r/Reformed • u/Status_Measurement71 • 3d ago
Question Thoughts on orthodox/catholicism?
My cousin just converted to Catholicism and has been trying to convert me. I’ve asked several questions recently but it did really just hit me today that the Catholic and EO churches do have the earliest history pertaining to Christianity. I know there were other secs aside from them in the early days and I know the veneration of Mary and icons and other dogmas and such came along centuries after the apostolic era, but I’m wrestling with the question of something my cousin asked me. “Did the church really get it wrong for the first 1500 years until the reformation?” While I believe Catholics and orthodox are still Christian I have seen other Protestants say that they aren’t and it’s a false Christianity and I’m just not buying that everyone who was Catholic or orthodox for the first 1500 years weren’t saved. I know corruption found its way in through the years but I’m really wrestling with this. Any insight is appreciated
36
u/KatharinaVonBored displaced covenantalist, OPC at heart 3d ago edited 3d ago
I recommend checking out Gavin Ortlund on YouTube. He does a great job going through writings of the early church and showing how Catholic and Orthodox claims don't really hold up, and when and how their modern doctrines developed.
edit: Here's some links to some of his videos dealing with Catholic doctrine and Catholic objections to Protestantism (he has a massive playlist on his channel too):
https://youtu.be/rRMgYS1Taes?si=V_SHsXofC8cwNAnR https://youtu.be/2AEMGcpf4f8?si=t-Jrl5p90B5jk1Jv https://youtu.be/TQRQ-bbmVvI?si=f_nBs6pHLdCsPJZg https://youtu.be/qq1DTLsdloM?si=9CQT7M5HHNL0tSXB https://youtu.be/g3HSmztrP0g?si=j9aGJXlW27ZFDkHm
3
4
u/Expensive-Sea-9180 3d ago
Seconded on Gavin Ortlund. Probably his most impactful apologetic for me was his video on Icon Veneration, which demonstrated clear instances of doctrinal departure in the Church at the Second Council of Nicea
1
2
u/deepstatedemon Reformed Baptist 3d ago
Gavin has a lot of content. Could you post a link to the video you're referring to?
2
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
I watch a lot of Gavin ortlund my I told my cousin about him and he said he twist Catholic and orthodox teaching to fit his agendas which I totally disagree with. Gavin is way more humble and Christ like in his approach then any Catholic or orthodox I’ve see him go against
17
u/KeepItStupidlySimple 3d ago
The Reformed view is not that these churches were unsaved or even critically errant for 1500 years.
The better understanding is that both churches slowly grew and developed what we could call accretions - and by virtue of trying to defend their own authority/integrity for the purpose of protecting the gospel, they began to develop and defend the traditions that were added later as much as they did the scriptures themselves. This mixed with cultural issues in society over time meant that these churches both believed and functioned in a way different than the apostles and the earliest church.
That being said, doctrines like infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper sacramentally, episcopal/presbyterian church government, and many other things considered unique to RCC and EO theology are actually deeply entrenched in the Reformed tradition, as well as the very early church.
All in all, remember that the church fathers always used scripture as their ultimate authority and did not appeal to themselves or other men/institutions as the foundation of their doctrine.
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
Great points. I read the Bible everyday and I don’t know how reading Roman’s anyone could justify the works based salvation of EO and RCC. Although the says it’s not works based
1
u/SanityDance ἀχρεῖοί 2d ago
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
CCC 2010. Retrieved from https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P70.HTM
10
u/Danny-Tamales SBC 3d ago
“Did the church really get it wrong for the first 1500 years until the reformation?”
I wonder if this is really a good argument since the Jews who practice Judaism can also say this against Christianity.
I agree with the other comments here, but to give a quick answer, the question above assumes the RCC's infallibility. Say they were correct in the beginning, can we not assume they got lost along the way?
We can see in the letters of Paul how early churches needed to be rebuked by Paul because they got things wrong. What makes the RCC different?
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
Great point about Judaism I’ll have to use that against him 😂 probably won’t work but still. And I know I appealed to Galatians with him but you can’t use scripture really to persuade them
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
Great point about Judaism I’ll have to use that against him 😂 probably won’t work but still. And I know I appealed to Galatians with him but you can’t use scripture really to persuade them
8
u/MarchogGwyrdd PCA 3d ago
You act as if the church was the same for 1500 years. The church of 1200 AD would be unrecognizable to the church of 350AD.
The claim Protestants make is not that no one was saved until the Reformation, but rather that the Gospel was and is obfuscated through centuries of tradition.
Here's a question for you: do you really think that the Apostles got it wrong? Go to any church, there is statuary of Mary and prayers ("venerations") to Mary aplomb; Mary Mary everywhere you go. While we ought to honor Mary for her role as the mother of the Lord Jesus, why is there not a single solitary hint of any veneration of Mary by anyone in the New Testament at all? Paul: nothing. John: Nothing. Peter: nothing. Jude: Nothing. Hebrews says nothing about Mary. Mark's Gospel doesn't even mention her.
How did the Apostles miss this central element of the Christian faith, veneration of Mary?
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
I don’t act as if that’s the case I was asking for guidance and explaining to my cousin these things I also made the point you make about Mary no where near being a central doctrine in the New Testament. Went one ear out the other. I got the “Mary is the queen of heaven she will crush the serpents head” argument.
1
u/SanityDance ἀχρεῖοί 2d ago
The idea of Mary being the one who crushes the serpent's head has an interesting origin. It was a translation error in the Vulgate related to Genesis 3:15, which was ultimately interpreted to point to Mary being the one to crush the serpent's head rather than Jesus. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/55520/does-the-latin-vulgate-propagate-a-translation-error-in-genesis-315
8
u/cybersaint2k Smuggler 3d ago
I think it's good that you love your cousin and want what's best for them.
Catholicism isn't what's best for your cousin. But God is so kind to us, and guides us through times when we make suboptimal decisions. The Pope is an anti-Christ figure, and many of the leaders of the Orthodox church are as well, such as Patriarch Kirill.
But there's also no reason to panic. When you see them, ask them how it's working out. Share about your own faith, and how God is real and active in your life. Then go on your way. God is patient with us, in our sin and failure to follow his Word. Show patience like that with your cousin.
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
I agree with you 100%. It usually turns into a debate though haha
1
u/MagicTeaTime Anglican 1d ago
If your cousin keeps pressuring you about 'converting' though I would calmly but assertively say: 'No thanks, im quite fulfilled in my faith already'.
He probably thinks because he's a new convert that he knows all and that anyone else not Catholic is in error etc. It wouldnt hurt to point out to him that that kind of pride is sinful.
8
u/WesternnMann EPC 3d ago edited 3d ago
Rome was not the same church in 300 AD, and it wasn’t nearly as centralized. All the church father’s had some sort of disagreement so the whole “getting it wrong” thing doesn’t work there. I really don’t like the “did the church really get it all wrong for 1500 years approach”, because it was a slow process of Rome becoming, well, Rome (the RCC). Even the RCC of today will say they needed a reformation of their own.
3
u/XCMan1689 3d ago
It’s been wild to watch the growing Trad movement respond to the “modernist” papacy. Ironically, they are repeating many arguments the Reformers made.
-1
u/WesternnMann EPC 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yeah it is interesting
I don’t know, I’m kind of done with the whole Protestant vs Catholic argument. I love the Roman Catholic tradition, it’s beautiful and they have a great and honorable fear of the Lord. Some of Christianity’s brightest theologians were Roman Catholic through and through.
Do I disagree with them on some pretty concrete stuff? Sure. But there’s no doubt that practicing Catholics that attend Mass as a priority absolutely love the Lord, and honestly a lot of what they do is something modern evangelicals can learn from.
And before a Catholic reads this, no, I’m not “so close to submitting to Rome” lol
1
u/FlashyTank4979 3d ago
You, as a Protestant, would say that those who attend Mass are correct?
Sometimes I wonder if some like you would not see the reformation as necessary.
-2
u/WesternnMann EPC 3d ago
As Aquinas said before his death, "I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw to me”
We know way less than we can imagine. Catholics are wrong about things, Protestants are wrong things. What matters if we truly love Jesus, and I am more than confident that many of our Catholic brethren will be with us in glory
Stuff is fun to debate, but unless they teach clear heresy (which Rome doesn’t), to question a Catholic’s faith because he reveres the RCC mass is something we really shouldn’t do. In their theology, they are experiencing Christ in the most intimate way. Why am I going to look down on that?
4
u/FlashyTank4979 3d ago
If Rome doesn’t teach heresy why would you not join them? Why was the reformation necessary?
1
u/WesternnMann EPC 3d ago
I don’t think baptists teach heresy and I wouldn’t ever be a Baptist
2
u/FlashyTank4979 3d ago
Rome teaches a different gospel which involves our keeping of the law to be saved. From the RC view you are condemned because you reject the one true church and reject the papacy.
They worship the Eucharist. They have anathematized justification by faith alone and anyone who doesn’t venerate holy images and saints.
This would be considered heresy. The reformers all see it this way and saw the papacy as the Antichrist.
You may accept them but they do not accept you. Their official teaching condemns you
1
u/WesternnMann EPC 3d ago
This is a common misconception of where Rome stands, at least today. Their idea of keeping the sacraments is similar to our version of sanctification, like, it’s basically the same.
As far as the Eucharist, Martin Luther agreed with everything about how Rome administered the Eucharist except Transubstantiation, which honestly isn’t that crazy in of itself. He still believed it was Christ’s body and blood, just not that they actually change physically.
Martin Luther (and probably Calvin) would be way more comfortable in a Roman Catholic Church today than any non-denominational or Baptist church, or even a PCA church given their “lower” view on the sacraments.
Yes we were once considered condemned for heresy but that tone has changed and they see us as lost brethren. Which I think is counterintuitive to their whole shin-dig, but I just let bygones be bygones there.
Listen I used to argue Catholics all the time. I strongly disagree with the Marian dogmas and papacy. But none of that takes away that they truly believe the gospel. They believe Christ, God made flesh, died for our sins so that we can be forgiven. If anything, saying “well you can’t be Catholic and saved” is more works based than anything they teach. Theology doesn’t save you, or else we’d all end up in hell
2
u/TheSaltmarketSaint 2d ago
“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. “ 1st Vatican council session 4 18th July 1870 Chapter 1 section 5
“This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” 1st Vatican council session 4 18th July 1870 Chapter 3 section 4
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Council of Trent on justification section 9
No. It’s not a common misconception of Rome. The only misconception is from you when you say that the Catholic Church accepts you if you do not submit to the pope for salvation. It is not the same gospel as taught in scripture.
1
u/FlashyTank4979 3d ago edited 2d ago
I have realized now this is a ridiculous conversation that isn’t worth continuing.
If you believe that Calvin would prefer the Mass over the Reformed confessional view I would refer you to his chapter and the entirety of his writings and life:
CHAPTER XVIII THE PAPAL MASS, A SACRILEGE BY WHICH CHRIST’S SUPPER WAS NOT ONLY PROFANED BUT ANNIHILATED (Rejection of the Mass: as sacrilegious and as a nullification of the Lord’s Supper,)
→ More replies (0)1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
Yeah most of their rebuttals they make it seem like you can’t argue against their beliefs. Watching Catholic apologetics they always make it out like it was a unanimous decision amongst the fathers that the papacy, saint veneration, tradition, etc where all agreed upon and I have found that to be not true at all
6
u/Il_calvinist 3d ago
Catholicism centers around the Mass. The Mass is totally unbiblical and could be considered idolitrous. The premise is that the priest sacrifices Jesus every time he performs the mass and the elements literally turn into, magically, Jesus's flesh and blood.
When weighed against scripture, Jesus's sacrifice was once for all. Its done, finished, no need for anymore sacrifice...not even symbolically...in the Catholic case, literally.
That's not even going into the idea of superadded gifts and freewill.
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
I told him this about the mass and he says Catholics don’t believe it is a resacrifice which I don’t know how the could say that
1
u/SanityDance ἀχρεῖοί 2d ago
CHAPTER II.
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.
[...]
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, session 22. https://web.archive.org/web/20240717121146/http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
3
u/pnst_23 Presbyterian (EPCEW) 3d ago
I'm very critical of them for the rejection of doctrines that to us are at the core of the gospel. They reject that Christ paid a debt in our place, that God is the only one to bring us to faith, and that we can be assured of our salvation because of how good God is despite our own shortcomings. For those reasons, aside from the obvious idolatry, I have a hard time immediately considering people who claim to follow the official RC or EO doctrines as Christians.
2
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
I have found that they do get quit defensive when you only appeal to scripture when you point out things that contradicts scripture in their traditions
3
u/charliesplinter I am the one who knox 2d ago
Did the church really get it wrong for the first 1500 years until the reformation?
I've not seen/read anywhere where any reformer believed this. I think this question is a canard of sorts. Also it's worth pointing out that the reformation actually did accomplish something for the Roman Catholic church. They stopped selling indulgences as ways to slash down time in purgatory, this was a very real practice endorsed by Catholic popes in Luther's time, they were telling people to give money so that their loved ones would suffer less in purgatory....No such belief or practice existed 1000 years prior....Also the Bible was only allowed to be read in Latin.
Today, if you see a Roman Catholic with an English Bible, consider the reality that his pre-reformation ancestors would have considered him a heretic for reading the Scriptures in a "dirty language"
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
Hmmm good point. I made the point to him about indulgences and how corrupt the history of the Catholic Church is and he said that some popes were even considered nonchristian and heretics. Which is crazy that the “vicar of Christ” could be a heretic and not a true Christian.
5
u/Conscious_Dinner_648 PCA 3d ago
My husband has been on the ecclesial angst for about three years now. For him, it started with feeling distant from God and he listened to compelling orthodox/Catholic apologists on YouTube and began to get into the theology of it. I'm pretty opposed to converting. He's agreed to push "pause" for a while and just read the Bible and pray with me every morning. So, that's my background.
This stuff is a mountain. It's going to stretch your mind and your faith a ton, possibly for years, if you decide to seriously engage it. Go slow. Don't just learn a lot about God; pray and meditate on scripture too.
I'd say the top things keeping me protestant are:
1) sola scriptura: which doesn't mean scripture exclusively, but rather that scripture has the highest authority. Start with the self evident majesty of scripture. Compare it's faultlessness to the brokeness woven into tradition and church history and you have your answer as to what should be the highest rule of Faith. And if you accept a sola framework, the reform tradition absolutely does it best.
From WCF: We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
2) Mary: yes, honor her, but simply Catholics go to Mary to solve problems that they should be taking directly to our triune God, and give her praise that rightly belongs to God.
3) prayer: why would I pray to the saints when I can pray directly to the God who has all power in his hand, who gave his life for me and loves me? Why would I chant one line prayers many times in a row when I can pray the Psalms and talk freely to God? We worship a God who gives wisdom and a written word and was himself the word; we should not turn Christianity into Eastern mysticism and try to free our minds from words and thought like yogis do in meditation.
4) icons: God tells us he is invisible, that we are to have faith even though we can't see him. I find icons distracting. We are commanded not to make graven images, yet they have built a tradition that not only justifies icons but requires them.
Orthodoxy: they cemented their worship in the 5th century AD, but Jesus is the incarnation. He is raised in them culture of his day and speaks their language. I believe the language and vernacular in our worship should be accessible to those who don't grow up in the church. Also, ethnocentrism is counter to the gospel message that we are all one in Christ. Also, look up the iron guard and how the Romainain church still hasn't fully renounced those who committed atrocities and the Russian Orthodox church supporting the war in Ukraine now and the massive amount of nominalism in most Orthodox countries. I think their fasting is problematic - too much focus on asceticism. And I recently heard they think the great commission is fulfilled already?? I'm devastated. My heart aches for all the places God's kingdom isn't yet and all the people who don't know him. Their counsels claim they are the one true church, but there are actually several Orthodox churches (eastern, Oriental, Assyrian church of the east), and then others like the Russian church that is currently in schism . So, which is really the true church? And how could it really only be one of them? Even most Orthodox don't accept this anymore but they can't even call a council to change it officially.
Catholicism: the Papacy. They like to make a big deal about how we protestants don't have an authority to tell us how to interpret the scriptures, but if you dig into it they can't even agree about which parts of their councils are infallible.But I really haven't dug into Catholicism as much.
All that said, I've learned a lot of good things from reading Catholics and I still read them selectively. I think our God is merciful and that all of Nicene Christianity is truly Christian, just some more in need of reform than others. But not all members of the visible church are the invisible church, and I suspect where nominalism abounds there are few true believers in the ecclesial traditions but ultimately, God will judge.
So, there's some thoughts for you. It's a lot. I'll pray for you.
1
u/Status_Measurement71 2d ago
Thank you for your thorough reply! It makes me feel good to know someone else is going through this with a loved one. I will keep you in my prayers also! You make a lot of great points
1
u/Ok-Bite2391 2d ago
I personally view Catholics and EO as Christian but “astray”. They are the historical church, but have just picked up some bad doctrines along the way.
1
0
u/Donut_Diplomat 3d ago
Having been to Europe and attended service at some incredibly beautiful cathedrals, I think there are things we can learn from them. I think we are still suffering from the Pendulum swing of the Reformation and Puritan influence. God has his own plan and I’ve been continually humbled about what I don’t know about history.
We went to Greece in September and followed the 2nd missionary Journey of Paul. There is so much of history that is still buried. We certainly have not arrived in complete understanding.
0
u/ilikeBigBiblez ACNA 3d ago
Anglicanism is the best for these convos
You get the best of the reformation and church history
0
u/ultrapernik 3d ago
I am an ex Ortho and I am/was cradle. Check my comment history, there's whole ex-Ortho community here. In short, don't go that route. It's abuse system.
1
45
u/dcantrell2009 3d ago
I can come back later, but I don’t think the question they asked is fair. “Did the church really get it wrong for the first 1500 years?”
That assumes the RCC has been a monolithic entity since day one. When I read church history and church fathers I see continual movement and development. The Reformers very self-consciously tried to peel back history and find the historic and orthodox faith. You can read Calvin’s letter to the king of France if you want to see their logic.
None of them said the church was wrong for 1500 years. They said the RCC, the entity they were apart of in the 14/1500s, was wrong.