Help a Catholic understand Protestantism better please

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,424
113
Could you please tell me the name of this remnant?

Thanks.
In my studies, I search for people who have studied the deep sea scrolls in Jerusalem. Usually they are professors of ancient history in major colleges. There are so many centuries between us and the men who wrote explaining what they heard from God that we even think differently than they did. It takes an understanding of their understanding to read the words they used.

Also, I check a church to see what they accept of the OT. If they say everything is new I just don't go there, for God is eternal. Christ is God.

I have found some Messianic Synagogues are best. I check to be sure they believe Paul when he describes the Jewish rituals and how the gentiles should relate to them.
 
W

WimpyPete

Guest
Regardless of what denominational or non-denominational church one attends, the One True Church is the body of Christ, which is made up of all genuine born again Christians (Colossians 1:18,24) and is not simply a building with a name stamped on it. - Pillar and ground of truth
I agree. Is there someone here who is claiming that "the Church" is simply a building? I haven't heard anyone mention that

The question of course that we seem to be after is, how does one identify which of these churches is the true church?

Although many of them seem to have many elements of truth, is there one which truly is the Church Christ started?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,045
13,052
113
58
I agree. Is there someone here who is claiming that "the Church" is simply a building? I haven't heard anyone mention that
Building, as in "their organization." I've heard Roman Catholics claim that only the "Roman Catholic church" is the "true church," just like I've heard other people who attend various other churches make this same claim.
 
W

WimpyPete

Guest
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You are taking liberty with the verse as it is written. Jesus is clearly not saying that the eternal living church would be build on Peter. The original Greek thoroughly refutes this contention and the reason rome continues this error is wholly self serving.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone and we are the lively stones. Verse 5 in 1 Peter 2. Peter certainly understood what Christ was teaching even if rome denies it. Just like Judaism they covet power and lordship at the expense of truth.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Isaiah 28:16 is the OT reference.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I agree that Christ is the cornerstone, I affirmed that already, but as the verse from Ephesians I cited says, He is the headstone but the Church is still established on the foundation of the Apostles. The two are not opposed to each other.

Also, it would be interesting if you might explain in detail about how the Greek "thoroughly refutes this", I feel like a claim like that would warrent some exegetical evidence.


I think the larger disagreement here is between two different tendencies in Catholicism and Protestantism. As Catholics we tend to believe in a "both and" method, while it seems that Protestants lean more towards an "either or" method. For instance:

Protestants would say it is either the Bible or Tradition (or perhaps the Bible or the Church); faith or works; the Holy Spirit or the Pope, faith or reason, grace or freedom etc.
As Catholics however we do not see a conflict between the various realities. We think that it is both the Bible and Tradition, faith and works, the Holy Spirit and the Pope. In all these cases we believe the two hold together just as we believe Christ is both God and man. One reality need not eliminate the other.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? by Dave1988 and others from the Catholic Answers boards? No thanks. I believe Joe Mizzi from the justforcatholics.org website:

The Lie of 30000 Protestant Denominations
Well,
Let's see...

Are there more than 2???

We have

The Orthodox Chruch
The Catholic Church

That's it.

How many protestant did you say?????

see MMD, you can't understand that no matter if we're Protestant or not.

THE TRUTH MUST BE ACCEPTED.

This is also true for all that other stuff you don't really get,
but that's another thread...
 
W

WimpyPete

Guest
It seems what you are looking for is a group of men that stepped up and claimed to be the authority and distributor of all doctrine and truth as the Roman Catholic Church did, but before them. The thing is that men have no authority in that way, and Jesus ALONE is the head of HIS church. The doctrine you're looking for was described by the early church fathers, like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Papias of Hierapolis to name a few. Their writings lay out Christian doctrine pretty well in my opinion, and describe the truth His Spirit has opened my eyes and led me personally to, but this need for a man made organization to tell us what's right and wrong is a false notion found nowhere in scripture. Jesus said His Spirit will lead us to all truth, not the RCC, or the Watchtower society, or any other corruptible men. This very idea is one implanted and driven in by the RCC to keep you reliant on them and them alone, and is based on them claiming to be that and nothing else.

I'm telling you man that His Spirit is a very real thing that I can't "show" you, nor can the RCC declare you "saved" either. God has to show you, and until He does it's all just words. So as long as you love the "RCC", then no one will ever be able to lead you to truth, you have to love Jesus more and before the RCC and anything else. The RCC is not the author and distributor of all truth as they tell you they are, Jesus alone is, and if you start from scratch with no preconceived notions and read the Bible you will see how off the RCC really is, but if your only angle is defending the RCC and proving them right then there is no way you will ever see it. That goes for anyone and any ideology as well though, truly seeking God isn't as easy as it sounds. It took me losing a limb for me to even start asking questions and looking into to roots of these beliefs.

I think one of the biggest shocks I had after my eyes were open was how many groups claim to be "Christian" that are anything but. Do I represent all truth? Nope, nor does the name above the building where my church gathers, but the truth lives in each and every true believer He indwells, and there's not a man made organization out there that dictates it either, not even the RCC. I just see what you keep asking for and see it is all built on the false notions that the RCC has planted in your head. If you want truth then truly hit your knees and ask for it, because even if we gave you exactly what you're asking for it would be no different that what you already have.
Wow Jimbone, I am really amazed that you could write me a response like this after everything I have already written both to you in pm's as well as posted publicly here.

For starters, you completely missed my point in asking about the canon of the Bible, but I will address that in a moment. The thing that confuses me about this resonse is how it is that you believe that I have somehow not met Christ. That I somehow don't believe in the real activity of the Holy Spirit in the world or in my life. It seems like what you and Magenta are saying is that the only way we can properly interpret the Bible is through the Holy Spirit guiding each individual, yet when I tell you that I also invoke the guidance of the Holy Spirit and read the Scriptures you seem to deny that I even know or believe in the real activity of the Spirit, and then deny your own principle and say that my interpretation of the Scripture can't possibly be right.

I don't know what I could do to "prove" to you that I love the Lord and seek Him in my life, but none of that is even the topic at hand.

The topic that I have asked both yourself and Magenta about is regarding the very origins of the Bible. I think you all are failing to miss the big point: you take the Bible as your only guide even though you have not been able to even explain where the Bible comes from.

It is simple, if a direct communication from God is the only authority, then unless Jesus Himself gave us a list of the books of the Bible we would have no reason to believe in them.

If this is not the case, then we must trust that God works through men, as human agents, to inspire them to make infallible decisions in order for us to have an infallible list of the canon of the Bible

It is true that at least you know of the council's of Carthage and Hippo (although Magenta has still not told me about her mysterious councils of which she makes reference to) which gave us the first list of the canon of the books of the Bible, but you have not given me a reason as to why you believe that this council's decision should be authoritative. You also seem to think that this was not a council of the Catholic Church, which is why I asked you how you justify that belief, but you have not responded to that question still.


As someone who knows the Catholic Church's teachings quite well I have to say that I think you have failed to truly understand us.

Nor have you understood my point about God's desire to work through human agents; you seem to confuse this point with us replacing God with human agents.

Overall I feel pretty dissapointed that you all apparently are not even willing to try to understand Catholicism, and you simply continue to mischaracterize us and attack us according to your mischaracterizations.

I have enjoyed talking with a handful of you, and Jim, I appreciate your zeal for preaching your personal encounter with Christ, and I know that what you are saying to me is because you think that I am in need of your help to come to know Christ, but I think I have pretty well discovered that I am not being understood, nor are people here really interested in true Ecumenical dialog, so I don't expect I will post much more. Peace
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,471
12,943
113
The question of course that we seem to be after is, how does one identify which of these churches is the true church? Although many of them seem to have many elements of truth, is there one which truly is the Church Christ started?
There is only ONE true Church, and that consists of all the blood-washed saints who have been born again, whether Jew or Gentile. It is called "the general assembly and church of the firstborn" in Hebrews 12:23, and is not visible to human eyes.

However, the RCC has always claimed that it is the one true Church. Please note from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him...The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

For a non-Catholic this would not be acceptable.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
Building, as in "their organization." I've heard Roman Catholics claim that only the "Roman Catholic church" is the "true church," just like I've heard other people who attend various other churches make this same claim.
If WE want to be intellectually honest, we must agree that the Catholic Church DOES have Apostolic Succession.
The Protestant Church doe not.

We could discuss whether or not the Reformation accomplished something good or something undesirable, but we CANNOT earase history.

The Catholic Church can trace its beginnings all the way back to Peter ---- whether or not you want to call him the first Pope.

HOW do you deny history???

If you do, please explain WHERE OR WHEN the break came.
Thanks.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,045
13,052
113
58
Well,
Let's see...

Are there more than 2???

We have

The Orthodox Chruch
The Catholic Church

That's it.

How many protestant did you say?????

see MMD, you can't understand that no matter if we're Protestant or not.

THE TRUTH MUST BE ACCEPTED.

This is also true for all that other stuff you don't really get,
but that's another thread...
There is only ONE True Church and that is the BODY OF CHRIST (Colossians 1:18,24) which is made up of all genuine born again Christians, regardless of where they attend church. I accept the truth. It's you who does not get it. You claim to be Protestant, but you sound like a Protestant/Roman Catholic hybrid.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
I am not particularly interested in arguing for exact numbers, I would simply say that even if we accept 8,196 denominations that is still 8,195 denominations more than Jesus prayed for in the Garden in John 17.
I would suggest it boils down to... "how can we hear God who has no form" There were hundreds of sects or denominations when Christ was here. He is associated with the Nazarene sect or called the Way. No such thing as no sect or non denominational we walk by faith the unseen eternal and not after the fleshly oral traditions as that seen the temporal of the fathers.Those traditon of men make the authority of the word of God to effect . They say they obey the scriptures even through they seek the approval of men. But in reality the scripture are dead without the oral traditions of their fathers.

Their enemy like the apostate Jew from the Pharisees or Sadducees denominations during the first century reformation is all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) giving the word of God the authority and the person they are to seek the approval of not seen by searching the scriptures. There is not one verse that indicates we are to seek the approval f men rather than God.And no man can serve two masters in that waywe call one in heaven our Fathe not like Catholicicm and their infallible mediator Holy Father, Holy See , Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.etc

Again because they seek the approval of men they make the loving commandment to no effect

2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Their oral traditions do the same with the loving commandment a making the word of God without effect

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The thing is I believe no person or sect has a higher authority than it.This applies to the first century reformation or the fifteenth the enemy of the fathers all things written in the law and the prophet(sola scriptura). It is the tool for every reformation

Will you obey the loving comandments of Him not seen or will you seek the approval of men as that seen.Which master?
 
W

WimpyPete

Guest
You know, one last thing Jimbone, to your idea that somehow Catholics are void of any personal experience of Christ, I would really challenge you to just read the lives of someone like St. Damien of Molokai, St. Maximilian Kolby, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Teresa of Calcutta, St. John Paul II, to name only a few from recent times, and you will very quickly dismiss this myth that somehow Catholics don't have a true and deep love for the Lord and for all men and women
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
You know, one last thing Jimbone, to your idea that somehow Catholics are void of any personal experience of Christ, I would really challenge you to just read the lives of someone like St. Damien of Molokai, St. Maximilian Kolby, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Teresa of Calcutta, St. John Paul II, to name only a few from recent times, and you will very quickly dismiss this myth that somehow Catholics don't have a true and deep love for the Lord and for all men and women

Person appearances are is not the valuator of spiritual truth.(not seen the faith princible) This is even if God was still adding to His book of prophecy the Bible .God’s word alone is..All things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) is the valuator.

Why must Catholics seek the approval of men as the things of men rather than the things of God the true valuator?
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,045
13,052
113
58
If WE want to be intellectually honest, we must agree that the Catholic Church DOES have Apostolic Succession.
The Protestant Church doe not.

We could discuss whether or not the Reformation accomplished something good or something undesirable, but we CANNOT earase history.

The Catholic Church can trace its beginnings all the way back to Peter ---- whether or not you want to call him the first Pope.

HOW do you deny history???

If you do, please explain WHERE OR WHEN the break came.
Thanks.
Just for CatholicsANSWERS | HOME

Apostolic Succession

Question: The Catholic Church teaches the truth because the doctrines of Christ and the apostles have been preserved through an unbroken line of Catholic bishops. All over the world, all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations. What are your comments?

Answer: In Catholic theology, apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. Apostolic succession is supposedly the guarantee that the modern Catholic Church teaches the pure doctrines of Christ.

Now, if this rule of succession guarantees doctrinal purity, why can’t others also apply it also, say the Eastern Orthodox Church? They too rightly claim apostolic succession, and yet they contradict the Roman Church on the fundamental question of the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. Clearly something more than ‘apostolic succession’ is needed to know whether a given doctrine is true or not.

Church leaders should teach faithful men, who in turn would teach others, and hence the Gospel is transmitted from one generation to another. “The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2).

However, the mere lineal succession of bishops/elders/pastors does not in itself guarantee the preservation and purity of the original message.

First of all, the bishops are not apostles, nor do they have the same authority of the apostles. The apostles were a unique group of men who were commissioned by Christ to lay down the foundation of the church. The elders/bishops of the church are inferior to the apostles.

Moreover, the apostle Paul warned the bishops of the church of Ephesus “that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29,30). Some of the “savage wolves” originated from among the legitimate bishops of the church at Ephesus. They too would speak “perverse things.” Clearly then, even though those bishops could rightly claim “apostolic succession” (according to the Roman Catholic concept), still their doctrines were false.

Historically, the priests, Levites and the religious leaders of Israel were the "successors" of Moses and the prophets, yet by the time of Christ, they were teaching all sorts of false doctrines and had filled the house of Israel with leaven. It became necessary for the early Christians to depart from them because they were not faithfully teaching the doctrines of the Scriptures.

I hope that many Catholics will see the emptiness of the Catholic bishops’ claim to infallible authority merely because of historical lineage. They remind me of the Jewish leaders who were often bragging that they had Abraham as their father. Do you remember how John the baptist rebuked them, “And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones” (Matthew 3:9). Concerning these same successors of the Patriarchs, Jesus warned His disciples to “take heed and beware of the leaven - the doctrines - of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (Matthew 16:6).

This principle applies today as much as it ever did before. - Apostolic Succession
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,045
13,052
113
58
Just for Catholics
ANSWERS | HOME

The Church Before the Protestant Reformation

Question: Christ said that he would be with his church forever, and promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. So where was the church for fifteen hundred years before Protestantism came into the picture, since you claim that the Catholic Church had fallen into error?

Answer: Christ certainly fulfills His promises and protects His church to the very end. This blessed truth is often twisted to glorify the Roman Catholic Church as if it is the only, infallible and constant church of Christ since the days of the apostles. The argument is misleading because it falsely assumes that:

The Catholic Church was the only church before the reformation.

The Catholic Church could not have fallen into serious error.

The teaching of the modern Catholic Church is identical to that of the old Catholic church.

All three propositions are false.

1. The Roman Catholic Church was not the only church before the reformation.

The Lord preserved His people before the Reformation. The early catholic churches were neither Roman nor Greek; the division into the western and eastern churches was not complete until in the eleventh century. Yet Catholic apologists conveniently forget the Greek Orthodox Church. They too claim a succession of bishops going back to the apostolic era. Moreover, there were other Christian churches such as the Donatists, Novatians, Waldenses, the Lollards and the Hussites, who were bitterly persecuted by Catholics.

Roman theology claims that the Church is composed of those churches in submission to the bishop of Rome. However this is not the mark of a true church of Jesus Christ. As a matter of historical fact, the catholic churches in the first centuries did not recognize the bishop of Rome as the universal and infallible leader of all churches. The churches in the east, of course, never accepted the papal claim. The church of Jesus Christ is composed of all those who are faithful to Him and His Word; any local assembly is a genuine Christian church as long as it remains loyal to the teaching of the Lord and abounds in love and good works.

It is wrong to equate 'the church of Christ' (which is made up of all true believers in the different churches) with a particular institution (the Church of Rome). The two are not the same. While some Catholics are genuinely saved and are true members of Jesus' church, yet the church of Christ is not limited by the boundaries of the Roman institution. All Christians in the various churches and movements form the body of Christ. Jesus' promise to build and protect His church refers to these dear people for whom He shed His blood, and not an institution which at times descended to the very pit of hell in corruption, greed, superstition, arrogance and crass immorality.

2. The Catholic Church had fallen into serious doctrinal error.

The promise of Jesus to build and protect His church cannot be used to cover up the mistakes and false doctrines that creep into the organized church. We cannot say that since this church is a true church of Christ, all its teaching must be correct. It is enough to look at some legitimate churches in the New Testament - Corinth and the churches in the region of Galatia for instance - to see that serious errors may creep into the church. These were not sectarian or heretical; these churches were genuinely Christian, and yet the apostle Paul wrote to them to correct their doctrinal and practical errors. So, in principle, it's perfectly acceptable to say that the Catholic Church before the Reformation included a large number of genuine Christians, but that does not mean that there weren't serious doctrinal errors in the church. The Reformation was, if you like, a spring cleaning of the house of God from some of the abuses and heresies that crept in during the centuries. It was not a starting from scratch. What was good and biblical was retained, what was in error was swept away.

“Where was the church before the Reformation?” is akin to asking, “Where were you before you took a bath?” Sadly most of the Roman authorities did not repent of their erroneous ways. They lost a golden opportunity at the Council of Trent, and ended up cursing those who believe the biblical Gospel. The modern Roman church remains obstinate to this day.

3. The teaching of the modern Catholic Church is different from that of the old Catholic church.

It is easy to be deceived by words. “The Catholic Church was the church before the Reformation..." is misleading because the doctrinal character of the modern Catholic Church is altogether different from the teaching of the old Catholic churches. We can mention the evolution of the hierarchy, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. These doctrines and practices originated sooner or later in the history of the Catholic Church, but they were absent in apostolic churches and the early post-apostolic era. Rome’s latest theological novelty is the assurance that members of other religions can be saved - a theory that was flatly denied by previous popes and councils.

Things which were unknown and even condemned in the old Catholic churches are now essential and characteristic features of the modern Roman Catholic Church. There is historical continuity, of course, and the name is the same. But the substance is different!

Conclusion

The church can be compared to a vine. There are many branches connected to the main trunk, just as there are many local churches spiritually united to their head, Jesus. Over the years some branches have withered and were cut off - some churches have fallen in apostasy, just as Christ warned: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp-stand from its place—unless you repent” (Revelation 2:5). Other churches were largely destroyed by persecution. Christ promises them, “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). In either case, although these churches do not exist any longer, we would be wrong to say that they weren’t living branches of the vine. Moreover, when the vine is dressed, and branches are cut off, new branches sprout forth, and the vine remains alive. Though these branches are relatively new, they are nonetheless vitally united to the vine. The churches that arose at a later date in history are also churches of Christ if they are spiritually united to Him by the Spirit. Their vitality is shown by their faith in Christ, obedience to His Word and love for one another. On the other hand, an old branch may boast about its longevity, and yet it may be withering and produces little or no fruit. After all, there are some genuine Christians in Babylon (whom the Lord calls to come out of her), and yet Babylon itself will remain to the end until it is judged and destroyed by the Lord. - The church before the protestant reformation
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,045
13,052
113
58
Although it's not proper to tell someone that their entire church is doomed, there are certain churches that teach false gospels, which will lead all of those to their doom, who strictly follow the teachings of their church. But those who believe the true gospel of grace, and not just whatever their church teaches, are saved regardless of the group with which they are associated.

Conversely, one's church may preach the true gospel of grace. If one believes that gospel, then one has eternal salvation. But if one does not believe it, then one is lost even though the official teaching of one's church is correct.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
There is only ONE True Church and that is the BODY OF CHRIST (Colossians 1:18,24) which is made up of all genuine born again Christians, regardless of where they attend church. I accept the truth. It's you who does not get it. You claim to be Protestant, but you sound like a Protestant/Roman Catholic hybrid.
Why is it important to you what I am???

The reformation has caused much upheavel in Christianity.

There were only two churches before the Reformation.
NOW there are thousands.

Jesus wanted us to be ONE. Not thousands.

“Brothers and Sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas [Peter],” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?.
1 Corinthians 1;10-13

Instead look at what we have.
We cannot even love each other because of our differences.
YOU, who says that there is only one Church ACCUSES me of not being Protestant.

You're in denial...
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,370
113
If WE want to be intellectually honest, we must agree that the Catholic Church DOES have Apostolic Succession.
The Protestant Church doe not.

We could discuss whether or not the Reformation accomplished something good or something undesirable, but we CANNOT earase history.

The Catholic Church can trace its beginnings all the way back to Peter ---- whether or not you want to call him the first Pope.

HOW do you deny history???

If you do, please explain WHERE OR WHEN the break came.
Thanks.
Pope is not Peter successor, Peter never in Rome

history not always true, depend on who wrote

For example History of Indonesian 1965 cup

according to Indonesian government it done by communist party

according to Western media and professor Ben Anderson and some Indonesian scholar, It is CIA cup, want to replace President Sukarno, because he is not agree with un policy and out from UN.
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,370
113
Why is it important to you what I am???

The reformation has caused much upheavel in Christianity.

There were only two churches before the Reformation.
NOW there are thousands.

Jesus wanted us to be ONE. Not thousands.

“Brothers and Sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas [Peter],” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?.
1 Corinthians 1;10-13

Instead look at what we have.
We cannot even love each other because of our differences.
YOU, who says that there is only one Church ACCUSES me of not being Protestant.

You're in denial...
Jesus want one? And that is catholic because pope is Peter successor?
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
Just for Catholics
ANSWERS | HOME

The Church Before the Protestant Reformation

Question: Christ said that he would be with his church forever, and promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. So where was the church for fifteen hundred years before Protestantism came into the picture, since you claim that the Catholic Church had fallen into error?

Answer: Christ certainly fulfills His promises and protects His church to the very end. This blessed truth is often twisted to glorify the Roman Catholic Church as if it is the only, infallible and constant church of Christ since the days of the apostles. The argument is misleading because it falsely assumes that:

The Catholic Church was the only church before the reformation.

The Catholic Church could not have fallen into serious error.

The teaching of the modern Catholic Church is identical to that of the old Catholic church.

All three propositions are false.

1. The Roman Catholic Church was not the only church before the reformation.

The Lord preserved His people before the Reformation. The early catholic churches were neither Roman nor Greek; the division into the western and eastern churches was not complete until in the eleventh century. Yet Catholic apologists conveniently forget the Greek Orthodox Church. They too claim a succession of bishops going back to the apostolic era. Moreover, there were other Christian churches such as the Donatists, Novatians, Waldenses, the Lollards and the Hussites, who were bitterly persecuted by Catholics.

Roman theology claims that the Church is composed of those churches in submission to the bishop of Rome. However this is not the mark of a true church of Jesus Christ. As a matter of historical fact, the catholic churches in the first centuries did not recognize the bishop of Rome as the universal and infallible leader of all churches. The churches in the east, of course, never accepted the papal claim. The church of Jesus Christ is composed of all those who are faithful to Him and His Word; any local assembly is a genuine Christian church as long as it remains loyal to the teaching of the Lord and abounds in love and good works.

It is wrong to equate 'the church of Christ' (which is made up of all true believers in the different churches) with a particular institution (the Church of Rome). The two are not the same. While some Catholics are genuinely saved and are true members of Jesus' church, yet the church of Christ is not limited by the boundaries of the Roman institution. All Christians in the various churches and movements form the body of Christ. Jesus' promise to build and protect His church refers to these dear people for whom He shed His blood, and not an institution which at times descended to the very pit of hell in corruption, greed, superstition, arrogance and crass immorality.

2. The Catholic Church had fallen into serious doctrinal error.

The promise of Jesus to build and protect His church cannot be used to cover up the mistakes and false doctrines that creep into the organized church. We cannot say that since this church is a true church of Christ, all its teaching must be correct. It is enough to look at some legitimate churches in the New Testament - Corinth and the churches in the region of Galatia for instance - to see that serious errors may creep into the church. These were not sectarian or heretical; these churches were genuinely Christian, and yet the apostle Paul wrote to them to correct their doctrinal and practical errors. So, in principle, it's perfectly acceptable to say that the Catholic Church before the Reformation included a large number of genuine Christians, but that does not mean that there weren't serious doctrinal errors in the church. The Reformation was, if you like, a spring cleaning of the house of God from some of the abuses and heresies that crept in during the centuries. It was not a starting from scratch. What was good and biblical was retained, what was in error was swept away.

“Where was the church before the Reformation?” is akin to asking, “Where were you before you took a bath?” Sadly most of the Roman authorities did not repent of their erroneous ways. They lost a golden opportunity at the Council of Trent, and ended up cursing those who believe the biblical Gospel. The modern Roman church remains obstinate to this day.

3. The teaching of the modern Catholic Church is different from that of the old Catholic church.

It is easy to be deceived by words. “The Catholic Church was the church before the Reformation..." is misleading because the doctrinal character of the modern Catholic Church is altogether different from the teaching of the old Catholic churches. We can mention the evolution of the hierarchy, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. These doctrines and practices originated sooner or later in the history of the Catholic Church, but they were absent in apostolic churches and the early post-apostolic era. Rome’s latest theological novelty is the assurance that members of other religions can be saved - a theory that was flatly denied by previous popes and councils.

Things which were unknown and even condemned in the old Catholic churches are now essential and characteristic features of the modern Roman Catholic Church. There is historical continuity, of course, and the name is the same. But the substance is different!

Conclusion

The church can be compared to a vine. There are many branches connected to the main trunk, just as there are many local churches spiritually united to their head, Jesus. Over the years some branches have withered and were cut off - some churches have fallen in apostasy, just as Christ warned: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp-stand from its place—unless you repent” (Revelation 2:5). Other churches were largely destroyed by persecution. Christ promises them, “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10). In either case, although these churches do not exist any longer, we would be wrong to say that they weren’t living branches of the vine. Moreover, when the vine is dressed, and branches are cut off, new branches sprout forth, and the vine remains alive. Though these branches are relatively new, they are nonetheless vitally united to the vine. The churches that arose at a later date in history are also churches of Christ if they are spiritually united to Him by the Spirit. Their vitality is shown by their faith in Christ, obedience to His Word and love for one another. On the other hand, an old branch may boast about its longevity, and yet it may be withering and produces little or no fruit. After all, there are some genuine Christians in Babylon (whom the Lord calls to come out of her), and yet Babylon itself will remain to the end until it is judged and destroyed by the Lord. - The church before the protestant reformation
History rewritten.

By an internet site that YOU agree with.
Learn some real history.

Learn what happened immediately after Jesus died.
Learn what the early theologians, taught about Christianity.
Certainly not the easy believism that is spewed out in churches today as "truth".

THERE IS NO TRUTH in EASY BELIEVISM.

Jesus did not die so you could teach doctrine that is not correct.

If you're interested in knowing what the early Church was like, I'll post a link.
The early Christians knew the Apostles and learned from them.
Compare how differently we live today.
We would not even be RECOGNIZED as Christias.

A Love without Condition - History of the Early Church - Early Church.com