1500 years and nobody thought of it?

[epostle]

"…All the classical Protestant confessions of faith expressing the beliefs of the various Reformation branches include the doctrinal proclamations of the ancient Catholic Council of Nicea, whereby Christ is professed to be “of one essence” with the Father. The original Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1531, for example, and the later Formula of Concord of 1576-1584, each begin with the mention of the doctrine of the Nicene Council.

Calvin’s French Confession of Faith of 1559 states, “And we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril.” The Scotch Confession of 1560 deals with general councils in its 20th chapter. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, both the original of 1562-1571 and the American version of 1801, explicitly accept the Nicene Creed in article 7.

Even when the particular Protestant confessional formula does not mention the Nicene Council or its creed, its doctrine is nonetheless always asserted, as, for example, in the Calvinist Scotch Confession just mentioned, or in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647.

At first glance, this all seems rather odd to the Catholic reader. After all, every branch of Protestantism professes the absolute and sole sufficiency of Sacred Scripture for establishing the fundamental points of doctrine. Why, then, do these various Protestant confessions bother to bring up the early councils (or any councils) when establishing their core teachings? Well, we shouldn’t be too quick to accuse them of inconsistency just yet, for all of these confessions make it abundantly clear that the councils of the Church have no authority of their own, but only insofar as they teach things which have a clear warrant in the written Word of God.

For a Protestant, then, the general councils of the ancient Church and their creeds provide useful historical references for the expression of orthodox, biblical doctrine. They don’t have any particular infallible status as councils of the Church. Even less are the doctrines of the early councils proposed as sound because they reflect the Church’s Tradition as a source of knowledge of revealed truth.

So far so good. A Catholic may not agree with it, but such a view at least isn’t internally inconsistent. Classical Protestants accept the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as scriptural, and so refer to the early councils which taught these dogmas. They pick and choose from the riches of Christian teaching, and sometimes they get it right. A Catholic can only be content that they do; we are not stingy with the good things we enjoy. As Pope Pius XI said of the various Protestant groups, “Stones cut from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold.”

But there’s a bigger problem here. The words of Calvin quoted above give us an example of it. He refers to “the sects and heresies rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril.” Protestant apologists want to claim for themselves the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as well as the early councils. Some even go so far as to claim that the Fathers held to the principle of sola scriptura (by Scripture alone)! A brief look into the events surrounding the great Nicene Council should suffice to dispel this foolishness. …"

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

 

[Petergee]

Catholics believe in the doctrine that there is a God.

What protestant wouldn’t believe that?

I have encountered people who call themselves protestant Christians who refuse to affirm that there is a God. Not long ago I was roundly abused by a Unitarian, because I accused her of being inconsistent because she simultaneously claims to be a polytheist who worships as her chief gods Athena and Poseidon, and to be a full practising member of “a Protestant Christian Church”.

 

[SyCarl]

I have encountered people who call themselves protestant Christians who refuse to affirm that there is a God. Not long ago I was roundly abused by a Unitarian, because I accused her of being inconsistent because she simultaneously claims to be a polytheist who worships as her chief gods Athena and Poseidon, and to be a full practising member of “a Protestant Christian Church”.

You cannot look at what individuals claim. What is important is the official stance of the church involved. I can just as easily say that I have met people who call themselves Catholic who believe things other than what the Catholic Church teaches. Does that make the Catholic Church inconsistent?

 

[Petergee]

You cannot look at what individuals claim. What is important is the official stance of the church involved. I can just as easily say that I have met people who call themselves Catholic who believe things other than what the Catholic Church teaches. Does that make the Catholic Church inconsistent?

I said just that to this woman, and she insisted that the leaders of her denomination know and endorse as valid and permissible everything she believes and refuses to believe. Others from the same denomination have told me similarly, that their denomination does not require its members to believe in the One True God.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Since those of you who are Catholic believe in the development of doctrine, why would it matter if the doctrine took 4 centuries, 10 centuries, or 15 centuries to develop?

 

[Petergee]

Since those of you who are Catholic believe in the development of doctrine, why would it matter if the doctrine took 4 centuries, 10 centuries, or 15 centuries to develop?

It didn’t “develop”. It was invented by men in the 16th century, with no basis in scripture, nor in Sacred Apostolic Tradition, nor in the teaching Authority which Christ gave the Church. Catholics belive that no new doctrines can ever be invented and added to the deposit of faith which Christ gave the Apostles. We believe that development can only deepen our understanding of doctrines which the Church has always had, never lead to new doctrines. That would be heresy.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It didn’t “develop”. It was invented by men in the 16th century, with no basis in scripture, nor in Sacred Apostolic Tradition, nor in the teaching Authority which Christ gave the Church. Catholics belive that no new doctrines can ever be invented and added to the deposit of faith which Christ gave the Apostles. We believe that development can only deepen our understanding of doctrines which the Church has always had, never lead to new doctrines. That would be heresy.

It sounds like it is your position that “no new doctrines can ever be invented and added to the deposit of faith which Christ gave the Apostles.”, which I take to mean that you believe Jesus taught the apostles all the doctrines your church now teaches. To this I should add that it also sounds like you believe that Jesus taught the apostles all the doctrines your church will see fit to formally put into dogma in the future too.

Am I right or am I reading to much into your statement?

 

[Contarini]

How do Protestants deal with the historical fact that for 1500 years, nobody ever dreamed of any of the ideas they consider “truth”?

Insofar as this is true, those ideas are unlikely to be true.

For example, the Eucharist is not the body of Christ.

First of all, I and many Protestants do believe that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. However, the idea that the Body of Christ is present “in a figure” did pop up long before the Reformation–Ratramnus and Berengar for sure, maybe the Nestorians, and arguably even some of the Fathers (Origen, Tertullian, Augustine), though (in the case of the last-named Fathers) not in opposition to a more “realistic” view.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

It sounds like it is your position that “no new doctrines can ever be invented and added to the deposit of faith which Christ gave the Apostles.”, which I take to mean that you believe Jesus taught the apostles all the doctrines your church now teaches. To this I should add that it also sounds like you believe that Jesus taught the apostles all the doctrines your church will see fit to formally put into dogma in the future too.

Am I right or am I reading to much into your statement?

That is correct. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, John.

That does not mean, however, that mankind or the Church had total understanding of those doctrines – for better understanding, study is required. It is also true that doctrines existed and were never challenged, so no definitive pronouncement was needed – until someone decided to challenge them.

A good example is the doctrine of the Trinity. It is found in Scripture, it is incorporated into the 2nd Century Apostles Creed, but only in the 4th Century did a challenge to the Trinity arise (Arianism) and only then was a definitive statement made on this essential doctrine - by the Council of Nicea.

 

[Petergee]

It sounds like it is your position that “no new doctrines can ever be invented and added to the deposit of faith which Christ gave the Apostles.”, which I take to mean that you believe Jesus taught the apostles all the doctrines your church now teaches. To this I should add that it also sounds like you believe that Jesus taught the apostles all the doctrines your church will see fit to formally put into dogma in the future too.

Am I right or am I reading to much into your statement?

This is not just “my position”. This itself is an unchangeable doctrine of the Church, though of course my expression of it is very imperfect. For a fuller and more eloquent description, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Newman’s The Development of Doctrine. (It was whilst he was researching and writing this book that Newman became convinced that Catholicism is true. He wrote it as a Protestant and published it as a Catholic.)

 

[Pwrlftr]

This is not just “my position”. This itself is an unchangeable doctrine of the Church, though of course my expression of it is very imperfect. For a fuller and more eloquent description, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Newman’s The Development of Doctrine. (It was whilst he was researching and writing this book that Newman became convinced that Catholicism is true. He wrote it as a Protestant and published it as a Catholic.)

Okay, since you believe that all the doctrines your church now teaches were taught by Jesus to the apostles what do you make of the doctrines that have no history to link them to even the first few centuries much less to either Jesus or the apostles such as the assumption?

 

[surgei]

Okay, since you believe that all the doctrines your church now teaches were taught by Jesus to the apostles what do you make of the doctrines that have no history to link them to even the first few centuries much less to either Jesus or the apostles such as the assumption?

The Assumption or Dormition of the Mother of God is well known in the early church. It is a part of the iconography, hymnography, litugy, and patristics.
What is unkown in the early church is the idea of the Mother of God being without the sin of Adam (Immaculate Conception) and the inovation that requires this sinful attack on her personal holiness, the doctrine of imputed guilt created by Augustine.

 

[jblake]

SyCarl;:

You cannot look at what individuals claim. What is important is the official stance of the church involved.

To parody official Unitarian Doctrine:
“We Believe in the One True Path of Polytheism”.

(If a doctrine does not conflict with that statement, it probably is acceptable, even if it is rejected, by most Unitarians. If it does conflict with that statement, it probably is practiced by some, and ignored by the rest of the Unitarians.)

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

po18guy;:

Consider the Sacraments. Which of the original seven would you give up? Is not the number seven the ancient figure for completion? Just musing here.

Depending upon when in history one was Catholic, you would have had between two and twenty sacraments.

Seven was elected,and finalized, because of the OT traditions about the meaning of the number 7.

xan

jonathon

 

[surgei]

Depending upon when in history one was Catholic, you would have had between two and twenty sacraments.

Seven was elected,and finalized, because of the OT traditions about the meaning of the number 7.

xan

jonathon

Wow. Can you show a source.

 

[Petergee]

What is unkown in the early church is the idea of the Mother of God being without the sin of Adam (Immaculate Conception) and the inovation that requires this sinful attack on her personal holiness, the doctrine of imputed guilt created by Augustine.

There is voluminous evidence that the early Church believed that the BVM was sinless. You totally misunderstand the concept of “original sin” if that is what you are labelling as “the doctrine of imputed guilt”. I am quite unable to work out how you can possibly twist this into a “sinful attack upon her personal holiness”. It is utterly to the contrary.

 

[Petergee]

Okay, since you believe that all the doctrines your church now teaches were taught by Jesus to the apostles what do you make of the doctrines that have no history to link them to even the first few centuries much less to either Jesus or the apostles such as the assumption?

Obviously the BVM’s Assumption occurred well after Christ’s Ascension, though He may well have told the Apostles beforehand that it was going to happen. No doubt St John at least was a witness to it, as he lived with the BVM in Ephesus at the time. If you are asserting, contrary to all ancient Christian tradition, that the Assumption did not occur, the onus is on **you **to produce some evidence that Christians treasured and venerated the BVM’s physical remains, as they did to all of the other saints. Good luck!

 

[Pwrlftr]

Obviously the BVM’s Assumption occurred well after Christ’s Ascension, though He may well have told the Apostles beforehand that it was going to happen. No doubt St John at least was a witness to it, as he lived with the BVM in Ephesus at the time. If you are asserting, contrary to all ancient Christian tradition, that the Assumption did not occur, the onus is on **you **to produce some evidence that Christians treasured and venerated the BVM’s physical remains, as they did to all of the other saints. Good luck!

I don’t wish to debate whether the assumption happened.

I am curious how you deal with the fact that there is no evidence that ties some of your church’s doctrines back to the apostles and I have used the assumption as an example of such a doctrine.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My aren’t we holier than thou!

Speaking as one skunk to [you fill in the empty space as appropriate ] - no ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Of the two, only one is lead by the fullness of truth. Both have truth in them. They are both called to a richer practice of their faith. Consider the Sacraments. Which of the original seven would you give up? Is not the number seven the ancient figure for completion? Just musing here…

Christ’s peace this Advent and Christmas.

I think that we and they are both full of sickness, so it doesn’t matter who’s “right”. Two corpses can be equally right - & equally dead​

AFAICS we must be detached from our rightness, & die to it - then perhaps we will be able to be right; but not unless we die to it first. If we don’t - we doom ourselves to continue fighting like ferrets in a sack. God’s grace gets us out of the fight & out of the sack - but, insisting on our rightness over against other Christians ? That condemns us to continue scratching & clawing at each for ever. And meanwhile, the mission of the Church suffers.

If Churches laid down their own egotism, & helped one another as the Good Samaritan did, that might help to give the impression we are Christians - but all this insistence by Churches X or Y on their respective wonderfulnesses, & on the corresponding tackiness of all their competitors, is no more than non-Christians are capable of. Why do Churches act in this way ? Fear, perhaps - fear of leaving familiar securities behind. Fear, & lack of faith. Just a guess.

I agree with your third sentence though.

Christ’s peace this Advent and Christmas to you also