|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 24, 2009 22:37:16 GMT -5
Protestants claim that the Catholic Church became "corrupt" and so therefore justify their rebellion from the One Holy Church that Jesus had established.
If, according to their theory, the Church had become corrupt, at what moment in History, what exact day, did it become corrupt? There would have to be a day that they could pinpoint and say that was the day that Jesus took away the keys of the Kingdom from St. Peter and gave them to the Protestants. What day did that supposedly occur?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 25, 2009 3:04:41 GMT -5
Good question. For many Protestants, The Church (both West and East) slowing went into corruption after the death of the Holy Apostles , mixing paganism with Christianity. As centuries went by, more and more false doctrines was being accepted by the Church.
I still don't know how one can believe that and believe in Holy Scriptures! To say the Church got corrupted after the death of the Holy Apostles is to make Jesus a liar (Matt 16:18). Can't the Holy Spirit protect His Church from error?
In IC.XC,
Ramon
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jul 26, 2009 20:51:37 GMT -5
I think that they see how "some" people involved with the Catholic Church were currupt and just catagorise the religion as a whole...for their excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 28, 2009 8:26:53 GMT -5
I think that they see how "some" people involved with the Catholic Church were currupt and just catagorise the religion as a whole...for their excuse. Exactly. There has always been corruption in Christianity (hello? 11 Apostles who actually walked with Christ abandoned Him in His time of need, not to mention the one who turned on Him). Men are corrupt, but The Church is incorruptable because it is guided by The Holy Spirit. Whoever would say that The Church is corrupt calls Christ a liar. Fact. The Church has never been corrupted. Satan has tried many times and has succeeded in breaking off many Christians away from The Church (like he did with 1/3 of The Angels, today, 1/3 of all Christians are "outside" of The Church). But, ultimately, he failed to "re-form" The Church. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 28, 2009 8:27:38 GMT -5
Good question. For many Protestants, The Church (both West and East) slowing went into corruption after the death of the Holy Apostles , mixing paganism with Christianity. As centuries went by, more and more false doctrines was being accepted by the Church. I still don't know how one can believe that and believe in Holy Scriptures! To say the Church got corrupted after the death of the Holy Apostles is to make Jesus a liar (Matt 16:18). Can't the Holy Spirit protect His Church from error? In IC.XC, Ramon Amen my EO brother! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by doxology on Jul 28, 2009 21:23:48 GMT -5
Protestants distinquish between the mystical body of Christ that is properly called the church, and the institutional church, the claim for the protestant then is not that the church proper was corrupted but only the institutional church which is composed of both wheat and chaff. However an educated protestant while seeing corruption and contradiction in the church fairily early would not say that at that instant the Catholic church was no longer the church of Christ, for the educated protestant would no doubt agree with st. Augustine when he says "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity" ... thus while they would see blemishes plagueing the bride of Christ she would be a living entity still containing within her the essential Gospel message.
Indeed an educated protestant would consider the deathknel for the church to be the council of Trent (1563) for Roman Catholicism and 1642 (council of Jassy) for the Orthodox at both councils protestant teachings were rejected but the teaching which was rejected by both these councils that the protestants believe is an essential and indeed the very essence of the Gospel is Luthers conception of Sola Fide ... faith alone ... indeed the protestants would claim that when the council of Trent placed the anathema (curse) on those who upheld sola fide they were really placing the anathema upon the Gospel and thus upon themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 29, 2009 10:13:43 GMT -5
Protestants distinquish between the mystical body of Christ that is properly called the church, and the institutional church, the claim for the protestant then is not that the church proper was corrupted but only the institutional church which is composed of both wheat and chaff. However an educated protestant while seeing corruption and contradiction in the church fairily early would not say that at that instant the Catholic church was no longer the church of Christ, for the educated protestant would no doubt agree with st. Augustine when he says "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity" ... thus while they would see blemishes plagueing the bride of Christ she would be a living entity still containing within her the essential Gospel message. Indeed an educated protestant would consider the deathknel for the church to be the council of Trent (1563) for Roman Catholicism and 1642 (council of Jassy) for the Orthodox at both councils protestant teachings were rejected but the teaching which was rejected by both these councils that the protestants believe is an essential and indeed the very essence of the Gospel is Luthers conception of Sola Fide ... faith alone ... indeed the protestants would claim that when the council of Trent placed the anathema (curse) on those who upheld sola fide they were really placing the anathema upon the Gospel and thus upon themselves. The Church (The Bride of Christ) is faultless and pure. If Jesus marries a faulty bride, be becomes faulty as well for when a man becomes one with a woman, they take on each other's characteristics. The Church must be pure (not start out pure, become soiled, then be purified again). The Church being led by The Holy Spirit is incapable of impurity. Now the members are faulty, but The Church makes them clean (the members don't make 'it' dirty).  |
|
|
|
Post by doxology on Jul 29, 2009 14:02:39 GMT -5
Absolutely the church is always a Casta Columba a pure dove ... but is the church primarily identified as the institutional church or as the mystical body ... if as the later the institutional church can become corrupted .... all that must be debated is if it can become corrupted in the essentials or not ... I not believeing it can be corrupted in the essentials.
The institutional church started out the pure field of the lord but humans who are fallen and inclined towards evil quickly began to try to contort her to their likeing ... because of the wickedness of human beings the church must constantly be reforming itself (semper reformanda) ... indeed God has often raised up true reformers for the church ... as should be contrasted with false reformers like Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, Bucer ect.
When the church is led by the holy spirit it is incapable of impurity in its doctrines, however it must be decided by the faithful when it has been led by the spirit ... have you ever heard of a robber council? It has happened in history that councils have met that have held themselves up as ecumenical but have been rejected by the church afterwards ... for example the robber council of Ephesus. So you see even councils unless they have been accepted by the body of the faithful cannot be trusted.
Further we need to clarify that when we mean the faithful we mean those guided by the holy spirit not the majority of Catholics ... for as we know scripture teaches us that though the number of the sons of Israel (that is the church) be as the sands of the sea it is the remnant that is saved ... for if the faith was of the majority then indeed arianism would have been the true faith having the majority of the faithful and the bishops.
In closing on the faithful effecting the purity of the church ... I am reminded of the Shepard of Hermas ... which I have never read, but I read the Wikipedia entry ... in the shepard of Hermas the church appears as a weak and aged woman, weak and aged from the sins of the faithful ... and as hermas does penance she grows younger and healthier ... so I disagree, I believe the members of the institutional church can harm her when left to their own devices, and when they have grace they can heal her.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 29, 2009 16:24:32 GMT -5
Amen to that.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 30, 2009 8:12:20 GMT -5
Absolutely the church is always a Casta Columba a pure dove ... but is the church primarily identified as the institutional church or as the mystical body ... if as the later the institutional church can become corrupted .... all that must be debated is if it can become corrupted in the essentials or not ... I not believeing it can be corrupted in the essentials. The institutional Church can never be corrupted. It is guided by The Holy Spirit. Which ever definition one uses (the members, the institution, a building), neither can ever be corrupted. First of all, a building is an inanimate object. It of itself can do nothing (like Jesus' example, what makes the altar holy? The altar, or the gift upon the altar?). The institution is an organization that is run by people who are guided by The Holy Spirit. It does not lead people into falseness. The members are human beings who were corrupted, but have been delivered from that by their membership in the Body of Christ. Doesn't mean they can't/won't sin, but no member can corrupt The Body of Christ. Anyone who knows Church history knows men have sinned in her name, but, there is not one incident where The Catholic Church has ever taught a false doctrine. Not one. |
|
