Pablope,
Quote:
Well, so what if he did?
The main point is he remained obedient to the Pope, he produced what was required of him lovingly and dutifully.
Did he preach publicly against what he was tasked to do? Did he teach or proclaim the pope wrong on the DC? Did he say the pope is wrong, I am correct and I will establish my own religion and follow me?
Pablope,
I don’t think Jerome had a knowledge of a modern papacy with respect. If a pope in his day carried the authority of a modern pope and ordered Jerome to change his views, he never did. There is an interesting few articles on beggars all on Jerome here;
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/which-jerome-is-real-jerome.html
The links to the other two are in the article itself.
Kind regards
Lincs.
Hi, Lincs…sorry I am confused with your reply.
But first, let me ask…why would you think the pope would order Jerome to change his views? Did you know the Jerome was the secretary of Pope Damasus? He could have influenced Pope Damasus with his views…but no, the Pope included the DC in his declaration on the OT canon in AD382…so the Holy Spirit prevailed in preventing error.
The point is Jerome never taught anything contrary to what the Church taught…even if he held a contrary opinion on the DC books…Jerome’s obedience and humility.
So on to my other question…I cannot comprehend why you get hung up on Jerome’s views on the DC? Why? His views were his own…personal opinions…but that he followed the pope dutifully and lovingly…you cannot seem to grasp this…so why the hang up?
On to another question…you keep discussing about the development of a modern papacy…have you bothered to look at Calvin’s concepts of authority? Are they the same then as today practiced by Calvinists? Have remained the same or have they evolved?
Would you agree with the conclusions of this Calvinist scholar?
calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/
Which I quote:
What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3
Evangelicals are used to finding assurance in their “personal relationship with Christ,” and not through membership in any Church or participation in any ritual. Calvin, however, taught that the Eucharist provides “undoubted assurance of eternal life.”5 And while Calvin stopped short of the Catholic, or even the Lutheran, understanding of the Eucharist, he still retained a doctrine of the Real Presence. He taught that the Eucharist provides a “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord” and he rejected the notion that communicants receive “the Spirit only, omitting flesh and blood.”6.
Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8
It is not surprising that by the eighteenth century, leading Calvinist Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic had given up on the quest for complete unity. One new approach was to stress the subjective experience of “new birth” (itself a novel doctrine of Puritan origins) as the only necessary concern
Since the eighteenth century, Calvinism has devolved more and more into a narrow set of questions about the nature of salvation. Indeed, in most people’s minds the word Calvinism implies only the doctrine of predestination. Calvin himself has become mainly a shadowy symbol, a myth that Evangelicals call upon only to support a spurious claim to historical continuity.
