Catholics who know history: please answer

[Chancellare]

The protestant reformation movement actually had it’s beginnings long before October 31,1517, the year that Martin Luther nailed his list of complaints against the Roman Catholic Church to the door of the All Saints’ Church in present day Germany.

The Great Schism of Western Christianity or Papal Schism (also known as the Western Schism) was a split within the Roman Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417. By its end, three men simultaneously claimed to be the true pope. Driven by politics rather than any real theological disagreement, the schism was ended by the Council of Constance (1414–1418). The simultaneous claims to the papal chair of three different men hurt the reputation of the office. The Western Schism is occasionally called the Great Schism, though this term is more often applied to the East-West Schism of 1054. (This information came from Wikipedia)

The “Catholic Reformation” began in 1560 and lasted through 1648and may have ben a direct result of the protestant reformation.

I hope this helps whoever posted the original question.

I must propose a correction to the above.
If historical record is of any value, I must submit that ‘Catholic Reformation’ as you peruse the term actually occured way before 1560 as you stated.

1. Even if you only consider the Council of Trent, it started 1545.
2. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517 was done when he was a Catholic Priest. Technically speaking, he was part of ‘Catholic Reformation’ before he became protestant.This makes your claim “Protestant reformation begining before 1517” technically a misnomer.
3. Substantially, there were already countless Catholic reformers almost a century before Luther: St Ignatius; St. Philip Neri and St. Vincent de Paul, exemplars of its maturity in bringing reforms to Catholic Church. All of them provided valuable improvement to monastic life and Catholic practices without going schismatic.

Setting aside medieval politics, reformation need not be schismatic in order to produce the improvements so desired. I hope we can agree on that.

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone;
The body of Christ is ALL believers

Gabriel of 12:
yeah, but Jesus said, “Many will say Lord, Lord” “did we not do marvelous things in your name? and Jesus will tell them “depart from me you evil doers, I never knew you” Yet Jesus confirms to those in John 6: " you must eat my body, and drink my blood inorder to have eternal life”. So which believers are given eternal life, all believers who believe, or the believer’s (Catholics) who obey his commandments and act out his will to eat and drink his body and blood. So to which body of believers do you Hisalone belong too?

Gabriel I have the the Spirit of adoption which Christ has given me it crys Abba,Father. He and the Spirit of Christ abides in me as I am a Temple of the Most High God. God has accepted me and I am born in the spirit of God I am a child of God and walk with Him daily as Noah and Enoch walked with God. You too can have this relationship with God. I am in Christ. I do this by faith entering into His very presence. Therefore there is no condemnation of me as I remain in Christ. I am one of His and He has told me so.
No man No woman and not even you Gabriel can tell me Im not part of Gods holy assembly because God Himself has told me so.
Who should I beleve certainly not you.
Hisalone:
Jesus says I am one of His whom is it best to believe Him or you?

Gabriel of 12;
I only repeated what Jesus promised to those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life; You stated you only belieive, scripture states the devil and the demons believe also; What seperates all believers and the promised ones with eternal life are those who obey Jesus commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood. If you believe Jesus then why dont you consume his body and blood as he commanded you to do?

Beleivers believe in the person of Christ not in a man made institution.

Hisalone:
The counterReformation is proof that reformation was needed.

**Gabriel of 12:
The counter Reformation is proof that Luther and his reformers could not change Catholic apostolic teaching and doctrine.
The reformers changed their Catholic faith for different gospel teaching beginning with the “Sola’s” teachings that were never heard of until the reformers invented this new christian doctrine. This is the change brought about by the reformers. **

salvation is by Gods grace alone through faith alone in Christ aloneHisalone:
If there was no Reformation there is no counter Reformation.

Gabriel of 12:
The way I see it, There was no counter reformation if what you mean from the Catholic church. The Catholic church only confirmed She would not change what the reformers were trying to change the true body of Jesus Christ which does not change.

**There was no need for the counter reformation if reform was not needed.**Hisalone"
the RCC departed from salvation by grace through faith they were in apostacy

Gabriel of 12
Talk about wishful thinking, your reformers would disagree with you on that false accusation; unless you can prove other wise? Yet no one has never proved such a lie from history, so why feed such calamity to a topic of wishful haters of the body of Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine.

Hisalone:
Are you denying that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church was ever taught? If so you need to brush up on your history.

Gabriel of 12;
Here’s the point to the above statement; Unless you have an understanding of what and who the body of Jesus Christ is, then absouletly “THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” I need not brush up on my history, because this belief is unchanged for 2000 years now. Why dont you believe in the body of Jesus Christ his Catholic church?

The “Rock” Jesus built his church upon Peter is still the same today,
The rock is Christ
yesterday and forever more until he comes for his church finding Peter (present Pope) and the Roman Catholic church doing so as Jesus instructed her. This price not to change Jesus teachings came at a high price from the blood of Catholic martyrs who refused to change. So it was in the reformers period. What changed was like you call it, administrators in conduct or disciplines. But the Catholic faith remains intact unchanged only defined and revealed in her faith and apostolic teachings from Jesus Christ himself.

Peace

The Roman Church has taught there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Today it teaches that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church --change in teaching.

 

[DebChris]

The Roman Church has taught there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Today it teaches that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church --change in teaching.

The Catholic Church has always taught a “Baptism of Desire.”
Salvation comes from Jesus Christ. Yet in His mercy, if somebody who has not heard the Word preached lives a righteous life, he is still saved.
Jesus Christ died for the Salvation of the world. We were saved at the moment of His crucifixion and we continue to be saved each and every time the Mass is celebrated until the end of the world.
It must be iterated that the Catholic Church is not a human institution. Christ is the head of the Church with Peter (his successor) as vicar. During WWII, the arms of a statue of Jesus in a Catholic Church in Germany were blown off. Somebody put a sign on the statue with the words, “He has no hands but yours.”
While we cannot see Christ, we do see the Pope who acts on Christ behalf. Does that negate our personal responsibility for sin within our own life? Of course not.
In Acts, we see that the early Christians submitted themselves to the teachings of the Apostles. Peter was called to the leadership role of the early Church and the Pope continues that leadership.
Have their been poor popes? Most definitely. The pope is not God. St. Catherine of Sienna is noted for her ability to reprimand the pope, yet she remained under the umbrella of the Church.
When we, as Christian Catholics, submit to the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church), we are in fact submitting ourselves to apostolic teaching and therefore to Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

The Roman Church has taught there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Today it teaches that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church --change in teaching.

Alright. Everyone gather around one more time while Daddy Ralph explains it again. This has become a pet project of mine.

The Catholic Church rightly proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of the Church.

Who was Jesus? Well, if he was whom Catholics say he was, then he is God. To knowingly deny that is to lose your shot at heaven. Did Jesus found a Church? If yes, then you must accept that to knowingly not be a member of that Church is to lose your shot at heaven. However, if through no fault of your own, you deny either one or both, you have a reduced culpability.

Now, who was outside of the Church when this was stated? It was thought that the only people outside of the Church were Jews, Muslims, and heretics. They Protestant Reformation had not yet occured, so even they were not an issue. It was assumed that the Jews and Muslims had been told of the Gospel of Jesus and chose to reject it. However, the facts of the state of the earth were not correct.

First, Muslims and Jews had not been properly taught the faith.

Second, the New World had not been discovered, so the CHurch was not aware of people there who had not been told of the Gospel. Likewise, vast parts of Asia and Africa had not been reached, so there were more people there.

Finally, it was thought that the Eastern Orthodox were in a different catagory. We will not get into that.

Once the Church realized that there were people who had not ever been taught the Gospel, they had to understand the teaching in the new way. Now, we see that this only applies to those who knowingly reject the Catholic faith. Others may be saved due to the mercy of God.

 

[reteeks21]

Alright. Everyone gather around one more time while Daddy Ralph explains it again. This has become a pet project of mine.

The Catholic Church rightly proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of the Church.

Who was Jesus? Well, if he was whom Catholics say he was, then he is God. To knowingly deny that is to lose your shot at heaven. Did Jesus found a Church? If yes, then you must accept that to knowingly not be a member of that Church is to lose your shot at heaven. However, if through no fault of your own, you deny either one or both, you have a reduced culpability.

Now, who was outside of the Church when this was stated? It was thought that the only people outside of the Church were Jews, Muslims, and heretics. They Protestant Reformation had not yet occured, so even they were not an issue. It was assumed that the Jews and Muslims had been told of the Gospel of Jesus and chose to reject it. However, the facts of the state of the earth were not correct.

First, Muslims and Jews had not been properly taught the faith.

Second, the New World had not been discovered, so the CHurch was not aware of people there who had not been told of the Gospel. Likewise, vast parts of Asia and Africa had not been reached, so there were more people there.

Finally, it was thought that the Eastern Orthodox were in a different catagory. We will not get into that.

Once the Church realized that there were people who had not ever been taught the Gospel, they had to understand the teaching in the new way. Now, we see that this only applies to those who knowingly reject the Catholic faith. Others may be saved due to the mercy of God.

Nive job, daddy Ralph.

 

[ralphinal]

Nive job, daddy Ralph.

Roll Tide is better at explaining it than me, but I still can do it.

 

[benedictus2]

Alright. Everyone gather around one more time while Daddy Ralph explains it again. This has become a pet project of mine.

The Catholic Church rightly proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of the Church.

Who was Jesus? Well, if he was whom Catholics say he was, then he is God. To knowingly deny that is to lose your shot at heaven. Did Jesus found a Church? If yes, then you must accept that to knowingly not be a member of that Church is to lose your shot at heaven. However, if through no fault of your own, you deny either one or both, you have a reduced culpability.

Now, who was outside of the Church when this was stated? It was thought that the only people outside of the Church were Jews, Muslims, and heretics. They Protestant Reformation had not yet occured, so even they were not an issue. It was assumed that the Jews and Muslims had been told of the Gospel of Jesus and chose to reject it. However, the facts of the state of the earth were not correct.

First, Muslims and Jews had not been properly taught the faith.

Second, the New World had not been discovered, so the CHurch was not aware of people there who had not been told of the Gospel. Likewise, vast parts of Asia and Africa had not been reached, so there were more people there.

Finally, it was thought that the Eastern Orthodox were in a different catagory. We will not get into that.

Once the Church realized that there were people who had not ever been taught the Gospel, they had to understand the teaching in the new way. Now, we see that this only applies to those who knowingly reject the Catholic faith. Others may be saved due to the mercy of God.

Great job!

 

[Metamorphoo]

**
There are only two Churches which have valid Eucharist and Mysteries/Sacraments! All others are counterfeit, or just plain liars! No other words can be used to truthfuly describe their beliefs! These same two Churches which maintain an unbroken Apostolic Succession Line back to Jesus’ 12 Apostles. Those Churches are know today as the: Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Pick one! Become one! And see what it is really like to actually be a Christian!

Just because you are “christlike” in your ways doesn’t make you a christian! Don’t fool your self and don’t let your soul be condemned to eternal damnation due to liars and fools who deceive you! There are 61,000 denominations that don’t all agree with each other about anything. Except the single thing that they all believe: The Catholic Church is wrong! Now who would stand against Jesus’ Church, attempting to tear it down? Satan? He is my guess!

**

FYI … the Catholic and Orthodox are not the only churches in Apostolic Succession. I know because I attended such a church for three years, and the Catholic Church has formally recognized my former pastor’s ordination as such. Believe it or not, the RCC bishop has even asked him on a couple of occasions to administer communion to Catholics when no Catholic priest was around for many miles.

 

[benedictus2]

I must propose a correction to the above.
If historical record is of any value, I must submit that ‘Catholic Reformation’ as you peruse the term actually occured way before 1560 as you stated.

1. Even if you only consider the Council of Trent, it started 1545.
2. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517 was done when he was a Catholic Priest. Technically speaking, he was part of ‘Catholic Reformation’ before he became protestant.This makes your claim “Protestant reformation begining before 1517” technically a misnomer.
3. Substantially, there were already countless Catholic reformers almost a century before Luther: St Ignatius; St. Philip Neri and St. Vincent de Paul, exemplars of its maturity in bringing reforms to Catholic Church. All of them provided valuable improvement to monastic life and Catholic practices without going schismatic.

Setting aside medieval politics, reformation need not be schismatic in order to produce the improvements so desired. I hope we can agree on that.

BRAVO!!!:clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

FYI … the Catholic and Orthodox are not the only churches in Apostolic Succession. I know because I attended such a church for three years, and the Catholic Church has formally recognized my former pastor’s ordination as such. Believe it or not, the RCC bishop has even asked him on a couple of occasions to administer communion to Catholics when no Catholic priest was around for many miles.

Which Church is it?

 

[Metamorphoo]

Which Church is it?

My former pastor is affiliated with the Communion of Convergence Churches.

 

[The_Preacher]

Well, if you can’t trust Wikipedia who could you trust? I have an idea :newidea: the RCC!

In Luther’s day it was normal for a professor to post a list of postulates and sell tickets for folks to come hear his students debate them. Nobody came to the “ninty five,” not even willing orators. It would have died then with no pay off, but a guy named Guttenberg was looking for “peny novels,” which sold well, but Luther never saw a cent. There’s just no justive in this world. :sad_yes:

 

[benedictus2]

My former pastor is affiliated with the Communion of Convergence Churches.

I am not sure about the situation with your pastor but based on the little reading I’ve done, although they claim apostolic succession I don’t think they have apostolic succession. It is Evangelical that looks towards Anglicanism and it was only established in 1973.

So while they may claim apostolic succession, that is highly debatable and I am not certain they can even provide support for it. Their website certainly does not.

Also, Thomas Howard, one of the writers who inspired this movement has since converted to Catholicism and has given a beautiful account of his conversion and why the Church is the True Church of Christ. It took him 10 years from the time he started reading up on the claims of the Church to the time of his reception.

On the preface to his book “Lead Kindly Light”, Fr Neuhaus (a convert from Lutheranism) writes that for in the question is about truth. Whether the Church is who she claims to be. According to him , once one’s intellect has assented, then the question is no longer “why should I become a Catholic?” but rather “Why am I not Catholic?”

The book is small but excellent reading. Thomas Howard is an intellectual so his approach was very rational and well researched.

 

[Hisalone]

Alright. Everyone gather around one more time while Daddy Ralph explains it again. This has become a pet project of mine.

The Catholic Church rightly proclaimed that there is no salvation outside of the Church.

Who was Jesus? Well, if he was whom Catholics say he was, then he is God. To knowingly deny that is to lose your shot at heaven. Did Jesus found a Church? If yes, then you must accept that to knowingly not be a member of that Church is to lose your shot at heaven. However, if through no fault of your own, you deny either one or both, you have a reduced culpability.

Now, who was outside of the Church when this was stated? It was thought that the only people outside of the Church were Jews, Muslims, and heretics. They Protestant Reformation had not yet occured, so even they were not an issue. It was assumed that the Jews and Muslims had been told of the Gospel of Jesus and chose to reject it. However, the facts of the state of the earth were not correct.

First, Muslims and Jews had not been properly taught the faith.

Second, the New World had not been discovered, so the CHurch was not aware of people there who had not been told of the Gospel. Likewise, vast parts of Asia and Africa had not been reached, so there were more people there.

Finally, it was thought that the Eastern Orthodox were in a different catagory. We will not get into that.

Once the Church realized that there were people who had not ever been taught the Gospel, they had to understand the teaching in the new way. Now, we see that this only applies to those who knowingly reject the Catholic faith. Others may be saved due to the mercy of God.

None of which is biblical.

 

[Metamorphoo]

I am not sure about the situation with your pastor but based on the little reading I’ve done, although they claim apostolic succession I don’t think they have apostolic succession. It is Evangelical that looks towards Anglicanism and it was only established in 1973.

So while they may claim apostolic succession, that is highly debatable and I am not certain they can even provide support for it. Their website certainly does not.

All I can tell you is that I saw his papers (a notebook, really). I flipped through it very quickly–but I definitely recall that they went way back. My husband and I were very surprised, as we didn’t think the RCC would recognize any non-Catholic ordination (with the exception, perhaps, of the Orthodox) as within Apostolic Succession. My husband mentioned to my brother-in-law (a Catholic) what our pastor told us. My brother-in-law made an inquiry to his parish priest; and not long afterwards, our pastor received a call from another Catholic priest in the area (with whom he was on friendly terms). The priest asked him not to tell too many people, as word had gotten out–and there were Catholic laity in the church that didn’t understand how it could possibly be and were upset when they found out that my pastor was indeed telling the truth.

 

[DebChris]

Eastern and Western Churches and Relationship to Rome
Eastern Catholic Churches–full communion:
Antiochan: West Syrian (Syro-Antiochian, Maronite, and Malankarese Churches) East Syrian (Chaldean and Malabrase Churches)
Alexandrian: Coptic and Ethiopian Churches
Byzantine: Abanian, Belarusan, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Greek, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Uknrainian
Armenian: The Armenian Church

Orthodox Eastern Churches–separated:
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and of recent origen Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Albania

Western Churches of the Reformation–separated:
Lutheran
Reformed–Presbyterian and Congregationalist–Baptist, United Church of Christ, Unitarian
The Church of England (Anglican)–United Methodist, African Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, Episcopal, Quaker
Anabaptists–Amish, Mennonite, Brethern

 

[ralphinal]

None of which is biblical.

Really?

Did Jesus say that to enter the kingdom, you must be born again of water and the Spirit?

 

[benedictus2]

Eastern and Western Churches and Relationship to Rome

Eastern Catholic Churches–full communion:
Antiochan: West Syrian (Syro-Antiochian, Maronite, and Malankarese Churches) East Syrian (Chaldean and Malabrase Churches)
Alexandrian: Coptic and Ethiopian Churches
Byzantine: Abanian, Belarusan, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Greek, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Uknrainian
Armenian: The Armenian Church

Orthodox Eastern Churches–separated:
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and of recent origen Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Albania

Western Churches of the Reformation–separated:
Lutheran
Reformed–Presbyterian and Congregationalist–Baptist, United Church of Christ, Unitarian
The Church of England (Anglican)–United Methodist, African Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, Episcopal, Quaker
Anabaptists–Amish, Mennonite, Brethern

Good work!

Deb, since you seem to be very knowledgeable on this, can you check out Metamarphoo’s claim a few posts back on the apostolic succession claims of convergence churches and also relating to her other claims on the posts following.

I think this a case priests making decisions on their own and not really sanctioned by the Church.

But only if you have time.

 

[Metamorphoo]

Eastern and Western Churches and Relationship to Rome
Eastern Catholic Churches–full communion:
Antiochan: West Syrian (Syro-Antiochian, Maronite, and Malankarese Churches) East Syrian (Chaldean and Malabrase Churches)
Alexandrian: Coptic and Ethiopian Churches
Byzantine: Abanian, Belarusan, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Greek, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Uknrainian
Armenian: The Armenian Church

Orthodox Eastern Churches–separated:
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and of recent origen Russia, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Albania

Western Churches of the Reformation–separated:
Lutheran
Reformed–Presbyterian and Congregationalist–Baptist, United Church of Christ, Unitarian
The Church of England (Anglican)–United Methodist, African Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, Episcopal, Quaker
Anabaptists–Amish, Mennonite, Brethern

I happened to see if I could find any info online that would help to address the Apostolic Succession issue. A quick search led me to this site:

axioscm.org/general/gen02.php?pageId=208

I know for a fact that my pastor was ordained (and later, consecrated) by Wayne Boosahda, whose name is mentioned in this list. There may have been other bishops involved as well–I wasn’t there, so I don’t really know. As the site indicates, this is a partial listing of the various strands of “geneologies” (for lack of a better word on my part) to be found within the Communion of Convergence Churches. The site specifically mentions the succession through the Patriarch of Antioch (Antiochene Orthodox), the line through which Wayne Boosahda was consecrated.

 

[The_Preacher]

All I can tell you is that I saw his papers (a notebook, really). I flipped through it very quickly–but I definitely recall that they went way back. My husband and I were very surprised, as we didn’t think the RCC would recognize any non-Catholic ordination (with the exception, perhaps, of the Orthodox) as within Apostolic Succession. My husband mentioned to my brother-in-law (a Catholic) what our pastor told us. My brother-in-law made an inquiry to his parish priest; and not long afterwards, our pastor received a call from another Catholic priest in the area (with whom he was on friendly terms). The priest asked him not to tell too many people, as word had gotten out–and there were Catholic laity in the church that didn’t understand how it could possibly be and were upset when they found out that my pastor was indeed telling the truth.

What do you mean by Catholic? Rome recognizes several skizmatic Catholic successions as “valid but irregular” if the petegree can be clearly documented as unbroken from Roman Orders. Personally, I have come to see no valid reason not to be under obedience to the Holy See but Holy Orders are a physical thing, conveyed physically by a valid Bishop to achieve an actual physical change of estate upon a man. Such a Priest or Deacon cannot function as a Sacremental Priest in the Roman Catholic Church, but is a Priest non the less. Should that irregular be accepted to sacremental office, his Orders are regularized. Thats not to say that many irregulars are not heterodox, many are and regretably I personally know many who have and are doing great harm outside the Church. But many are strict in their keeping to the Magestarium. I believe you mentioned Anglican Orders. They were declaired “completely null and utterly void” during the reign of Cromwell, which is not to say that valid orders might not have snuck back into their succession since, but no valid original Anglican Orders made it to the restoration of monarchy in England, which raises an interesting question. If the English Monarch must be anointed by a valid bishop, and Anglican Bishops are of questionable validity, has Englind had a King lo these many years?