, which is the way the Church was before the Catholics steered it away.

^^I think this was the kind of situation I was really referring to.

Also to believe that Protstants dont believe in Traditions is absurd because we have communion and Baptism etc. It does not in anyway violate Sola Sriptura to have traditions. Think Lutherans Angelicans Episcopailians.

I was under the impression that you only have these two sacraments because of the evidence for these sacraments in the bible. How do you Protestants differentiate between (Sacred) Tradition and tradition? I was under the impression that you rejected Sacred Tradition as tradition can be corrupted over time (and indeed you believe this is the case), yet you maintain tradition so long as it does not violate the bible. In your post you interchanged between upper and lower case for the ‘t’ in tradition, what did you mean by this, if anything? And indeed, if you do believe that you need tradition (or Tradition perhaps?) to have communion and baptism etc, then how do you know that these traditions have not become corrupted over time? How do you know you have it right, in other words?


#11

I was not tring to differentiate with cap and lower ‘t’ 's . Those are very good questions though but right now i dont have an anwser. Ill have to look at the difference between Sacred Tradition and tradition.


#12

Certainly there have been protestants around since the Apostolic Age. They were called heretics. The errors of the protestant reformation can all trace their roots to heresies of an earlier age. Hillarie Belloc’s classic work on heresy makes this point, as do more recent writers.


#13

[quote=Reid]This a basic attack on the Church from a basic protestant view point. Some protestants unfortunately has this engrained into them and only through the Holy Spirit can they change their minds and see the truth. Our role is simple, to love and help show them the truth when they ask a specific qustion, and when we can’t answer, be truthful with them, go find the answer by asking for help, and get back with them later with the answer. One step at a time, if you approach them with everything at once they will not understand and you will probably get up set. This is in the nutshell what they “fundamentalist has been taught about our Church”

The church that Jesus built had no pope; such began A.D. 606 when the title of “Universal Bishop” was conferred upon Boniface III.

The church that Jesus built had no councils; such began A.D. 325 when the council of Nicea convened.

The church that Jesus built had no orders of priests, diocesan bishops archbishops, cardinals, synods, dioceses, parishes, monks, nuns, convents, monasteries or parochial schools; such things began without authorization far this side of the New Testament.

The church that Jesus built had no holy water; such was introduced about 120 A.D

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Penance”; such began around 157 A.D.

The church that Jesus built had no latin mass (nor any other kind of Mass); such began A.D. 394.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Transubstantiation”; such was formed in the 8th century.

The church that Jesus built did not worship Mary; such was introduced in the 4th century.

*The church that Jesus built did not use religious images and paintings; such were introduced in the 4th century.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of Purgatory; such was introduced in the 5th or 6th centuries.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Extreme Unction”; such began in the 6th Century.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Celibacy”; such was made a regulation in the 11th* century.

The church that Jesus built did not sell “Indulgences”; such had its roots in the early centuries, but was not fully developed until the 12th century.

The church that Jesus built did not use instruments of music in worship to God; such was introduced about 666 A.D.

The church that Jesus built did not practice “Auricular Confession”; such began in the 13th Century.

The church that Jesus built did not sprinkle for baptism; such was introduced in the 3rd century, but not formally adopted until 1311.

The church that Jesus built had no Rosary, lighting of candles, burning of incense, Sacraments, Christmas, Easter, Lent, Religious Titles, Religious vestures, choirs, prayers to dead saints, prayers for the dead, Sacramentals, Eucharist, Confirmation, or infant “Baptism” and membership, but the Roman Catholic Church has them all.
[/quote]

Yeah, I don’t see how anybody could read the Bible, claim the Bible as their one and only authority, and still believe this when the basis for almost all of these beliefs are in the Bible.

I’m interested in their idea that we worship Mary (an idea, obviously, that never caught on). What is their source for this? If it’s an ancient document, they’re probably forcing a modern definition on the word “worship.”


#14

Jesus himself made St. Peter the pope (although he didn’t use that term, specifically). He built his church upon Peter, the rock. Jesus told Peter to shephard his flock. See Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17 and much of the book of Acts is devoted to the primacy of Peter leading his flock.

The church that Jesus built had no councils; such began A.D. 325 when the council of Nicea convened…
The first council was in Jerusalem. Read about it in Acts 15:7.

The church that Jesus built had no orders of priests, diocesan bishops archbishops, cardinals, synods, dioceses, parishes, monks, nuns, convents, monasteries or parochial schools; such things began without authorization far this side of the New Testament…
The qualifications for bishops, priests & deacons is laid out in 1 Timothy 3:1, 8; 5:17; Titus 1:5 talks about presbyters appointed in every town. In the beginning there were only 12 Apostles and they were to go out and preach and baptize and spread the Good News. After awhile, their ranks grew and they became more organized. The Church continued on after the 12 Apostles died and it needed some kind of organization. That authority was given to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus himself.

The church that Jesus built had no holy water; such was introduced about 120 A.D.
Jesus himself made the waters of the Jordan holy when John the Baptist “baptized” Jesus. Jesus delegates all power to Apostles in Matthew 28:18-20. Read about baptism in John 3:5,22; Titus 3:5; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Romans 6:4; 1 Peter 3:21; Hebrews 10:22 (talks about bodies washed in pure water.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Penance”; such began around 157 A.D…
Actually it began with Jesus when he gave the authority to the apostles to bind and loose and forgive sins. See John 20:22-23, 2 Corinthians 5:17-20, James 5:13-16 and, of course, Matthew 16:19.

The church that Jesus built had no latin mass (nor any other kind of Mass); such began A.D. 394…

The mass was instituted at the Last supper. The first Mass after the Resurrection occurred on the road to Emmaus. When Jesus broke bread with the men, they instantly recognized him as the risen Christ. The apostles continued to celebrate mass as Jesus commanded when he said, “This is my Body… This is the cup of my Blood… Take and eat…Do this in memory of me” Read about it all in Acts, Corinthians, and everywhere in the New Testament, including Revelation. For help in understanding the book of Revelation, read Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper”

.The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Transubstantiation”; such was formed in the 8th century…

The Church always had transbustantiation from the time of Jesus when he told the Apostles “take and eat… my Body and Blood” (see above). The term was defined by the church to better help people understand the mystery. It’s no different than the word “Trinity” not being in the bible but it was always there. The Church simply made the mystery easier to understand using the word.

.The church that Jesus built did not worship Mary; such was introduced in the 4th century…

The church doesn’t worship Mary and never did. If some people believe she is devine and should be worshipped then they are mistaken.


#15

continued…
.*The church that Jesus built did not use religious images and paintings; such were introduced in the 4th century…

God has blessed people from the beginning of time with gifts and talents. Good Christians wanted to express their faith by using those gifts to artistically depict bible stories and scenes in their minds. They used those gifts to spread the word about the Good News of the Gospels.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of Purgatory; such was introduced in the 5th or 6th centuries…

In Matthew 5:48 Jesus said to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” and James 3:2 says that we all fall short in many respects. 1 Corinthians 3:15 tells us that we will suffer loss, but are saved as through fire. OK, the word “purgatory” doesn’t show up, per se, but the Church has understood it all along.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Extreme Unction”; such began in the 6th Century…

Anointing of the sick is discussed in Mark 6:12-13 and James 5:14-15.

The church that Jesus built had no doctrine of “Celibacy”; such was made a regulation in the 11th* century…

Celebacy is discussed by Paul and is not a doctrine but a practice. Read 1 Corinthians 7:8, 32-35 In Matthew 19:12 Jesus praised celebacy which he practiced.

The church that Jesus built did not sell “Indulgences”; such had its roots in the early centuries, but was not fully developed until the 12th century…

We are judged according to our works. The selling of indulgences was not a doctrine but a practice that was abused by some.

The church that Jesus built did not use instruments of music in worship to God; such was introduced about 666 A.D…

Using or not using musical instruments is not a doctrine of the Church. The psalms were songs that David wrote. Music is a way to express oneself in worship of God.

The church that Jesus built did not practice “Auricular Confession”; such began in the 13th Century…

See above reference to Penance.
The church that Jesus built did not sprinkle for baptism; such was introduced in the 3rd century, but not formally adopted until 1311…

The Church has the authority to determine how baptisms are done. It has established that the proper form or words and the matter of the sacraments. For baptism the form is “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” while the matter is the pouring of water or the immersion. Again, the Church has the authority given by Jesus himself to determine the form and matter.

The church that Jesus built had no Rosary, lighting of candles, burning of incense, .

All are sacramentals, which are ways to use our senses to worship God and concentrate on our prayers to Him.

Sacraments, .

The 7 sacraments are signs that Jesus himself established while on earth. The signs are to mark us as Christian and help us receive and use God’s gift of grace to love and serve him.

.Christmas, .
We celebrate Jesus’ birth. The Incarnation of God and man. You can read about it in Luke. It’s a great story!

Easter, .
We celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. You can read about it in all four gospels. It’s the greatest story ever told!

Lent, Religious Titles, Religious vestures, choirs, prayers to dead saints, prayers for the dead, Sacramentals, Eucharist, Confirmation, or infant “Baptism” and membership, but the Roman Catholic Church has them all.

I’ve run out of time but, yes! Now you know these things were established by Jesus or practiced first by the Apostles or that Jesus gave the authority of the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church to the Apostles and their sucessors to clarify these truths!!! I think your first step is to understand the authority of the Church. Jesus only built one church and the Catholic Church is it! God Bless.


#16

[quote=UBERROGO]Something you obviously dont undestand is that Protestants feel ourselves to be the true catholics, similarly we feel the the RCC is something less/other than pure Christianity.

Also to believe that Protstants dont believe in Traditions is absurd because we have communion and Baptism etc. It does not in anyway violate Sola Sriptura to have traditions. Think Lutherans Angelicans Episcopailians.

If you think that Protestants never read the Church Fathers then you are misinformed.
[/quote]

Except that “tradition” contradicts Sola Scriptura, and Sola Scriptura violates itself as it cannot be found in the Bible.


#17

[quote=UnworthySoul]Except that “tradition” contradicts Sola Scriptura, and Sola Scriptura violates itself as it cannot be found in the Bible.
[/quote]

because the phrase sola scriptura is not in the Bible or the idea?


#18

[quote=UBERROGO]4a) The New Testament never refers to any Apocrypha books as scripture with the common designation “it is written”
[/quote]

This is often the charge of many Prots, but Jesus often makes this point to emphasize on something, and often this would hark back to the Law.

b)The Apocrypha wasnt accepted by palestinian Jews as Holy scripture as it wasnt written by prophets

Protestants also forget that the reason for this is their dispute with That Sect–which is of course Christianity.

c)The Apocrypha atests to the absents of prophets during its own time:1 Macc. 9:27
Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”

d) The deuterocanonical books were held in dispute for so long it would be hard to say they were the voice of God since they werent recognized by Christians to be His Voice

Where did you get that? Early Christians did not hold them with so much dispute, and in fact embraced them because of the rejection of the Jews on them, which made them more their own.

I’ll go over the early Church Fathers later, as it would be much longer to talk about (and I am off to work shortly).


#19

[quote=UnworthySoul]Except that “tradition” contradicts Sola Scriptura, and Sola Scriptura violates itself as it cannot be found in the Bible.
[/quote]

unfortuanately you are just blatently wrong and dont understand sola scriptura.

maybe you are thinking about solo scriptura. :stuck_out_tongue:


#20

[quote=UBERROGO]unfortuanately you are just blatently wrong and dont understand sola scriptura.

maybe you are thinking about solo scriptura. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

OK, you got me, What’s the difference between “solo” and “sola” scriptura? I’ve used the words interchangeably, thinking the Latin “sola” has evolved into the Engling “solo”.

NotWorthy


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.