Who's on First?

[LIST]
]One anomaly that comes to mind between the Catholic vs Protestant situation comes
down to one question for me: Who Is In Control Here? According to Protestantism, as
far as I am aware, the Roman Catholic Church is wrong, but curiously, the Protestant
Movement didn’t start until the 15th Century, right?
.
]Now the Apostles all lived up until around the end of the 1st Century, Protestants are okay
with the first few centuries after, then somehow the Protestant position is that the Church
somehow went wrong. Again: The Protestant Movement started around 15th Century. So
that would mean that for ten to fifteen thousand years, Christ’s Church was in some way
lost to the Earth.
.
]It wasn’t in the Roman Catholic Church, it was not in any of the Orthodox Churches
(Ethiopian, Coptic, Eastern, etc.), it wasn’t among any of the heretical sects, God’s
Church seems to have disappeared from the Earth.
[RIGHT] Now we get to the 1500s (16th Century)…
[/RIGHT]
]Then came Martin Luther (du–du–du–duuuh!), suddenly the correct Bible
came, people broke free from the donkey herd of bishops and Popes,
England’s Churches became subject at last to its King of England,
people sailed off to the New World, bunch of new more correct
Christianities sprouted up and came also the wacky cults

.
*]This is confusing, how is that the Church which Christ
established and said that the Gates of Hell would not
prevail against it?
.
*]Let me now return to my
main question: Who’s in
charge here?
.
*]The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to be guiding Christ’s True
Church and I’m sure many Protestants would say the same thing, but HOW is the
Holy Spirit guiding? History shows the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church e―
ven in hard and dark times, but things only seemed to get darker in Protestantism.
[/LIST]

It seems that as soon as Man tried to fix the Church, move away from the Church, found
Newer–er Churches, write bibles by himself, try to interpret Scripture by himself, without
that raggedy Old Church telling him how, things REALLY got freaky.

Always and everywhere:

The Holy Spirit unites.

The demon divides.

Abbott: Strange as it may seem, they give ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

Costello: Funny names?

Abbott: Nicknames, nicknames. Now, on the St. Louis team we have Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know is on third–

Costello: That’s what I want to find out. I want you to tell me the names of the fellows on the St. Louis team.

Abbott: I’m telling you. Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know is on third–

Costello: You know the fellows’ names?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well, then who’s playing first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow’s name on first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The fellow playin’ first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first base.

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: Well, what are you askin’ me for?

Abbott: I’m not asking you–I’m telling you. Who is on first.

Costello: I’m asking you–who’s on first?

Abbott: That’s the man’s name.

Costello: That’s who’s name?

Abbott: Yes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar of it. And why not, the man’s entitled to it.

Costello: Who is?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: So who gets it?

Abbott: Why shouldn’t he? Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who’s wife?

Abbott: Yes. After all, the man earns it.

Costello: Who does?

Abbott: Absolutely.

Costello: Well, all I’m trying to find out is what’s the guy’s name on first base?

Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base.

Costello: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

Abbott: Who’s on first!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: St. Louis has a good outfield?

Abbott: Oh, absolutely.

Costello: The left fielder’s name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I don’t know, I just thought I’d ask.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I’d tell you.

Costello: Then tell me who’s playing left field?

Abbott: Who’s playing first.

Costello: Stay out of the infield! The left fielder’s name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because.

Abbott: Oh, he’s center field.

Costello: Wait a minute. You got a pitcher on this team?

Abbott: Wouldn’t this be a fine team w i t h o u t a pitcher?

Costello: Tell me the pitcher’s name.

Abbott: Tomorrow.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Costello: Now, when the guy at bat bunts the ball–me being a good catcher–I want to throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

Abbott: Now, that’s he first thing you’ve said right.

Costello: I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!

Abbott: Don’t get excited. Take it easy.

Costello: I throw the ball to first base, whoever it is grabs the ball, so the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don’t know. I don’t know throws it back to tomorrow–a triple play.

Abbott: Yeah, it could be.

Costello: Another guy gets up and it’s a long ball to center.

Abbott: Because.

Costello: Why? I don’t know. And I don’t care.

Abbott: What was that?

Costello: I said, I DON’T CARE!

Abbott: Oh, that’s our shortstop!

Ah, glad you got the reference. :smiley:

[/LIST]
Before anybody calls me out: I MEANT [size=6]HUNDRED ![/size]If any moderator/administrator
shows up and sees this, I’d
appreciate it much if that
was edited for me if
at all possible
please!
:blushing:

All good questions.

Could you redo this post in a few hours when more people on the forum are online. I think you’d get a ton of posts in response just at a different time of the day.

You left several key things out of your inquirey: First, the Great Schism between the Roman and Orthodox Churches in the Eleventh Century, and the nominal cause of Luther’s rebellion.
The Great Schism was caused by many complex things, but in the final analysis, regardless of fancy intellectual arguments, was caused by the sin of pride on both sides.
Luther rebelled because of huge levies on all the individual parishes and Dioceses of Europe and elsewhere plus the actual selling of Indulgences, to fund the building of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. When Luther travelled to Rome to the Pope, he got no where and was appalled by the pomp and luxurious lifestyles of the Roman Clergy as compared to the rather austere lifestyle demanded of the Clergy in Germany.
It was after this trip that he wrote his theses and broke with Rome. Ordinarily, the local nobility would have stepped in at the request of the local Bishop and suppressed any such clerical rebellion as heresy. Heresy, in those days was considered to be on a par with treason, and usually resulted in death by the civil powers.
However, the Church in the various German States at that time was land rich due to centuries of people leaving land to the Church upon their deaths. This land, when owned by the Church was not allowed to be taxed by the ruling nobility, and the Church received enormous untaxed revenue from the rental of such lands.
This made the ruling nobility more than a little greedy, and when Luther rebelled, he looked the other way when the nobility, throughout what is now the Protestant part of Germany, siezed Church owned land for their own uses.
Without the greed of the local nobility, Luther would not have lasted a year after he published his theses.
Only the Kingdom’s of Bavaria and Saxony remained loyally Catholic - and are Catholic to this very day.

My head hurts…:thumbsup::slight_smile:

Gotta love that classic skit :smiley:

Perhaps I can help clear up a point here and there from this particular protestant’s perspective, just to help understanding.

As to Who is in control; God is. It is our human failing to misinterpret or misapply scripture, it is our human failing to misinterpret or misapply tradition, etc… Further, there are other reasons that the Reformation took off when it did, and we don’t suppose that Luther was the first not to see eye-to-eye with Rome. As has already been pointed out, there were splits before that, and also disagreements within Rome itself.
.

*]Now the Apostles all lived up until around the end of the 1st Century, Protestants are okay
with the first few centuries after, then somehow the Protestant position is that the Church
somehow went wrong. Again: The Protestant Movement started around 15th Century. So
that would mean that for ten to fifteen thousand years, Christ’s Church was in some way
lost to the Earth.

This is where I think the biggest difference comes in; we are all for what the Apostles taught, but we also know from the very beginning, their teachings were corrupted in the places they taught. Just look at “we should sin so that grace can abound” or the letter to the Galatians. Paul not only taught that there were already false teachings in the congregations, but that it would get worse.

Paul himself warned that if even he, or anyone, even an angel, preached a different gospel to let them be accursed. That shows the possibility of him preaching error; do I believe he did? No, but he tells us it is possible, and that if he ever does try to present a different gospel, not to heed him. We have Peter misbehaving in a manner contrary to the gospel and Paul furious at him for it. I believe this is why Protestants are pretty straightforward about checking teachings and tradition against something that doesn’t shift and change; the actual teachings in the manuscripts that we have.
.

*]It wasn’t in the Roman Catholic Church, it was not in any of the Orthodox Churches
(Ethiopian, Coptic, Eastern, etc.), it wasn’t among any of the heretical sects, God’s
Church seems to have disappeared from the Earth.
[RIGHT] Now we get to the 1500s (16th Century)…
[/RIGHT]

Most protestants like me believe there is always a remnant, and that the biggest issue is the gospel message. There have always been keepers of the faith. It is comparable to the old covenant during times when men no longer followed God; there is always at least one person who does.

*]This is confusing, how is that the Church which Christ
established and said that the Gates of Hell would not
prevail against it?

Jesus also wondered If, that when He came back, would He find faith on the earth.

This is an interesting concept, and one that I think you need to explore, Kliska.

You say “if [Paul] ever does try to present a different gospel”…

…how would one know if it’s a different gospel? :confused:

Is it because one knows what the gospel is first through Sacred Tradition, and the Church?

:yup:

That would be the only way that it makes sense that one could hear words from St. Paul and discern, “That’s different from that which I know from Sacred Tradition, therefore it must be false!”.

Otherwise, the paradigm is: if Paul said it, it’s the gospel.

Actually no, we know it because it is written in the manuscripts that can be put through text crit and vetted.

So what if what Paul wrote was “a different gospel”? How would we know? It would be different from…what?

Also, what “text crit” do you use? From where do we get the criteria?

Tbe gospel as testified to in all the writings currently comprising the collection we label as “The New Testament”… and the Old actually.

“I know what’s a different gospel because it’s something that’s declared that’s different from what’s in the gospel.” :confused:

How do you know what belongs in the collection of the NT?

There were over 400 books/letters/texts that could have been included in this collection.

How did they discern which ones were preaching a different gospel?

Reformation versus Restoration.

Most Protestants hold to the former, some denominations like the JWS and the LDS hold to the former.

At least traditional Protestants, Anglicans, and Lutherans DO NOT believe that the church dissapeared or needed to be restored. The reformers largely wanted to go back to the pure gospel, before the innovations. Reformation not restoration.

If you read the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Lutheran theologians main thesis as presented to the Emperor was that they weren’t starting anything new. These teachings have been around since the beginning…

Sola Scriptura couldn’t have been around “since the beginning” as there was no New Testament for 400 years.

The Christians in the year, say 250, never consulted a Bible in order to discern doctrine. They consulted Tradition and the Church.

Actually there was a New Testament. The letters of the New Testament were written and circulating from the early second century.

And the books of the NT were heavily quoted by the fathers from the early second century.

Try again. :wink: How did the Jews check to see if what was being verbally reported did not contradict OT teachings? By searching the scriptures. For example, if one studies Isaiah, Genesis, etc… we can see that the gospel teachings line up with the OT. Remember sola scriptura does not deny or discount tradition or oral teaching

For example, if someone was trying to say that the Messiah was not of the Davidic line the OT scriptures would correct them, and they would know that person was wrong.

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.