Sorry for the confusion, There are just so many different perspectives to christianity outside the Catholic church, I was tempting not to offend or leave any one out, in my long question.I get the gist of your post but I must say that I had to read the 2nd sentence several times and I am not sure I understand it very well! I did a word count and it has 57 words!
Nevertheless the question is an interesting one.
**Very well Contarini; Instead of sharing your Christianity, you decided to explain mine from the outside looking in. Very ingenious of you. What your opinions express do not negate the facts about Catholicism. So tell me, does your church faith dip its toes into first century Christianilty, or later? Can you explain why your faith differs or how does it relate to the first 1500 years of Christianity?
Thatâs not what the thread is asking or discussing? The first 1500 years of Christendom is the discussion and whatâs being analyzed is how can Protestants claim the OSAS and justification through faith ALONE and sola scriptura, etc. etc. when for 1500 years that was NOT what was believed? Obviously believing those things would seem to hint at the idea that the first 1500 years of Christians walking the earth were doomed, dumb, and lost if it took 1500 years to enlighten and teach âthe truthâ to everyone in the reformation?
Very well said. So it did not interest you in any way; when you experienced a conversion; of which Church Jesus founded? I am sure if you are Lutheran; The founder of your faith came from the Catholic church, before he seperated himself, and later was excommunicated from the first 1500 years of christian succession? But left with some of the Traditonal Roman Catholic teachings, as you so elequently explained.Sorry to be a little slow in joining this thread. You folks have a bit of a head start on me.
Speaking for myself (although I think I can speak for Lutherans in general), we do not discount the first 1500 years of Christianity. If we did, we would be discounting the New Testament, the witness of the martyrs, and the three ecumenical creeds. We do not discount any of these.
I have used the story of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas as an example of the way in which the early martyrs rejoiced in the deaths they faced. We do not deny the faith of those early martyrs. I can only pray that I would be as faithful and joyful in witness as they should I ever be faced with martyrdom.
With the early Church, we reject Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, and all the heresies that plagued it.
With the early Church, we confess the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
With the early Church, we believe that Baptism washes away sin and brings one to new life in Christ.
With the early Church, we believe that in Holy Communion we receive the true Body and Blood of our Lord.
This is a short list of what we have received from the pre-1500 Church. We do not discount any of it. At the same time we have some differences in ecclesiology â the way in which the Church is structured here on earth. These do not, however, discount the faith that has been passed down over the centuries by the Holy Spirit.
I donât know Gabriel until that time is upon meâŚbeing an âarm chair martyrâ is easyâŚto say âyes Iâd die for my faithââŚsaying it and doing it are different things entirely. Thousands of Friends suffered in English prisonsâŚhundreds died horribleâŚlanguishing deaths for their faith in Godâs immediate Presence.
I deeply respect your answer. I had hoped not to come across to strong with Martyr issue. Well who started the âFriendsâ communities anyway? I think it is wonderful âFriendsâ live according to the first century bible christians, in charity, love and peace. Do you know when the âFriendsâ community began? and where?
So does your Christianity practices; duplicate, reflect, mirror, the first 1500 years of Christianity, or have they changed?
Yes, as an organized group Friends find their beginnings in the mid-17th centuryâŚit began when a young man named George Fox sought religious truth, he visited various Christian priests and ministers of his dayâŚâget marriedââŚâsing psalmsââŚâsmoke tobaccoââŚhe heard it all and when he had given up in despair andâŚâAnd when all my hopes in them and all men were gone. . . I heard a voice which said, âThere is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition,â and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy.â He taught that men were Christians if they lived as such and whether Protestant or Catholic meant nothing unless one lived their faith in Christ.
Iâm not quite sure what you mean by this. I was born and remain a Lutheran. I have no doubt that as a Lutheran Christian I am part of the church of Jesus Christ.
We certainly try to remain faithful to the Lutheran Confessions as found in the Book of Concord. In fact, the definition of a Lutheran is one who accepts those writings as valid interpretations of scripture. However, I would be less than truthful if I said that all Lutherans agree on the interpretation of those writings.
I think that being a Lutheran today is not so much a continuing of the protests or disagreements that existed 500 years ago as it is the living out of oneâs faith according to the way one has come to know Christ as Lord and Savior. I donât think of myself as protesting against Catholicism â in fact, I am very interested in the ongoing dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics here in the U.S. That doesnât mean that Iâm in training to swim the Tiber, but I am decidedly not among the anti-Catholic fanatics.
If one takes seriously Jesusâ prayer âthat they may be one as you and I are one,â one must look at the reality of what separates us and look for ways of overcoming the causes of separation. Given the history of the past 500 years â for all but the last 50 there was little effort to understand one another â it will take no little time and effort to clear away all the baggage that has accumulated.
Again⌠itâs not MY Christianity. Why do you insist on this phrase? Christianity is Christâs!
I agree that the rituals are not the core. Certain acts are. For example the core of the Church in the first century was the Eucharist. Taking the body and blood of Christ. Many people died for this belief. The rituals may not matter; however, the apostles taught that the Eucharist was necessary for salvation. The first generation after the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, also taught this truth. We closely follow the mass from Justin. Sometimes ignoring the first century is to ignore certain truths.
Itâs not ingenious, just fair. You are asking me to explain the many ways in which Anglicanism differs from previous expressions of Christianity. Iâm putting this into perspective in opposed to your very one-sided set of assumptions.
We donât âdip our toes.â We stand in continuity with the entire history of Christianity, although of course we give the more ancient traditions priority, and we give Holy Scripture (as the canonical embodiment of divine revelation historically recognized by the Church, and as our most authentic witness of earliest Christianity) supreme authority.
If you want me to write a 500-page book. How about asking some specific questions? We are descended from the pre-Reformation Catholic Church in England. Our bishops are the successors of the pre-Reformation bishops. The liturgical tradition of Anglicanism is a reform of the medieval liturgy, with reference to early Christian liturgy and with heavy influences from Continental Protestantism. We confess the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the essentials of the Christian faith. The Reformation-era 39 Articles, which reflect a moderate Reformed theology, are given much less authority (I was never asked to subscribe to them, and the priest who prepared me for confirmation made it very clear that we adhere to them only insofar as they are compatible with the historic Catholic Faith).
Depends what you mean by this. I donât particularly want you to share anything. You are the one who started this thread. You are the one who is being accusatory. But when you start with the assumption that we ânon-Catholicsâ have a faith that is substantially different from that of the first 1500 years, itâs only fair to ask what your criteria are and how they apply to your own tradition of Christianity. What exactly does it mean to say that âthe Roman Catholic Church was thereâ? If you mean that Christians in communion with the See of Rome were there, then of course thatâs true. If you mean that these Christians explicitly taught all the doctrines or engaged in all the practices of the post-Reformation âRoman Catholic Church,â then this is clearly false. But it is this latter sense that you seem to have in mind when you ask about the relationship between âmy faithâ and the first 1500 years. In other words, youâre engaging in a double standard.
**
Friends understand what it was the first century Christians did and practicedâŚa Quaker maximââŚâThee tells me what the apostles sayâŚthee tells me what the prophets say, but what can thee say?â Our faith is experientialâŚoutward forms are not of use to usâŚno man can perform a ritual on our behalf, not âconfectâ a sacrament on our behalf for us to experienceâŚwe receive directly from the Hand of Christ what we need and require. If those rites and rituals have meaning for you to find Him, wonderfulâŚbut we âlive in that virtue and power of life in which the apostles livedâŚâ We experience the Risen Christ in our lives and our worship experiences.
Interesting post. Let me make some clarifying points. I am not sure we have the same understanding of the Eucharist.
I asked a similar question:
Christ dies and rises around 30 A.D. (I think 26, but thatâs besides the point).
He commissions the disciples as Apostles around that time.
They spread the Word, and give their farewell (Acts 20:17-37, btw quoting a verse from the Gospel, v. 35, not in the Gospels) after appointing bishops/overseers (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5; I Timothy 3:1-7, 12-6, and elsewhere) around the 50s. The last Apostle, S.t John, falls asleep around 100, see in touch with the Churches (as the beginning of Revelation shows).
Now, we have letters from two of those bishops that the Apostles left, St. Clement (c. 94, + c. 99, predecessed it seems St. John) ordained by Paul to succeed Peter at Rome, and St. Ignatius (c. 110) ordained by Peter to succeed him at Antioch, which he did c. 67, and was taught by St. John.
(we can include others of the same status, like Polycarp of Smyrna, who was ordained by St. John, and whose life is an early witness to the cult of saints, but I want to keep it simple).
Now these letters explicitly show that they believed:
the episcopacy and hierarchy of the Church is of divine institution, and communion with the bishop is a requirement of Christ. No solo Christo, and no invisible Church.
the Eucharist is really the Sacrifice of the Altar, and the Very Body of Christ
Tradition is a source of Church dogma, not just the heart of the Churchâs Tradition, the Bible. i.e. no solo scriptura (a dogma not in the sciptura, but I digress)
Faith must be accompanied by the works that reflect it, no solo fidei.
Man must act in synergy with Godâ grace. No solo gratia.
Sunday is the day of worshop, which even the Jews who accept Christ accept. No Seventh day Sabbaticalism
We honor the hierarchy and saints. No solo Deo gloria.
There is more, but I want to keep it simple.
The Apostolic Churchs (the Orthodox, Vatican etc.) are in basic agreement with each other and with SS Clement and Ignatius and these issues (the Vatican and us debate on whether either believed in a papacy, but we agree that they, and we, believe in a episcopal hierarchy established by Christ).
I understand some Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans (I was one once) and perhaps other Protestants may share some of these beliefs with us, but in the main Protestants reject them, holding to the five solos, which SS Clement and Ignatius, from these letters, were opposed to.
These letters were sent to other Churches headed by bishops that the Apostles themselves had set up (e.g. Ignatius writes to St. Polycarp). The recipents did not dispute the dogmas therein: indeed they cherished them as statements of the same Faith they received from the Apostles (e.g. we have evidence that Clementâs letter, to Corinth, was read every year in that Church, and St. Polycarp latter writes with approval of St. Ignatius).
So c. 94-105 we find bishops to whom the Apostles, whom Christ sent to found his Church, entrusted the Church, writing to Churches that the Apostles themselves founded, which Churches accept and approve dogmas in said writings, dogmas that the Protestants tell us Christ did not teach, the Apostles did not teach, and which the Bible does not teach.
Christ said âupon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against itâ Matthew 16:18 (yes, I am aware that the Vatican disputes what this means, but we are agreed it means that the Church is infallible), and ordered them at His fairwell (Matthew 28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and," promised, them, âlo, I am with you alway (lit. in Greek, âall of the daysâ) even unto the end of the world. Amen.â
So well within a liftetime (c. 30-104) of Him saying these words, they were proved a lie. Well within a lifetime (or less, if we count from the repose of the last Apostle St. John and SS Clement and Ignatius, who, remember, knew the Apostles, as did some of those whom they wrote, and were appointed by the Apostles to âteach them to observe all things whatsoever He commanded themâ) the gates of Hell prevailed and those who knew the Apostles apostacized, and Christ did not keep His promise to be with them unto the end of the world.
The True Church lasted only around 74 years, actually less, as we, for instance, have no reason to think that what St. Ignatius was teaching in 67 differed from what he was teaching in 104. Even less, nonexistent even, if we consider that St. John may have reposed after St. Clement, and St. Ignatius shortly thereafter, if not at the same time.
contâŚ
And the Table of Contents of that Holy Scripture?
and Tradition is only giving your ancestors a vote.
The problems is parts donât make up a whole. Stiching limbs, unless you are Dr. Frankestein, do not make up a Body. And since a body changes from zygote to adulthood and beyond, yet remains the same person, there has to be an integrity to that body. If the the time enhanced photo of the 1st century Church doesnât resemble your Church, you have a problem.
