Is there historical proof that the Catholic Church became apostate?

Question

Earlier I asked for any historical proof that the Catholic Church is not the Church created by Christ and the apostles. No one was able to come up with any historical proof, because it is the Church created by Christ and the apostles.

Remember if you believe that it did become apostate then Jesus was a liar and incompetent in His promises to the Church for the gates of Hell did prevail against His Church. I am especially interested in how the so called "restoration churches" justify their rejection of Christ's Church in view of Christ's promises to the Church..

cheir,

What does that have to do with the Catholic Church. the Catholic Church does not forbid ANYONE to marry. Besides I asked for ANY historical proof.

pgd,

I asked for historical proof not fanciful nonsense.

Andrew W,

Do you have any historical evidence to support your opinion. Where did you come up with this speculation?

Edge,

Thank you, I am trying to give you and others the chance to prove historically your opinions of Christ's Church. Feel free to give some historical proof to your allegations.

Lakely,

Feel free to give historical evidence of your opinion. We are not asking for opinions but historical evidence.

Edge, If you do not know what the early Church practiced from a historic standpoint how can you be sure that your opinions, even based on Scripture, are true? If they are true it should be easy to verify your beliefs in the history of the Church.

Good G,

Fine, all you have to do to support your opinion is give historical proof. Waiting anyone.

δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

I will get around to those questions but one question at a time. I hope that you can support some of your opinions with historical fact. I look forward to it.

Jesus did say that he built an enduring Church that would last without apostasy to the Parousia. Anyone who claims that He did not do as He promised is calling Christ a liar or in the least incompetent. Don’t you think?

Lynchburger,

I have responded to your post on my blog as there was not enough space here to respond adequately. Here is the URL:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-S6YMuFYyaa9ESBoW5DFwEjL_HhqA?p=205

Answer 1

For the Constantine post that is sure to follow

Constantine reigned from 306 to 337 AD so how is it then you believe He started the Catholic Church and instituted Sunday Mass and is the root of pagan practices in the Catholic church.. Is it that you cant perform simple subtraction?. Or is it that you like to mix a little truth with a big lie to fool the gullible.

The truth
Constantine's Sunday Blue Law
"Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields; since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain, or the planting of vines; hence, the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost." -- Given the seventh of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each for the second time. 321 A.D.

The lie Debunked
Then, we should find that Christians worshiped on the Sabbath (Saturday) prior to Constantine and on Sunday after Constantine. history does not support this contention.

Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight" (Acts 20:7). "On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come" (I Corinthians 16:2)

Evodius was the first Bishop of Antioch, and he is credited with being the first person to call the followers of Christ, "Christians", as shown in Acts 11:26. See Eusebius, book 3, chapter 22.

Saint Ignatius (35-107), the second Bishop of Antioch wrote a letter to the Smyrneans in 107 A.D..
In this letter is recorded the first known use of the words "Catholic Church"...

Didache, between 80 and 140 AD
"But every Lord’s Day, gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, so that you sacrifice may be pure.”

Ignatius, about 107 AD
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again in Him...Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in the days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." ...let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]”

Aristides, about 125 AD
“However, [the Jews,] too have erred from true knowledge. In their imagination, they think that it is God whom they serve. Actually, by their type of worship, they render their service to the angels and not to God. For example, they do this when they celebrate Sabbaths.”

Justin Martyr, about 160 AD
“Is there any other matter my [Jewish] friends, in which we Christians are blamed, than this: that we do not live after the Law ... and do not observe Sabbaths, as you do?”
“There was no need of circumcision before Abraham. Nor was there need of the observance of Sabbaths, or of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses. Accordingly, there is no more need of them now.”
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. And the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we all rise together and pray. And, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought. Then, the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. And the people assent, saying “Amen.” Then, [the Lord’s Supper] is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in [the bread and wine], over which thanks has been given. And a portion of it is sent by the deacons to those who are absent. ... But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God ... made the world. And Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead on that same day.”

Eusebius, citing Irenaeus, about 180 AD
"This custom of not bending the knee on Sunday is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we have been set free by the grace of Christ.”

Tertullian, about 197 AD
“We devote Sunday to rejoicing for a far different reason than sun worship. ... Others ... suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians ... because we make Sunday a day of festivity.”
“Just as the abolition of fleshly circumcision and of the old Law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary.”

Anatolius, about 270 AD
“It should not be lawful to celebrate the Lord’s mystery of Easter [i.e. the Lord’s Supper] at any other time but on the Lord’s Day, the day on which the Lord’s resurrection from death took place.”


Victorinus, about 280 AD
“And let this become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews. For concerning [their Sabbath], Christ himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that “His soul hates.” In His body, He abolished this Sabbath.”

The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected"

Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eight day (i.e. the first of he week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".

Answer 2

that is an thrilling question – kind of like the single that asks: “precisely while did you cease beating your spouse?” The implication – needless to say – is that the guy in some unspecified time contained sooner or later did certainly beat his spouse. Your question means that the Roman Catholic Church did certainly deliver jointly the books making up the Holy Bible. you're plenty incorrect. The catalogue – canon - of the Hebrew Scriptures (inclusive of 39 books we've) became began with the help of Ezra, finished with the help of Nehemiah and in use with the help of Jesus and the apostles – from which they quoted. for this reason, its existence predates the Roman Catholic Church. How then could she have compiled that canon? As for the Christian Greek Scriptures (usually talked approximately through fact the hot testomony), through fact the Bible, in its entirety, became divinely stimulated of God, quite he additionally directed its compilation, determining in the past which books to contain and which to exclude. that's glaring even from scripture that there have been different books (alongside with some letters from the apostle Paul) which God Almighty deemed pointless for inclusion.) At maximum, the Catholic church can in basic terms nicely known the Bible canon which God – with the help of skill of his Holy Spirit – approved. As for the Catholic church transforming into apostate, that is faulty. She has by no skill been apostate. The Bible warns of the two apostates and counterfeit Christians. they are on an identical time unique. Apostates have been as quickly as a factor of authentic worship (think of Adam, Eve, devil and Judas). Counterfeit christians have been by no skill Christians first of all. To be apostate, one can desire to have been a factor of authentic worship. The Roman Catholic Church isn't apostate. Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

Steve Clifford:
“The Apostles failed in their mission to preach the Gospel to the whole world. They neglected to properly appoint their successors. When the last Apostle died, the keys of the kingdom were lost from the earth. The so-called Christian Church was no longer the Lord's Church. A new organization, a "great and abominable church," came into existence. This wicked church founded by the devil became known as the "Catholic Church". In her corruption, she took away many plain and precious parts of the gospel from the Bible. It remained an apostate church until the keys of the kingdom were once again restored to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

As a fifth-generation Utah Mormon, I believed this sequence of events was true and therefore the LDS church was the only true church on earth. It wasn't until I was forty-three years old that I started to question whether or not the "Total Apostasy" actually happened. My original intention was to prove that the Catholic Church was the "great and abominable church" I had been taught about as a young Mormon. However, God's intention was to lead me to the fullness of the truth…” read the rest at:
http://www.eucharistic-convention.com/K_2004/k_clifford/clifford.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/rc_dex.html

Answer 4

If you reject the Roman Catholic church you call Jesus a liar. I have never heard such unmitigated crap. The Roman Catholic church is not the church Jesus created. Yes He create a universal church of all believers but it is not the RCC. Jesus did not institute a pope. He did not declare a pope to be infallible. He did not declare His mother to be the greatest of all the saints. He did not give a priest the right to refuse a Christian communion. He told us to confess our sins to the Father not to a priest. He says all Christians are a royal priesthood. That all Christians are saints. The Bible says he is the only mediator. Only directly refutes the idea of a co-mediatrix or any such nonsense. Do I believe the RCC is the church Jesus founded? No. No. No. Do I believe the RCC is apostate. No. I believe they are Christians but I am tired of this we are the church Jesus founded and we are better than you crap I see on here. Jesus founded one church. It is a church of all Christians. The RCC is just one denomination in this church.


EDIT: All the historical proof I need is that not one of these doctrines is found in the Bible. Not a single solitary one of them. The writings of the apostles. The only things we can specifically say for certain were taught by the apostles do not contain a single one of these ideas. Everything that is can be proven the apostles taught is in the NT. These ideas are not there. No other proof is needed.

EDIT2: I gave you the proof. These teachings are not found in the Bible. End of story. I quite frankly do not care what anyone taught if it is not found in the Bible.

Answer 5

Tell you what, it is your claim, you prove from historical evidence that the Roman church is the one that Jesus started. Please show biblical evidence for any of the following:
1) Monarchal Papal authority
2) Any of The Marian Dogmas
3) Communion of the Saints
4) Sale of Indulgences
5) Persecution of "heretics"

Shall I go on? The dogmas that the Roman church is built on are not biblical. How do you define apostate? That is your word not mine. So show biblical evidence (in context) for the above practices and it will go far to disprove the detractors.

--edit BTW You should really put a cork in your blasphemy. When you make that statement that if we reject the Roman church we call Jesus a liar you are blaspheming not only Jesus, but the Holy Spirit by who's baptism a church exists.

Answer 6

There's plenty to be worried about historically regarding RCC from the time of Jesus right to this day. I'm not going to list a massive list of the concerns however in Yahoo Q&A's.

Answer 7

no one can give you the proof you seek; just read the Didache.. it was a book written by the apostles.. completely describes the Catholic Church and our customs and the Eucharist.

Answer 8

Evidence of apostasy is provided in doctrinal discrepancy. Doctrinal discrepancy cannot be proved against an institution that claims the right to institute new dogma that conflicts with old dogma. The Catholic church can never become apostate as long as it controls the definition of apostasy. It can never prove it is true without relinquishing control over dogma to an objective, third party arbiter. That arbiter is the text of Scripture. If the church pronounces that acceptance of, say, the assumption of Mary is an essential of saving faith, then Jesus and the apostles seriously misrepresented the essentials of the faith, because it is not present in the text. As my fellow logicians will recognize, if I cannot falsify the claim, I cannot establish it as true either. Using scripture as the final court of appeal resolves this problem, for those who accept it as divine revelation. As divine revelation, it is falsifiable. But the prophecies have come true, the miracles have left a lasting empirical impression on history, the resurrection of Jesus is undefeated as a tour de force in internally consistent multiple eye-witness testimony. The falsification of Scripture has failed. By contrast, the falsification of a religious group that claims infallibility in combination with doctrinal adaptability, with no higher court of appeal than itself, can never succeed. Therefore, such an institution can never show itself true.

Can this really be the exact same church that Christ established? I do not think so. I have no doubt that the early church contained elements that would eventually differentiate themselves from the generic Christianity founded by Christ, and since they do share a common root (yes I am willing to concede that - it not fatal to my case), it is only reasonable that the greater part of Christianity should have many things in common with them. That does not prove, however, that their strain of Christian belief was the only one, or the "right" one; only that it was the one with the best political connections [Insert Constantine post here]. Baptists do not claim, for example, to be a "restoration" church. We claim that true believers of every age have always been known to the God who saved them, and that they have always been organized primarily by the Holy Spirit operating in conjunction with Holy Writ to convert sinners into saints. This true church has never been infiltrated by unbelief, as all its members are taught by God Himself, as Jesus promised. Various human institutions may serve a useful purpose, but they are fallible, changeable, subject to decay and perversion. If it were not so, Paul would never have spoken of the great apostasy of the last days, as that would conflict with Jesus' prediction of the church's guaranteed victory, the very conflict you accuse non-Catholic Christians of setting up. The defect in interpretation comes from confusing geography and lines of historical descent, knowable to carnal man, with the spiritual kingdom of God, and spiritual lines of descent, fully known only to God. The Lord knows those who are His. The apostate are on their own.

Edit:

Historical evidence of apostasy? Was it really the church of the humble Jesus that produced the Inquisition? Give me a break. Can someone murder defenseless innocents on a regular basis and claim they are still God's favorites? Did not Jesus teach that the enemies of the faith would be the ones killing His true followers, and would think they were doing God a service in the process? Consider this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to [be] applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted. Conscientious and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture. After long experience Eymeric declared: Quaestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces -- i.e the torture is deceptive and ineffectual.”

What I love about that quote is the way the writer, who must admit the history, tries to soften the blow, as it were, by saying, well, we didn’t really inhale. Pitiful. The discrepancy between the religion of Rome versus the teaching and life of Jesus could not be more obvious nor more bound to history, yet I know your apologists are as deft at writing off the Inquisition as some middle eastern leaders are at discounting the reality of the holocaust. You really have more to prove to us than we do to you. We have our Bible, and the history it contains. Saying that is insufficient is effectively a negation of both the revelatory inspiration and the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of the faithful. That is a very dangerous place, and I am not willing to go there.

Edit2:

cristoiglesia, I read your blog. I appreciate that you took the time for the extended response. I am out of time this evening, but I do not think you really answered my fundamental challenge, that your claim of identity with the church Jesus promised would prevail is inescapably circular, and that resort to direct apostolic teaching, as recorded in Scripture, is the only viable means of escaping the loop. I have not seen a Catholic response to this that can address it without succumbing to the circularity. I will not hold it against you if your own solution is not forthcoming. I think it is impossible to solve from a Rome-centric perspective.

Answer 9

It says in 1Timothy 4:1; 'But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons....'
The verses then go on to describe how and what:
1 Timothy 4:2,3; ' ... by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods ....'.
Now - which religion forbids its priests to marry?

Answer 10

It done shortly before they determined the canon of New Testament scripture. (Do I smell paradox?)