Catholic protestants?

[Axion]

On the original question, I know of two people who might possibly fit the bill

1. Cardinal Contarini: who formed a movement called the Spirituali in the 1530s, who adapted several Lutheran ideas including justification by Faith. They produced books that presented Lutheran ideas in Catholic ways. Contarini tried to negotiate a compromise agreement at the Conference of Regensburg in 1541, but it was considered that he had given away too much doctrinally to the Lutherans, and the agreement fell through. Contarini remained Catholic, but many of his supporters left the Church.
2. I may get jumped on for this, but I would also add, Cornelius Jansen, a 17th Century Dutch catholic who, although he remained staunchly Catholic, adopted many tenets on predestination and the lack of free will that followed those of Calvinism. His teachings were largely condemned as heretical, but he had a large following, particularly in areas where Calvinism was strong like France and Holland, and his movement caused a lot of conflict within the Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I already mentioned Contarini early in this thread. But I forgot about Cornelius Jansen…

On the original question, I know of two people who might possibly fit the bill

1. Cardinal Contarini: who formed a movement called the Spirituali in the 1530s, who adapted several Lutheran ideas including justification by Faith. They produced books that presented Lutheran ideas in Catholic ways. Contarini tried to negotiate a compromise agreement at the Conference of Regensburg in 1541, but it was considered that he had given away too much doctrinally to the Lutherans, and the agreement fell through. Contarini remained Catholic, but many of his supporters left the Church.
2. I may get jumped on for this, but I would also add, Cornelius Jansen, a 17th Century Dutch catholic who, although he remained staunchly Catholic, adopted many tenets on predestination and the lack of free will that followed those of Calvinism. His teachings were largely condemned as heretical, but he had a large following, particularly in areas where Calvinism was strong like France and Holland, and his movement caused a lot of conflict within the Church.

 

[Petergee]

My understanding is that one has to have been Catholic to be a heretic, according to Catholic teaching. So, according to the CC, Luther, once a Catholic, became a heretic. I, a life-long Lutheran, am not a heretic, since I was never Catholic.

You do hold beliefs which are objectively heretical.

You don’t necessarily have to have been a Catholic to be a heretic.

Heresy comes from the Greek “haeresis” “a choice”, so if you are a validly baptised Christian, and you have become aware of the Catholic Church and what it is and what its doctrines are, and you then choose to continue believing other doctrines which contradict Catholic doctrines, then technically yes you are a heretic.

 

[Petergee]

Hi Usagi,

Of course I know what Augustine was talking about from the quotes. I kid you. But the fact is, Augustine was talking about the Catholic Church. The UNITED Catholic Church of his day that included East and West, unified Christendom as an organic whole, not a church cleaved in two in 1054. If you perceive he was only talking about the West and thought only the West to be the Catholic Church in the fifth century (which I don’t think you thought)…Would Augustine have sided up with the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by legates in such an inappropriate and audacious fashion and accepted the indulgences, treasury of merit, and all the other medievel stuff? Maybe so? He was always pretty loyal to the papacy but also loved his own jurisdiction and domain… Blessings to you…

There is no contradiction between loving one’s native country and being a loyal Catholic! Quite the contrary.
If you think there is any chance that St Augustine would have said, when the Pope and a group of bishops excommunicated each other, that the Pope was wrong and the bishops are right, you know very little about him.

And indulgences and the Church’s treasury of merit are not “medieval stuff”. The Church has always believed these doctrines (at least implicitly) and will always continue to teach them.

Another quote from St Auguistine:
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” - Against the letter of Mani, 5,6.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

On the original question, I know of two people who might possibly fit the bill

1. Cardinal Contarini: who formed a movement called the Spirituali in the 1530s, who adapted several Lutheran ideas including justification by Faith. They produced books that presented Lutheran ideas in Catholic ways. Contarini tried to negotiate a compromise agreement at the Conference of Regensburg in 1541, but it was considered that he had given away too much doctrinally to the Lutherans, and the agreement fell through. Contarini remained Catholic, but many of his supporters left the Church.
2. I may get jumped on for this, but I would also add, Cornelius Jansen, a 17th Century Dutch catholic who, although he remained staunchly Catholic, adopted many tenets on predestination and the lack of free will that followed those of Calvinism. His teachings were largely condemned as heretical, but he had a large following, particularly in areas where Calvinism was strong like France and Holland, and his movement caused a lot of conflict within the Church.

Interesting. Thanks for that bit of history.

Yet it matters not how many ‘followers’ someone has. If he’s wrong he’s wrong, and these men were wrong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Absurd. I never said one cannot love his country and be a Catholic. And I resent the implication that I don’t know much about Augustine. I’ve studied the man in depth for years and have a healthy library on him. But I don’t need to prove myself to you. The Treasury of Merit were by NO MEANS a part of the early Church. You’re thinking anachronistically. If you’d like to approach this in a reasonable way a la Newman with developmental doctrine, fine. I respect that. But I will not discuss something in an anachronistic framework with some cherry-picked ECF quotes. Your last quote says “The Catholic Church.” Of course Augustine was talking about the UNIVERSAL Church of pre-1054, not the post medievel Catholic Church with a universally all-powerful pontiff. His Catholic Church was unified and included east and west. You’re again trying to apply anachronistic modern Catholic apologetical cherry picking with your own sensibilities into a deep and complex man who lived in a different, unified Church in a different age with a pope who had altogether different authorities and limitations. Indulgences in the early church…

There is no contradiction between loving one’s native country and being a loyal Catholic! Quite the contrary.
If you think there is any chance that St Augustine would have said, when the Pope and a group of bishops excommunicated each other, that the Pope was wrong and the bishops are right, you know very little about him.

And indulgences and the Church’s treasury of merit are not “medieval stuff”. The Church has always believed these doctrines (at least implicitly) and will always continue to teach them.

Another quote from St Auguistine:
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” - Against the letter of Mani, 5,6.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Augustine early in his career as a theologian and churchman was a believer in the primacy of the papacy and the Matthew 16:18 interpretation we hear in CAF daily. But later on in his life we see a more Orthodox/Protestant view of the papacy…

Read these quotes. These quotes come from later in his life while the bank of Pro-Papal quotes you’ll find at CAF occur early in his life before he developed a fuller understanding that is more of an Eastern Orthodox approach. All are annotated and documented, so feel free to look them up…cheers:

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.3 The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

And he goes on to say more things which it would take too long to mention.
Shortly afterward, after these words of his in which he approved of Peter’s faith and showed that it was the rock, he began there and then to show his disciples that it would be necessary for him to come to Jerusalem, and suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the scribes and the priests, and be killed, and on the third day rise again. 6John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/5, Sermon 183.14, p. 343.

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ 8A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

*Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? **Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? *Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ. 13John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1992), Sermons, III/5, Sermon 149.6-7, p. 21

There is no contradiction between loving one’s native country and being a loyal Catholic! Quite the contrary.
If you think there is any chance that St Augustine would have said, when the Pope and a group of bishops excommunicated each other, that the Pope was wrong and the bishops are right, you know very little about him.

And indulgences and the Church’s treasury of merit are not “medieval stuff”. The Church has always believed these doctrines (at least implicitly) and will always continue to teach them.

Another quote from St Auguistine:
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” - Against the letter of Mani, 5,6.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

Happy to respond to your question!

You really are a Protestant. Liking Catholics is toally immaterial - even if you worked out a ‘retirement plan’ on this list !!! it still would be immaterial. You see, on that Last Day there will not be a question like, “Who were your friends?” You know what will be asked - and a good refresher is Matthew 25. Notice none of these guys are asking about Solo Fide or Sola Scriptura - but, actual WORKS!

God bless

LOL; funny post! Now I have a SERIOUS question. Am I a Catholic Protestant because I like Catholics? Or, am I a “heretic” like the poster above seems to say? I don’t think I would be a Catholic Protestant, because of this - would I? What am I…Can someone tell me?

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, P101,

Happy to respond to your question!

You really are a Protestant. Liking Catholics is toally immaterial - even if you worked out a ‘retirement plan’ on this list !!! it still would be immaterial. You see, on that Last Day there will not be a question like, “Who were your friends?” You know what will be asked - and a good refresher is Matthew 25. Notice none of these guys are asking about Solo Fide or Sola Scriptura - but, actual WORKS!

God bless

Hey Tom! How are you! Long time “no see!” Where have you been hiding? I don’t understand where you get this idea that the only thing we will be asked about at the pearly gates is about our “works.” Can you give us a Bible text that would help?

I don’t agree that this is the only thing that we will be asked about; but I am trying to figure where you are coming from on this one??

 

[tqualey]

Now, P101, nice to hear from you, too…

But really, in this matter you disappoointment me… I gave you the quote right up front - actually, the entire 25th Chapter of Matthew. And, just to make sure there is no confusion on where it is I am coming from…

**Matt 25
1-13 **- Here we have the story of the 10 virgins. Five wise and five foolish. Now the idea I have is all of them were pretty good girls (virgins?) but, the foolish ones did not DO what they needed to DO (and that would be a WORK). The ending of the story did not go well for the foolish ones.

**14-30 **- The Master of the house who entrusts 3 servants with talents. The 1st and 2nd servent DID something with their talent and this was recognized by the Master. Yeah, you guessed it, the 3rd guy DID NOTHING with his talent and was kicked out for being both wicked and lazy.

**31-46 **- The Last Judgment scene where the saved are separated from the damned. Note, the damned do not seem to be especially ‘bad’ (at least in terms of recent news accounts on genocide!) but, the action is their failure to DO GOOD to the less fortunate: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, as they failed to see Christ in their neighbor. And, it ends on that note with the damned going into the flames of hell for their failure to do good WORKS.

Yep, the 25 Chapter is all about WORKS - those that do them and those who don’t. Now, just to make sure we really are on the same page: St. Paul is right when he talks about ‘filthy rags’ if we think that our works are, on their own, going to merit heaven for us. Christ opened the Gates of Heaven for us, made us Children of God and purchased our redemption at a great price. The issue is we just can’t say “Lord, lord”… and think that is all there is to it! (Yeah, Matt 7:21 is pretty abrupt when it comes to those who think that just saying they know the Lord is the answer! Looks like … WORKS… for Christ tells us that **
21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ **

So, not only do we have to DO good works - (and these were exteriorly impressive good works…) but, our heart has to be with Christ (and, that is where these guys failed … and failed for all eternity.

Hey Tom! How are you! Long time “no see!” Where have you been hiding? I don’t understand where you get this idea that the only thing we will be asked about at the pearly gates is about our “works.” Can you give us a Bible text that would help?

I don’t agree that this is the only thing that we will be asked about; but I am trying to figure where you are coming from on this one??

Well, as I understand it, Luther - former Catholic turned Protestant (trying to keep in line with the thread…) had developed the idea that Faith Alone is the answer. And, as you can see from the ENTIRE 25th Chapter of Mattehew, that really is not the case. So, while you and I may have other questions to answer when we are judged … the real ‘test questions’ are coming from Matthew 7 and 25.

Hope that answers your question and the Bible verses help… Now, please return the favor - what Bible verse will help me to understand that Faith Alone is what it takes when we arrive at the Pearly Gates? Christ requies Baptism - but, obviously, one just can’t crawl in a hole in a post-baptisimal state - or else they will be like the wicked and lazy servant who was given a talent but did nothing with it.

Lookig forward to hearing from you.

God bless

 

[patrick457]

Salt on watermelon

That is EXACTLY how people in Japan (at least, those that I know of) generally eat watermelons.

As for the question, well, I do know of the German artist Albrecht Dürer. He remained Catholic, but later in his life he became sympathetic to Luther’s ideas and had contacts with various reformers aside from Luther such as such as Huldrych Zwingli, Andreas Karlstadt, and Philipp Melanchthon.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Now, P101, nice to hear from you, too…

But really, in this matter you disappoointment me… I gave you the quote right up front - actually, the entire 25th Chapter of Matthew. And, just to make sure there is no confusion on where it is I am coming from…

**Matt 25
1-13 **- Here we have the story of the 10 virgins. Five wise and five foolish. Now the idea I have is all of them were pretty good girls (virgins?) but, the foolish ones did not DO what they needed to DO (and that would be a WORK). The ending of the story did not go well for the foolish ones.

**14-30 **- The Master of the house who entrusts 3 servants with talents. The 1st and 2nd servent DID something with their talent and this was recognized by the Master. Yeah, you guessed it, the 3rd guy DID NOTHING with his talent and was kicked out for being both wicked and lazy.

**31-46 **- The Last Judgment scene where the saved are separated from the damned. Note, the damned do not seem to be especially ‘bad’ (at least in terms of recent news accounts on genocide!) but, the action is their failure to DO GOOD to the less fortunate: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, as they failed to see Christ in their neighbor. And, it ends on that note with the damned going into the flames of hell for their failure to do good WORKS.

Yep, the 25 Chapter is all about WORKS - those that do them and those who don’t. Now, just to make sure we really are on the same page: St. Paul is right when he talks about ‘filthy rags’ if we think that our works are, on their own, going to merit heaven for us. Christ opened the Gates of Heaven for us, made us Children of God and purchased our redemption at a great price. The issue is we just can’t say “Lord, lord”… and think that is all there is to it! (Yeah, Matt 7:21 is pretty abrupt when it comes to those who think that just saying they know the Lord is the answer! Looks like … WORKS… for Christ tells us that **
21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ **

So, not only do we have to DO good works - (and these were exteriorly impressive good works…) but, our heart has to be with Christ (and, that is where these guys failed … and failed for all eternity.

Well, as I understand it, Luther - former Catholic turned Protestant (trying to keep in line with the thread…) had developed the idea that Faith Alone is the answer. And, as you can see from the ENTIRE 25th Chapter of Mattehew, that really is not the case. So, while you and I may have other questions to answer when we are judged … the real ‘test questions’ are coming from Matthew 7 and 25.

Hope that answers your question and the Bible verses help… Now, please return the favor - what Bible verse will help me to understand that Faith Alone is what it takes when we arrive at the Pearly Gates? Christ requies Baptism - but, obviously, one just can’t crawl in a hole in a post-baptisimal state - or else they will be like the wicked and lazy servant who was given a talent but did nothing with it.

Lookig forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Is it not written that ‘faith without works is dead?’

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sailor,

That one got by me…! Thanks for catching it.

Heads up, P101 - check that out, too!

God bless

Is it not written that ‘faith without works is dead?’

 

[Protestant101]

Now, P101, nice to hear from you, too…

But really, in this matter you disappoointment me… I gave you the quote right up front - actually, the entire 25th Chapter of Matthew. And, just to make sure there is no confusion on where it is I am coming from…

Matt 25
**1-13 **- Here we have the story of the 10 virgins. Five wise and five foolish. Now the idea I have is all of them were pretty good girls (virgins?) but, the foolish ones did not DO what they needed to DO (and that would be a WORK). The ending of the story did not go well for the foolish ones.

**14-30 **- The Master of the house who entrusts 3 servants with talents. The 1st and 2nd servent DID something with their talent and this was recognized by the Master. Yeah, you guessed it, the 3rd guy DID NOTHING with his talent and was kicked out for being both wicked and lazy.

**31-46 **- The Last Judgment scene where the saved are separated from the damned. Note, the damned do not seem to be especially ‘bad’ (at least in terms of recent news accounts on genocide!) but, the action is their failure to DO GOOD to the less fortunate: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, as they failed to see Christ in their neighbor. And, it ends on that note with the damned going into the flames of hell for their failure to do good WORKS.

Yep, the 25 Chapter is all about WORKS - those that do them and those who don’t. Now, just to make sure we really are on the same page: St. Paul is right when he talks about ‘filthy rags’ if we think that our works are, on their own, going to merit heaven for us. Christ opened the Gates of Heaven for us, made us Children of God and purchased our redemption at a great price. The issue is we just can’t say “Lord, lord”… and think that is all there is to it! (Yeah, Matt 7:21 is pretty abrupt when it comes to those who think that just saying they know the Lord is the answer! Looks like … WORKS… for Christ tells us that
**21 **
**"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. **
**22 **
**Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ **
**23 **
**Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ **

So, not only do we have to DO good works - (and these were exteriorly impressive good works…) but, our heart has to be with Christ (and, that is where these guys failed … and failed for all eternity.

Well; in all these instances Tom, it only says that the works are how we would recognize the Christian, but never once do we read any reference to the works actually saving us, or helping to save us. As Mat 7 tells us, “knowing Jesus” is the key; and you can’t know Him without faith. Both Old and New Testament are agreed on this:

Hab 2:4 Behold, the soul of him is lifted up, and is not upright; but the just shall live by his faith.

Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

By golly - you’re right! Well… actually, partially right - but, I do want to point out what is good! Let me show you how it can be better:

Well; in all these instances Tom, it only says that the works are how we would recognize the Christian,

While the Christian is indeed recognized (that’s the part that you got right) it isn’t us who is engaging in this recognition -** it is God!** It is the Bridegroom who says to the foolish virgins they are NOT recognized, it is the *Master of the House *who says to the wicked and lazy servant that he did NOT invest his talent, and it is **God Himself **who is NOT recognized when people were hungry, thirsty or in prison. All we can do is judge by the standards of men - but, here are instances in Matthew 25 where God is sharing His Standards with us and how they apply. Notice, in each case, people failed to DO things they were required to DO. This is not an issue that rests entirely on believe - and that is the real key.

but never once do we read any reference to the works actually saving us, or helping to save us.

I already addressed that when I told you about Paul’s view of ‘filthy rags’. I am sure you will recall James telling us that faith WITHOUT WORKS is dead. We must have both - AND THAT MEANS ‘Faith Alone’ has no scriptural validity. And, to more clearly tie that in with the thread - there can not be a ‘Catholic proltestant’ any more than there can be a ‘square circle’. The person is either catholic or they are not. The square either has four corners of 90 degrees each, or it is not a square.

As Mat 7 tells us, “knowing Jesus” is the key; and you can’t know Him without faith. Both Old and New Testament are agreed on this:

Hab 2:4 Behold, the soul of him is lifted up, and is not upright; but the just shall live by his faith.

Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

I think you have lost the balance that the entire scripture is providing to us, P101. Yes, we must have faith and be righteous - none of which we can accomplish without the Grace of God. But, as Christ tells us, “By their fruits you will know them” (Matt 7:16) The tree WORKS at producing fruit (look at what Christ did to the fig tree that was a non-producer in Mark 11:12). The ‘fruits’ in Matthew 25 were: 1.) being prepared, 2.) using the talents God gave to us and 3.) seeing Christ in our neighbor and acting accordingly to their needs. You guessed it - all involve WORKS that have been combined with FAITH! And there lies the balance presented in the Gospels.

God bless

 

[Anna_Scott]

Augustine early in his career as a theologian and churchman was a believer in the primacy of the papacy and the Matthew 16:18 interpretation we hear in CAF daily. But later on in his life we see a more Orthodox/Protestant view of the papacy…

Read these quotes. These quotes come from later in his life while the bank of Pro-Papal quotes you’ll find at CAF occur early in his life before he developed a fuller understanding that is more of an Eastern Orthodox approach. All are annotated and documented, so feel free to look them up…cheers:

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.3 The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

And he goes on to say more things which it would take too long to mention.
Shortly afterward, after these words of his in which he approved of Peter’s faith and showed that it was the rock, he began there and then to show his disciples that it would be necessary for him to come to Jerusalem, and suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the scribes and the priests, and be killed, and on the third day rise again. 6John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/5, Sermon 183.14, p. 343.

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ 8A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

*Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? **Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? ***Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ. 13John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1992), Sermons, III/5, Sermon 149.6-7, p. 21

Gurney,

This is the best post I’ve seen on the forums regarding Peter and Mt.16:19. I was just reading last night about Peter’s confession and the fact that Christ is the “rock.”

Excellent Gurney!

Anna

 

[losh14]

There were subtle influences as well. Church design began to be influenced by the Protestant Churches. (having pews.)

I forgot about that - hence why Orthodox Christians still stand throughout the Mass.

Private reading of Scripture in the vernacular once again became normative for Catholics.

Did it ever really begin? I mean, reading was a luxury for many years and it wasn’t until probably the past two hundred years or so that it was common for a family to be able to own and read a Bible, much less other books. I think that the Reformation really needed a larger and literate population to occur, and this may be one reason why contrary or even heretical movements prior to the widespread owning of books rarely spread beyond regional movements.

 

[losh14]

LOL; funny post! Now I have a SERIOUS question. Am I a Catholic Protestant because I like Catholics? Or, am I a “heretic” like the poster above seems to say? I don’t think I would be a Catholic Protestant, because of this - would I? What am I…Can someone tell me?

I took the OP’s statement in line with the times - at the Reformation, any Catholic who agreed with Protestant doctrine was a heretic because Protestantism was seen as a heresy - a new teaching that goes against what the Catholic Church teaches.

Protestants aren’t considered heretics today. To be a heretic you have to first be Catholic and then embrace a heterodox doctrine.

But if you like Catholics, that’s nice. We appreciate that. There have been some Seventh-Day Adventists who have come on here and said far less savory things about Catholics, so a more civil discussion is always welcome.

 

[losh14]

The most that you could say is that the desertion of millions of Catholics to protestantism was the “wake-up call” that prompted the Church authorities to take much firmer action against corruption, which many loyal Catholics had been calling for for at least 200 years with little success.

There was also a tremendous political aspect to the Reformation. Lutheran theology would not have spread nearly as far without the support of the German princes who sought political independence from Rome. If everyone in those days had access to information like we do today - in other words, were able to choose what they believed based a lot of available material - you no doubt would have many choosing Luther either because they agreed with him or because they decried the wrongful practice of selling indulgences and the impiety of some in the magisterium that so repulsed Luther. But once the swords came out it ceased to be a populist outrage and instead became a matter of keeping your head. Your prince converts and says he’ll burn you at the stake if you don’t? Your choice is pretty clear, unless you hold the fortitude to watch your entire family martyred.

The Reformation would have been so much less bloody if not for the Medieval mindset of its participants and antagonists.

 

[losh14]

As opposed to our “light and sunny” days when the leaders of “civilised” nations endorse deliberately killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians with a nuclear bomb, or legalised abortion, euthanasia, promoting sodomy etc.etc.?

Suffice to say, humanity has a long way to go. But at least we recognize freedom of religion throughout most of the world. No, you still have to be baptised in secret in Saudi Arabia, but Catholics and Protestants at least get along well enough to work together and develop friendships for the most part. That’s a huge step.

I think his “neutrality” was more along the lines of “a pox on both their houses”.
I thought his heterodox teachings about the Eucharist were condsidered his most serious crimes.

Hus wasn’t the best kind of the neutral, but I think his efforts at the onset at least were noble - keep ecclesial unity in the face of political confrontation. Hus actually rejected Wyclif’s heretical teaching on the Eucharist, but added that the masses ought to receive the Body and Blood (at a time when it was the clergy who received it). I think it was after his death that his followers embraced Wyclif’s teachings. Yes, Hus was disobeying ecclesial authority, but I don’t think that’s what got him executed when we remember that he landed on the wrong side of a papal schism.