43,000 denomination source

[KathleenGee]

Ben Hur…About the Byzantine Church…I am recalling that seminar I took on roots of the papacy going back last fall…Our instructor taught the Byzantine Church evolved differently…and had this connection with imperialism the Latin Church did not have.

But he did not elaborate…the founding of Rome as well as the others…was purely for the ecclesia…

I think there needs to be better clarification on how the Latin Church did differ from the Byzantine in regard to temporal rulers…I would like to learn more …think of Papal States at this time…and yes, it looks imperial…pondering this as well…

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi reuben, you got me thinking and reading.

Yes, the Duke of Burgundy had Joan but was subservient to King’s (England) wishes. She was going to be executed one way or another, per King’s request. The trial was* not *done by the English but yes, partly backed by the crown , who also paid the Duke for her delivery to the Church/inquisition, as the Church demanded.

The bishop of Beauvais was pro English and after 10 years as bishop was ousted when the French side won (and thus had an axe to grind). Certainly the Vicar-General of the Inquisition had jurisdiction and demanded Joan, as was also suggested by the University of Paris, and appointed the bishop to run the farcical trial. There was one cardinal , six bishops, 32 doctors of theology etc.They were mostly pro English. They did deny Joan an appeal to pope or to Council at Basle (where there were at least pro French as pro English). So yes, it was the Church, but only a small and hostile portion of it. It is not pretty when offices are bought (or financed) and politics get involved…

She was about to be found guilty (70 articles). An underlying theme was the principle of private judgement (listening to her voices and inner revelations) as opposed to simple obedience to the Church. At the last moment she signed (with a cross) a retraction. She was fully reinstated to the Church but would remain a prisoner, in English ruled land. She then recanted on her confession a few days later and was deemed a relapsed heretic, excommunicated, and burned the next day by civil authorities.

Oh, I don’t know about Burgundy being subservient. It was Henry V’s alliance with Philip the Good against the Armagnacs that led to the Treaty of Troyes and the acceptance of Henry’s claim to France. It was Philip’s change of sides that led to the Treaty of Arras and the English defeat. Philip ruled great swathes of Europe within France and the Empire.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you! I am considering adding

Divorce
Contraception
Abortion
Female ordination
SSA
etc.

Here’s a list you should consider, although it, too, is not exhaustive.

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce and remarriage
Drinking alcohol
Health and wealth gospel
Hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture
Music in their worship services
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist
Tongues
Trinity
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women’s ordination
Whether to say the filioque in their creed
Whether to use leavened bread
Whether to crown the married couple (really? That’s a funny one to dispute, but ok)
Whether to confer confirmation at the time of baptism, others wait later at about 12 or 13 years old.
Whether to have icons and not statues
Whether to use the guitar in their services.
Whether to receive Communion with a spoon, receiving both the Bread and Wine at the same moment.
Whether to allow married men as preachers
Whether to believe in limbo
Whether the fires of purgatory are equal to the fires of hell
Fasting regulations differ between denominations
Some Protestant churches have an altar rail, others do not.
Some Protestant churches allow Communion in the Hand, others do not.

 

[PRmerger]

Personally, I am opposed to burning people alive at the stake.

Yes, me, too.

 

[PRmerger]

No, he summed it up quite defensively. He alludes any error (in the brief statement PR posted). Killing of righteous prophets is also all over the OT and NT.

So is the killing of sinners.

 

[benhur]

Oh, I don’t know about Burgundy being subservient. It was Henry V’s alliance with Philip the Good against the Armagnacs that led to the Treaty of Troyes and the acceptance of Henry’s claim to France. It was Philip’s change of sides that led to the Treaty of Arras and the English defeat. Philip ruled great swathes of Europe within France and the Empire.

You lost me. But I worded it wrong.The book I was reading dealt with who who captured Joan, and who had “rights” to her, and who finally got her (the Church).The capturer (Bastard of Wendomme) who served Jean de Luxemborg, who was vassal to Duke of Normandy but also in service of King. So the King had rights to her thru Jean and not Duke, and not necessarily thru Duke as I suggested. The book does suggest that the Duke recognized King of England as King of France also at this time. It says Jean got 6000 francs for her Man you are good to catch that! Thanks

 

[benhur]

Yep. A mistrial. They did not have a case against her.

Anyway, she was exonerated posthumously and made a saint.

Well a mistrial yes, but they had or “found/made” a case. As I said, it is that Joan submission was to the Church in heaven, to God himself, above submission to earthly church. That is private judgement. The problem was the misjudging of her “private judgement”. She was not talking of doctrine, nor any church practice and stood by all of it. I mean helping you country fight off foreigners with full force of spirituality, complete with prayer, and visions, and guiding voices, and almost miraculous deeds is not exactly “heretical”. (Yet it is doctrine that the earthly church has final say on all matters that come before it even her sticking by her visions and voices as the perfect will of God). So apparently they had a case. The mistrial perhaps was the overall badgering and hopelessness of it all. In a better setting, she may have told all to say the Pope, for his blessing. In a better setting she may have been made to understand the difference between Church Triumphant and Church Militant .Kind of like allowing the church to examine evidences of a Marion vision, and allowing oneself to be subject to those findings yet letting the “see’ers” to stick to their story, without threat of being burned. A fine non threatening balance, one that Joan only dreamed about.

 

[benhur]

So is the killing of sinners.

Yes, thank you. I would think that is what erric meant with capital punishment being all over OT(of course for criminal/sinners). Hence I said the Book “also” has "errors’ in application (killing true prophets). But yes, we have both examples.

Blessings

 

[Reuben_J]

Well a mistrial yes, but they had or “found/made” a case. As I said, it is that Joan submission was to the Church in heaven, to God himself, above submission to earthly church. That is private judgement. The problem was the misjudging of her “private judgement”. She was not talking of doctrine, nor any church practice and stood by all of it. I mean helping you country fight off foreigners with full force of spirituality, complete with prayer, and visions, and guiding voices, and almost miraculous deeds is not exactly “heretical”. (Yet it is doctrine that the earthly church has final say on all matters that come before it even her sticking by her visions and voices as the perfect will of God). So apparently they had a case. The mistrial perhaps was the overall badgering and hopelessness of it all. In a better setting, she may have told all to say the Pope, for his blessing. In a better setting she may have been made to understand the difference between Church Triumphant and Church Militant .Kind of like allowing the church to examine evidences of a Marion vision, and allowing oneself to be subject to that, yet letting the “see’ers” to stick to their story, without threat of being burned. A fine non threatening balance, one that Joan only dreamed about.

Mistrial and no case. They could not find any evidence against her. She was entrapped on legal technicalities, a reply she would NOT be allowed had she given a lawyer to defend her. She was just a nineteen year old girl without any legal training.

 

[Reuben_J]

Theology technicalities, rather, which she was unfamiliar with, thus making the statement which was damaging to her.

 

[benhur]

Theology technicalities, rather, which she was unfamiliar with, thus making the statement which was damaging to her.

Ok ,thanks for the above. Not easy to put into words but you did better than I. But yes, otherwise no evidence that she was a heretic, or witch, or beguiled by devil.

Fascinating story. People were in tears, even some of her enemies, at her final forgiving "speech " while on her knees at the platform of execution.The secretary to the King of England is noted for saying, “We are lost; we have burnt a saint”

 

[KathleenGee]

People have to research…and the onus in the end lands on the pope and ecclesiastics.

Jan Hus was burned at the stake, ordered by a select group of British bishops…and it was at time when we had anti pope…and this anti pope protested against the burning…and the whole Council at Constance was abrogated by the following pope who was legitimate.

Likewise it is painfully brought up how the Church killed 2,000 Jews prior to the Crusades when in fact it was incited by a Cistercian monk who had left the monastery and another Rubin…(spelling) who caused Catholics in the Rheinland and Danube regions to do so…in spite of the protest by the pope and bishops of that period…

So one can rightfully say the Church never officially ordered Jan Hus to be burned at the stake.

There was the massacre of the Huegenots…and historians say that the pope then was not fully informed as what was happening at the beginning of the Spanish Inquisition…

I am not excusing…doing anything as such in the name of God is never forgotten down through history…the scandal is always there, official or not.

 

[benhur]

People have to research…and the onus in the end lands on the pope and ecclesiastics.

Jan Hus was burned at the stake, ordered by a select group of British bishops…and it was at time when we had anti pope…and this anti pope protested against the burning…and the whole Council at Constance was abrogated by the following pope who was legitimate.

Ikes , not an easy research. And this is the church Christ founded is what ran thru my mind as I read the some of the pure politics, church and state, of so much .

Yet as another poster asked , are British bishops not Catholic Bishops ? Is the church no longer the church if at the moment there are three popes, or some other “confusion”? Are there conditions then when the church is the church, and when she is not ? Who presided at the council, Hindus ? And state officials, even the Emperor, were they atheists or baptized Catholics ?

But I understand it was not the best of times. To suggests a different outcome under better circumstances is understandable. It is also reasonable for others to say the outcome would have been the same. I mean the pope got the ball rolling, and rightly by CC standards, against Wycliffe, who was corrupting British dioceses and spread to europe, and condemned his writings. Consequently, the pope also began proceedings against Hus, a Wycliffe advocate. In the end Hus disobeyed the pope and continued his course. That the pope was no longer at the council with the voting format as he wished, might be mute technical point and he may have had no choice in the matter, given Hus’s persistence in disobedience.

But maybe you are right though, it was no really the Church that did Hus in (and maybe 43000 denominations is not quite accurate, and should be understood with equal grace and charity).

Blessings

PS. I think you have been charitable in this thread

 

[KathleenGee]

I was checking an email…my niece in labor right now…I don’t have the link right now but I read the full ideas of Hus’ and they were really far out…if I am correct…

Church is both hierarchical and spiritual…this is how Our Lord wanted His Church to be…and we likewise have to go in faith in dealing with ecclesiastics.

The anti pope protested the burning at the stake regarding Hus…and the Council of Constance was not representative of the universal Church…only a gathering of British bishops and some others made the decision to have Hus executed. Fractured. And goes against the communion we are called.

We have our bishop guide us on complex matters…now it is encyclicals, pastoral letters that all vary in weight of truth. Your local diocese is the designated source to guide us.

A Council convenes with all bishops…not a handful…and looks like they were playing God…who lives and who dies in regards to Hus…it was a very confusing time when the Church was dealing with 3 popes, only one of them the real deal.

 

[benhur]

" the Council of Constance was not representative of the universal Church…only a gathering of British bishops and some others"

“The highest figures reached were: 29 cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 150 bishops, 100 abbots, 50 provosts, 300 doctors (mostly of theology). It was calculated that some 5000 monks and friars were present and in all about 18,000 ecclesiastics…In some respects the council resembled more a modern Catholic congress than a traditional ecclesiastical synod.” newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

PS it seems this is *more *attendance than council of trent.

 

[GKC]

“The highest figures reached were: 29 cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 150 bishops, 100 abbots, 50 provosts, 300 doctors (mostly of theology). It was calculated that some 5000 monks and friars were present and in all about 18,000 ecclesiastics…In some respects the council resembled more a modern Catholic congress than a traditional ecclesiastical synod.” newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

PS it seems this is *more *attendance than council of trent.

IIRC, voting at the Constance was by countries, rather than individuals. Not sure if that was unique, but it was odd.

 

[benhur]

IIRC, voting at the Constance was by countries, rather than individuals. Not sure if that was unique, but it was odd.

Yes, and it limited the Roman pope or at least Italy, which even to this day has the most disproportionate amount of cardinals, (and perhaps why most popes have been Italian or of Italian descent.).

 

[benhur]

I was checking an email…my niece in labor right now…I don’t have the link right now but I read the full ideas of Hus’ and they were really far out…if I am correct…

Church is both hierarchical and spiritual…this is how Our Lord wanted His Church to be…and we likewise have to go in faith in dealing with ecclesiastics.

The anti pope protested the burning at the stake regarding Hus…and the Council of Constance was not representative of the universal Church…only a gathering of British bishops and some others made the decision to have Hus executed. Fractured. And goes against the communion we are called.

We have our bishop guide us on complex matters…now it is encyclicals, pastoral letters that all vary in weight of truth. Your local diocese is the designated source to guide us.

A Council convenes with all bishops…not a handful…and looks like they were playing God…who lives and who dies in regards to Hus…it was a very confusing time when the Church was dealing with 3 popes, only one of them the real deal.

Hi Kathy

Hope all is well and you are (or are again) a gran auntie.

I am thinking you have Joan and Huss confused , with saying " a handful of British bishops"/even fractured church" judging Huss, when it was Joan.

As far as Huss, he was a Wycliffite, He believed in personal piety and purity (something the Jesuits a century later would instill also). He believed Christ was the head of the Body, and not the popes(s) (can you blame him, like which pope, for there were three at once for a time). Not sure he was fan of the confessional , said only God forgives sins. Did not believe in CC real presence but gave full communion elements , bread and wine to participants. Believed in a sort of SS, that popes and councils were subservient to it and I think wanted vernacular version. Thought you were not obliged to obey superior if it was contrary to scripture or wrong by other church standards. Was against simony and indulgences.

 

[GKC]

Yes, and it limited the Roman pope or at least Italy, which even to this day has the most disproportionate amount of cardinals, (and perhaps why most popes have been Italian or of Italian descent.).

And made the French, with their conciliar tendencies, an equal vote.

And in your next post, the reference to a Huss/Joan confusion makes what was being said finally make sense.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Ben Hur…I am going through the aging process now…for real…eyes going out, skin and hair changing, needing to work harder at getting up out of a chair…not sleeping good, not reading well and making mistakes.

Well…I thought I was reading about ‘who done it’ in regards to the burning at the stake of Jan Hus…remembering the Mormon show on ‘The bible’…and how it began with caricatures of Catholic priests witnessing the martyrdom of Jan Hus…and some scenarios of daily life at Mass…with the priest preaching with his hat on…they don’t know our customs…and people gathering around someone standing near the door showing people points of the bible…while parishioners listening avidly to him ignoring the priest. It was most insulting. Came out a year or so ago…

Anyway, it came up again…so I will have to re do my searches…but I thought it was regarding the Council of Constance that was abrogated with an anti pope even protesting in, and that it represented only certain British bishops and some others…

i don’t know if the Catholic Church even sanctioned burning at the stake that much…I know it was used in Salem way back in colonial times but how much, etc., not sure…

Anyway…will look up some more…

It is not sounding at all like the Council I was reading about…

Thanks…