Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[BreadOfLife]

LOL - your little go to copy and paste post that you have posted Repeatedly (and become a forum joke) is full of your words...and the Scriptures DO NOT verify your claims.

I can flat out say YOU ARE not qualified to determine which Scriptures Apply to me and Which Scriptures Do NOT APPLY to me...
Even when YOU open your yap and pretend You have the authority to MAKE false claims For Me. Sadly you are too dense to comprehend that you making false claims for others Makes you a liar....and sadly you seem quite content with being a liar, and everyone knows that about you.

UGH!

Glory to God,
Taken

Then, why don't you at least TRY to refute what I posted??

The fact is that you can't.
Some "joke" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL- A LIAR on a mission to stamp out Lies...

Your best joke yet BOL ...ha ha ha

Glory to God,
Taken

Yet you can't name ONE . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The word in Greek is ambiguous, εἴδωλον, and can mean either an image not used for worship or one that is.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Ummmm, Genesis wasn't written in Greek . . .

 

[Taken]

Yet you can't name ONE . . .

LOL

OP ---> BOL unproven claims....23 Pages and still not one shred of evidence of me claiming;

1 John 1:
[8] (to) have no sin...

However you have claimed that "For Me" numerous times....which is you Lying and makes you a Liar.

The Fact is, I never made that claim.
You made up that lie, you spoke that lie, that lie makes you a liar.

So prove you are not a liar...
Quote "me" making that claim.

YOU CAN'T, so the description of liar fits you.

And you say you are here to stamp out lies....
Ha ha ha. Ain't you the comedian!

Glory To God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Then, why don't you at least TRY to refute what I posted??

The fact is that you can't.

The fact is OTHERS and I have already refuted your go to copy and paste explanation and you just copy and paste again. Guess you didn't notice you are on the WOT list.
It's called let the ignorant be ignorant.

Glory To God,
Taken

 

[Giuliano]

Ummmm, Genesis wasn't written in Greek . . .

Thanks for that tidbit of information, oh wise one. Ha, ha, stupid and ignorant little me, I'd have never guessed that. Did you click on the link? If you had, you would have reached the website that gave that information. The computer software automatically provided "Genesis 1:1" -- not me. Try clicking on links, eh? Here it is again if you want to learn about the Greek word: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Here are some passages that were written in Greek -- where "idols" could also be translated "images":

1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols<images>, even as ye were led.

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols<images>? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

1 Thessalonians 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols<images>to serve the living and true God;

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols<images>. Amen.

Ha, ha @ "dumb images." But they "educate" people. I'm still chuckling at that one, and wondering if you think Catholic schools hire human teachers or if pictures and statues teach the children.

 

[Giuliano]

The Council of Constantinople decided the best way to refute the heresies of

• Eutychianism (Jesus had one nature)
• Macedonianism, (semi-Arianism)
• Sabellianism (denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit)
• and Apollinaris-ism (denied the proper humanity of Christ)

was to AMEND the Creed, they didn't "alter" it. They had the authority to do that.

I thought there was an anathema promised to anyone who changed the creed. So much for Ecumenical Councils making decisions that settle anything once and for all. Somebody's sure to come along and want to add something or subtract something.

Saying you can add something without altering it makes no sense. Then the more things got changed, the claim was that nothing was really changed. People can claim they have the authority to change things; but they are undermining their own credibility if they claim they changed nothing.

The essence of original truths remain constant FROM THE BEGINNING or they are not divinely revealed truths. Development does not mean "change". This is a good example of how doctrines develop. The main reason doctrine must develop is because they are challenged!

I'd call it adding to the truth once delivered to the saints. Why not be satisfied with what the Apostles had?

The doctrine of the Trinity came into greater bloom at the Council of Chalcedon, and it's verdicts are accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics.

I'd say the Catholic Church and the Orthodox were confused, and when the Protestants came along, things got more confused, as confused as people were at the Tower of Babel. Why not stay on earth and be content with what the Apostles knew and said? Why try to know more than they did by building a tower of theology up into Heaven? Why not be content to love God and our neighbors? Why try to discern the "secret things" of God?

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Christianity was tempted by the same fruit Eve had been. "Let us be as wise as God." What good did any of it do? The people who tried to discern the secret things of God at these councils would have spent their time better visiting prisons and doing other good works, things they knew were right.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

[GodsGrace]

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to
the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths
contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
faith.
​

Dogmas are not expounded thoughts or concepts.

Difference Between Doctrine and Dogma

What do you mean E,
Dogmas come about without thinking about them?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks for that tidbit of information, oh wise one. Ha, ha, stupid and ignorant little me, I'd have never guessed that. Did you click on the link? If you had, you would have reached the website that gave that information. The computer software automatically provided "Genesis 1:1" -- not me. Try clicking on links, eh? Here it is again if you want to learn about the Greek word: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Here are some passages that were written in Greek -- where "idols" could also be translated "images":

1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols<images>, even as ye were led.

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols<images>? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

1 Thessalonians 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols<images>to serve the living and true God;

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols<images>. Amen.

Ha, ha @ "dumb images." But they "educate" people. I'm still chuckling at that one, and wondering if you think Catholic schools hire human teachers or if pictures and statues teach the children.

Your historical ignorance is noted.

Here is some proof for my argument from BibleGateway.com – which is a PROTESTANT site:

Engaging Scripture Through Art
Virtually every biblical account has been visually portrayed at least once and usually many times throughout history and across cultures. In museums, galleries, churches, cathedrals, and homes around the world, such works of art are helping people gain a deeper understanding of the Scriptures.

Visual art, including stained glass, sculptures, and paintings, was incredibly important in Medieval times when most people were illiterate. The Bible was unavailable except to the very upper classes (who were more likely to be able to read), but by using the visual arts the biblical account was made available for everyone. Biblical art was known as biblia paupernum or “the Bible of the poor.”

As I schooled you before – works of art have ALWAYS been used to educate those who could not read or write.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The fact is OTHERS and I have already refuted your go to copy and paste explanation and you just copy and paste again. Guess you didn't notice you are on the WOT list.
It's called let the ignorant be ignorant.

Glory To God,
Taken

Not ONE refutation. A few attempts from others but nothing from YOU.

I wonder WHY that is . . .

 

[Giuliano]

Your historical ignorance is noted.

Here is some proof for my argument from BibleGateway.com – which is a PROTESTANT site:

Engaging Scripture Through Art
Virtually every biblical account has been visually portrayed at least once and usually many times throughout history and across cultures. In museums, galleries, churches, cathedrals, and homes around the world, such works of art are helping people gain a deeper understanding of the Scriptures.

Visual art, including stained glass, sculptures, and paintings, was incredibly important in Medieval times when most people were illiterate. The Bible was unavailable except to the very upper classes (who were more likely to be able to read), but by using the visual arts the biblical account was made available for everyone. Biblical art was known as biblia paupernum or “the Bible of the poor.”

As I schooled you before – works of art have ALWAYS been used to educate those who could not read or write.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

I see they note "in Medieval times." I'm still waiting for evidence that early churches had statues and paintings. You can say "always" all you want, but where's the evidence?

Very interesting read from an evangelical Protestant author. I loved this part:

It is inappropriate to simply accept a piece of biblical art without discernment. All art portrays the artist’s faith and spirituality (because we are spiritual beings), so all art is in some way flawed (because humans are flawed). Though biblical art can help us to see more clearly what a passage is communicating, it is the Scriptures, as God’s Word, that are the ultimate authority.

Remember that biblical art, as a visual representation of the Bible, is not always rated “G.” The Bible is not a children’s story, so some biblical art contains nudity or bloody depictions of violence. Not all things in the Bible are beautiful and calming; many times biblical stories are full of distortion and dissonance. As such, biblical artwork will tell the full Story of God that includes creation, fall, and redemption, with each of its harsh realities. As in all of life, the believer is called to be discerning.

Does that mean parents shouldn't take their children to the Sistine Chapel? Could be.

What is it with all the male nudes anyway? What kind of education is that? Even some Popes were offended.

 

[epostle]

I thought there was an anathema promised to anyone who changed the creed. So much for Ecumenical Councils making decisions that settle anything once and for all. Somebody's sure to come along and want to add something or subtract something.

For the second time, the Creed was not "changed", it was amended because of the heretics. You oppose the amendments with no historical context. You also seem to oppose the authority of the historical Church to develop.

Saying you can add something without altering it makes no sense. Then the more things got changed, the claim was that nothing was really changed. People can claim they have the authority to change things; but they are undermining their own credibility if they claim they changed nothing.

You refuse to understand the difference between "change" and development.

I'd call it adding to the truth once delivered to the saints. Why not be satisfied with what the Apostles had?

Then be satisfied with the heretics previously listed and their false teachings. They claimed "what the Apostles had" based on Scripture alone.

I'd say the Catholic Church and the Orthodox were confused, and when the Protestants came along, things got more confused, as confused as people were at the Tower of Babel. Why not stay on earth and be content with what the Apostles knew and said? Why try to know more than they did by building a tower of theology up into Heaven? Why not be content to love God and our neighbors? Why try to discern the "secret things" of God?

Are you saying the full Chalcedonian doctrine of the Trinity, accepted by all, is confusion?

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

This is my point. Doctrines flow from what has been divinely revealed through Scripture and Tradition, overseen by the Magisterium. That is the BIBLICAL rule of faith. All the heretics of the patristic period went by "Bible Alone" and had no Tradition to back them up. So now we have to define "Tradition" because what I mean and what you think are two different things.

Christianity was tempted by the same fruit Eve had been. "Let us be as wise as God." What good did any of it do? The people who tried to discern the secret things of God at these councils would have spent their time better visiting prisons and doing other good works, things they knew were right.

This is sheer nonsense. Eve said "NO", Mary said "YES". Christianity is the solution to The Fall. And Catholics have been doing good works from the beginning. The purpose of Councils, the Orthodox schism, the Fall and "good works" are four different topics. You are the one confused.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. I proved that and all you did was criticize it. Here is more for you to complain about:

 

[Giuliano]

For the second time, the Creed was not "changed", it was amended because of the heretics. You oppose the amendments with no historical context. You also seem to oppose the authority of the historical Church to develop.

You refuse to understand the difference between "change" and development.

I was an English major at university; and if something develops, it's changing. I'm getting weary of the word games.

DEVELOP | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

to grow or cause to grow or change into a more advanced form:

Then be satisfied with the heretics previously listed and their false teachings.

The truth does not change over time if lies crop up. The truth remains the truth.

Are you saying the full Chalcedonian doctrine of the Trinity, accepted by all, is confusion?

I don't see it helped anyone improve his life. It is idle speculation to me.

This is my point. Doctrines flow from what has been divinely revealed through Scripture and Tradition, overseen by the Magisterium.

The word "magisterium" is itself a relatively recent innovation.

magisterium | Definition of magisterium by Lexico

That is the BIBLICAL rule of faith.

You missed the point that Israel wasn't supposed to inquire so much into the "mysteries." They were to obey the commandments given to them.

All the heretics of the patristic period went by "Bible Alone" and had no Tradition to back them up. So now we have to define "Tradition" because what I mean and what you think are two different things.

I thought many of the Gnostics made up their own books. And then too, there wasn't even an official list of what books were "in the Bible." Stop making things up, please.

This is sheer nonsense. Eve said "NO", Mary said "YES".

Did I mention Mary? Mary wasn't nosy, trying to look into the secret things of God the way Eve did and the way theologians have.

Christianity is the solution to The Fall. And Catholics have been doing good works from the beginning. The purpose of Councils and "good works" are two different topics.

I'd have a lot fewer problems with the Catholic Church if they stuck to the good works and did less struggling to peer into the secret things of God and then persecuting people who disagreed.

The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. I proved that and all you did was criticize it.

You asserted it. Asserting something is not the same as proving it. I said I didn't know what to make of it. Please start trying to be accurate. I have no reason to trust numbers like that provided by Catholic partisans, and maybe non-Catholics should not contribute to Catholic charities if Catholics want to take all the credit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL

OP ---> BOL unproven claims....23 Pages and still not one shred of evidence of me claiming;

1 John 1:
[8] (to) have no sin...

However you have claimed that "For Me" numerous times....which is you Lying and makes you a Liar.

The Fact is, I never made that claim.
You made up that lie, you spoke that lie, that lie makes you a liar.

So prove you are not a liar...
Quote "me" making that claim.

YOU CAN'T, so the description of liar fits you.

And you say you are here to stamp out lies....
Ha ha ha. Ain't you the comedian!

Glory To God,
Taken

Nonsense.

I’ve proven repeatedly that you have claimed to be without sin, having been:

a) Forgiven of ALL past sin.
b) Unable to sin anymore

This would make you SIN-FREE – and 1 John 1:8 says that you have deceived yourself and that the truth is NOT in you.

You can dance around the issue all you want – but a + b = SIN-FREE.

 

[epostle]

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.​

(God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, 44-47)

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!

And books such as Barnabas and 1 and 2 Clement were considered Scripture by many at the same time (for example, the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus). Of the 27 New Testament books, 14 were not mentioned at all until around 200 A.D., including Acts, 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians.

On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of “Scripture Alone,” but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development – all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.

It is plain silly (not to mention insufferably arrogant) to assert, as did Luther and especially Calvin, that the knowledge of what books constitute Scripture is attained simply by an intuitive and subjective inkling within each Spirit-filled person. If the early Church had such a difficult time determining what was and was not Scripture, how could Calvin 15 centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian?!
...continued...

 

[epostle]

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.​

(God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, 44-47)

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!

And books such as Barnabas and 1 and 2 Clement were considered Scripture by many at the same time (for example, the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus). Of the 27 New Testament books, 14 were not mentioned at all until around 200 A.D., including Acts, 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians.

On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of “Scripture Alone,” but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development – all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.

It is plain silly (not to mention insufferably arrogant) to assert, as did Luther and especially Calvin, that the knowledge of what books constitute Scripture is attained simply by an intuitive and subjective inkling within each Spirit-filled person. If the early Church had such a difficult time determining what was and was not Scripture, how could Calvin 15 centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian?!
...continued...

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.​

(Introduction 5, 6)

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He
argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. The so-called “Catholic distinctives” were merely cast off at the time of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century – basically due to prejudice and ignorance. Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

Newman states, in summary:

If it be true that the principles of the later Church are the same as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of belief between the two periods, the later in reality agrees more than it differs with the earlier, for principles are responsible for doctrines. Hence they who assert that the modern Roman system is the corruption of primitive theology are forced to discover some difference of principle between the one and the other; for instance, that the right of private judgment was secured to the early Church and has been lost to the later, or again, that the later Church rationalizes and the earlier went by faith.​

(Ibid., ch. 7, section 6: conclusion)

This is true whether the theological considerations are those agreed upon by all, such as the Divinity of Christ, the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and the Canon of Scripture, or those denied by Protestants, such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, priestly absolution, baptismal regeneration, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

 

[epostle]

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.​

(Introduction 5, 6)

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He
argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.

Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. The so-called “Catholic distinctives” were merely cast off at the time of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century – basically due to prejudice and ignorance. Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.

Newman states, in summary:

If it be true that the principles of the later Church are the same as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of belief between the two periods, the later in reality agrees more than it differs with the earlier, for principles are responsible for doctrines. Hence they who assert that the modern Roman system is the corruption of primitive theology are forced to discover some difference of principle between the one and the other; for instance, that the right of private judgment was secured to the early Church and has been lost to the later, or again, that the later Church rationalizes and the earlier went by faith.​

(Ibid., ch. 7, section 6: conclusion)

This is true whether the theological considerations are those agreed upon by all, such as the Divinity of Christ, the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and the Canon of Scripture, or those denied by Protestants, such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, priestly absolution, baptismal regeneration, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?​

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see they note "in Medieval times." I'm still waiting for evidence that early churches had statues and paintings. You can say "always" all you want, but where's the evidence?

Very interesting read from an evangelical Protestant author. I loved this part:

It is inappropriate to simply accept a piece of biblical art without discernment. All art portrays the artist’s faith and spirituality (because we are spiritual beings), so all art is in some way flawed (because humans are flawed). Though biblical art can help us to see more clearly what a passage is communicating, it is the Scriptures, as God’s Word, that are the ultimate authority.

Remember that biblical art, as a visual representation of the Bible, is not always rated “G.” The Bible is not a children’s story, so some biblical art contains nudity or bloody depictions of violence. Not all things in the Bible are beautiful and calming; many times biblical stories are full of distortion and dissonance. As such, biblical artwork will tell the full Story of God that includes creation, fall, and redemption, with each of its harsh realities. As in all of life, the believer is called to be discerning.

Does that mean parents shouldn't take their children to the Sistine Chapel? Could be.

What is it with all the male nudes anyway? What kind of education is that? Even some Popes were offended.

In post #910, @epostle produced a work of Biblical art from the Early Church (2nd century).

YOUR demand for “proof” is dishonest in light of the fact that he has already provided it.
Here are some further examples from . . .

the 3rd century . . .
“The Good Shepherd”

“Adoration of the Magi”

the 4th century . . .
“Noah Praying in the Ark”

“Jesus Heals the Bleeding Woman”

ONE more time . . .
Biblical art has ALWAYS been used to educate the illiterate masses . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?​

When did the idea of purgatory come about?

 

[Taken]

Not ONE refutation. A few attempts from others but nothing from YOU.

I wonder WHY that is . . .

False claim, per your usual.

God Bless,
Taken