Will Someone answer

Besides the Catholic Church, (not including eastern churches)
can any Protestant prove that they have a historical link to Early Christianity? As far as I can see, ALL protestant beliefs began in the 16th century and have NO relation to early Christian teachings. Please prove with either beliefs, structure, or authority of early Christians.

How can one claim true interpretation when early Christianity, which was close to Apostolic teachings is so different from modern Protestantism.

Nobody seems to ever answer my questions. They simply give bible verses that have absolutely no relation to the questions asked or bash the CC so as to avoid the question.

You’re not going to get much of an answer as early church history is basically repressed in most protestant traditions. Most are simply unaware - and happily so, tragically.

The Baptists think they do, but they have to do a lot of acrobatics with logic and sleight of hand with facts to get to that conclusion.

I don’t think it’s because they won’t answer your question, but more likely that they can’t, simply because it’s not true. The RCC is the One True Faith, carried to us through the ages since Christ walked the Earth.

You can’t defend something that has no basis in truth.


“To research early Christian history is to become Catholic”

or, “to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant.”

The Protestant Churches of the Reformation came out of the existing Church in the west (the Catholic Church). That is the link to the early church, through the Catholic Church. Based on their reading of Scripture, the Reformers simply believed (rightly or wrongly depending on your viewpoint) that the Catholic Church at the time had departed from the plain meaning of Scripture. Not too hard to understand, whether you agree with the Reformer’s position or not.

But, rr1213, your not answering the question.

Can you show any historical evidence that protestant beliefs, which diverged from Catholic beliefs beginning in the sixteenth centurt, have any support in early Christian history?

Can you show apostolic succession in your hierarchy that has always remained united?

…in other words, take any teaching that protestants have which differs from the Church and give us some historical quotes from the early Christians that back up this teaching in opposition to what the Church teaches.

I am sure you can find a few…

I honestly don’t see where this is going? I cannot think off the top of my head of any Protestant links to the ancient church. Why does it matter?


It matters a great deal if one is concerned with whether or not they are following the Church that Jesus Christ established over 2000 years ago, or one that was made up by sinfull men only 500+ years ago.

Your choice. I choose to go with the real deal myself.


It matters because it was the question the OP asked, that’s all. Of course, there is the matter of whether one is doing the will of Christ or one’s own will, too.

It matters because Protestants claim that CC has changed Christianity and “invented” their beliefs.

Well, history shows otherwise.

Protestant claim that all teaching necessary is in the Bible. Well, who is to interpret the bible and how are we to know that interpretation is correct.

They simply disregard the fact that Early Christians NEVER held their views.

So instead of admitting that they have deviated from Early Christianity they attack the Catholic Church as being corrupt and assume that their interpration of the bible is correct.

It matters to Protestants who think that it is important. Many of your non-liturgical Protestant Churches will simply say that they can read Scripture as well as the Catholic Church, maybe better, and that what they are doing is more in line with what they read than what the Catholics are doing. More liturgical Churches, especially the Anglican and Lutheran Churches, generally have more of a concept that they have a direct lineage to the ancient Church which, admittedly, runs through the Catholic Church. The Anglican Churches, for example, even hold themselves out as being the third branch of the Catholic Church, the other two branches being the Catholic Church as it is known in these forums and the Orthodox Churches. Everyone, I believe, realizes that the Catholic Church does not hold to the foregoing Protestant viewpoints but that’s certainly not news.

With all due respect, this is all up for debate, or it could be an over interperation of scripture about Peter. As far as the reformation being made up of “sinfull men” well is that not judging? I personally feel that God did work through Martin Luther and other reformers because the RCC was very corrupt and evil, and history shows us that.

All I know is that Jesus Christ is the “real deal” no one comes to the Father except through him.


Hi, Liza!

You are correct… that is, except for the “R” part. :wink:

Please don’t exclude those of us who are members of one of the other 22 sui iuris Churches who, together with and in full communion with our Roman Catholic brethren, make up the One True Faith that is the Catholic Church.

There you go again claiming that the Reformation had to happen because the CC was sinful.

Yes the Catholic Church was sinful, BUT the Reformers did not break because of sin they tried to redfine what Christianity was.

Their brand of Christianity has NO historical basis from the Early Church, ergo their interpretation are simply modern misinterpretations.

Just because the Church was filled with sinners does not mean that its teachings were corrupted.

Protestants claim that the CC teachings were corrupted but history doesn’t show this.

The teachings of Jesus are very important and we should make sure we have the correct ones, not simply modern misinterpration that are palatable to modern ears.

I think that the problem we run into at times is that some Churches not in communion with Rome also consider themselves to be Catholic. The Anglican Churches would be the best example, but there are no doubt others. So, in that case, describing the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church is a way of distinguishing what Churches are being discussed without conceeding the Catholic Church’s stance that the rest of us are not Catholic. I also understand that this creates difficulties for those Churches in communion with Rome who are not of the Latin Rite, but I’m not sure what the answer is. I think to some extent the words used depend on the audience to which you are speaking. Here, I generally refer to the Catholic Church. Elsewhere, I might say the Roman Catholic Church.

You’re still avoiding the question, obviously. We all know that Catholics and protestants will disagree on interpretations of Scripture. The question was - can you show any evidence that the early Christians would support a Protestant interpretation of Scripture or belief that differs from the Catholic belief?

Nope. They, too, broke from Catholic belief and tradition. The question was one of continual unity and not of schism.

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.