If the church was in hiding ...

If the church Jesus founded was in hiding for over a thousand years (as alleged by some here), can we try to trace its timeline?

  1. When did it go into hiding?
  2. What happened while it was in hiding?
  3. How do we know?
  4. When did it come out?

placido

Sorry, my cat must have hidden it. She does that. It’s there and then poof gone for hours, days so why not a thousand years?

Best explanation I’ve got.

You will get nothing but the sound of crickets chirping with this thread.

Another great question to ask members of a “true Church” that was in hiding is to name a member of their church that existed in a random century. 5th century? 6th century? 7th century? 13th century? More crickets chirping.
History has recorded some pretty obscure things, so it would be amazing that there is no record of any kind of a single person living who was a member of your church if it actually existed prior to the time some guy invented it :shrug:

It must’ve been a righteousness held by individuals and passed down through the genes. Or else it was taught by a few good men to a few good men, and held secret until it was safe to come out.

Of course, all of those righteous men were Catholics – unless those who think the real Church was in hiding was being kept alive by non-Christians.

So, generations of Catholics (presumably just a few good men) within the Catholic Church, kept the church hidden until one of them, Luther (a Catholic) decided to tell everyone that it was he was the one God had entrusted with teaching authority, not the Church.

Elsewise, they could be saying that there was no true Christian church on earth from Constantine (or before) until God’s new revelation to Luther (which had to be personal revelation if you accept the Bible as truth), which became accepted as equal to Biblical revelation and Sacred Tradition in the minds and hearts of his followers.

I’m not sure what they actually believe, but it all sounds like a sci/fi-Harry Potter cloak of invisibility theory–something remains but is unseen (Gate 9.5, was it?) . Or else it’s a Bermuda triangle-like situation in which it disappears from radar only to reappear more than a thousands years later, unable to account for the lost time.

Honestly there is no rational explanation. The Catholic Church was truly the universal church for a millenia

Well duh, but its fun to watch them squirm as they try to make up an answer. Okay, that was not charitable of me at all :stuck_out_tongue:

Maybe the “true” Church is still in the catacombs awaiting word from Germany or Grace Community that it is safe to emerge.:winter:

(Reminds me of Sir Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman in “Marathon Man”—“Is it safe?”:ehh:)

I think that most of us who are Protestant do not believe the church was in hiding…it was quite visible as those who had faith in Christ and sought to worship God in spirit and in truth existed as the People of God in the existing institutional organization.

**No one can hide the Truth!
**
It’s the never ending mistake that uses flawed logic to say; “because the Catholic Church has sinners in it, it cannot be the true Church.”

If that were true, then the same Christians must believe that Jesus isn’t the Messiah because the men He personally chose and trained as His Apostles were all sinners and failed Him many times.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

Okay, but do we have some names? Did they agree with or did they oppose the doctrines of the “existing institutional organization”? How do we know?

placido

My “righteous few” theory is correct, then. Of course they were Catholics. :slight_smile:

which one was in hiding? there are so many of them. the baptists, AG, presbyterians,?

Yea, it is important to note that literally thousands of denominations make the claim that they always existed but were in hiding. Such variety! Yet not one can name a person of their church that existed.

According to the “church-was-in-hiding” theory, all non-Catholic churches are “One True Church” (regardless “the minor” differences).
Yes, I know the theory in based on a fake history (outright fiction).

placido

I had a Baptist minister tell me that Baptists come from John the Baptist. I then called him unclean because we were at a multi-church picnic and he was eating ham and John the Baptist was an essenic Jew.

  1. About the time John wrote about it from the Isle of Patmos.
  2. It was “in the wilderness,” and the “beast” was allowed to have power: (Revelation 13:7) “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”
  3. John saw it happen in vision, and wrote down his vision, and you read the vision in the book of Revelation.
  4. It comes out of hiding when you find it and have the same gifts of the Spirit that John had and that Paul had, and see with new eyes, and have a new birth–a second birth.

Okay, at last we have a working document - and this promises to be a lively discussion.
1.The Church went into hiding “about” the time John was exiled in the Island of Patmos. That was “about” 200 years before Emperor Constantine. That was “about” 300 years before the canonization of Scriptures. Now was Scriptures canonized by “the-church-in-hiding” or by the “false church” that had a free hand those years?
2.Fine, you quoted Scripture, but where is your historical evidence?
3.This is so vague that I as the OP declare it as a nullity.
4.As vague as the previous one – a nullity.

placido

Placido,
I was being deliberately vague. So was John, as you have noted by your questions.

The canonization of scriptures did not make them scriptures. The revelation by the Holy Spirit made them the word of God, and those words were scripture at that point, when the words were first written down. The canonization could have been done by anyone who found the writings and decided to canonize them. It is not the same thing, nor the same event.

The historical evidence happened continously after the deaths of the apostles.

If all this is a nullity for you, then that is fine with me. I was merely attempting to provide you a way to find answers to your own questions. Have a good day.

You mean it is under the mountain waiting on Barbarossa’s beard to grow three times around the table?

yes, i know the presbyterians claim to be the catholic church along with the others but not the Catholic Church though. whatever this means. they have this aversion of the CC that they themselves cannot explain, just that the CC is idolatrous.

does protestants know what is idolatry? or they just go by what the Bible says literally?

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.