Does your non Catholic or Protestant belief, discounts the first 1500 years of Christians before your Christian faith began?

[Isa_Almisry]

It is only important if it brings with it that Living Presence that we experience now.

Like that Cloud of Witnesses we have, the saints who are dead to the world but alive in Christ.

If it is important to you to continue in the practices that your religious forebearers engaged in, then by all means you should continue to do so…we both may share in the Living Presence in the here and now.

That’s like saying engaging in the marital act decades later has nothing to do with your wedding day.

 

[Publisher]

Interesting post. Let me make some clarifying points. I am not sure we have the same understanding of the Eucharist.

For Catholics Christ commanded us to partake of the Eucharist. We find this in the Bible. The Eucharist is Christ physically entering this world and infusing us with his grace. He is changing us if we are willing participants. Eucharist is an act of God comanded by God and followed by the first Christians. It is not a man made event.The Eucharist is a direct action from Christ.

As a former Protestant I understand the concept of Christ spiritually feeding someone via scripture etc. Catholics also have these experiences with God in our lives and worship. In addition we have the Eucharist that the Apostles stated should be performed. The first generation taught by the Apostles reaffirm that Christ and the Apostles taught that the Eucharist must be taken.

I understand your belief…I simply do not share it. Friends seek to experience the Risen Christ daily in our lives and corporately in our worship. Another Quaker statement…“Christ is present among us now to teach His people Himself.”

If partaking in the outward forms bring you life in Christ, what a wonderful experience to have.

 

[Publisher]

Like that Cloud of Witnesses we have, the saints who are dead to the world but alive in Christ.

That’s like saying engaging in the marital act decades later has nothing to do with your wedding day.

That is your perspective, and I joy in it with you that you have found a faith to make your life better, your words more kind, your spirit more gentle, your touch more tender to those you meet as you seek to incarnate His Life in our world.

 

[PerryJ]

I understand your belief…I simply do not share it. Friends seek to experience the Risen Christ daily in our lives and corporately in our worship. Another Quaker statement…“Christ is present among us now to teach His people Himself.”

If partaking in the outward forms bring you life in Christ, what a wonderful experience to have.

So, us having historical proof that the earliest of Christians followed our beliefs concerning the Eucharist does not bother you? We have writings from the earliest of times showing that Christ commanded that the Eucharist had to be taken. Does this historical evidence from the Apostles and the first generation of Christians taught by the Apostles not make you want to re-read the Bible to verify that your teachings are correct?

I agree that Christ is in your presence and I am not trying to be difficult. I am curious if you saw historical records showing that we are doing as the Christian’s taught by the Apostles were doing if that made a difference to you?

 

[Publisher]

So, us having historical proof that the earliest of Christians followed our beliefs concerning the Eucharist does not bother you? We have writings from the earliest of times showing that Christ commanded that the Eucharist had to be taken. Does this historical evidence from the Apostles and the first generation of Christians taught by the Apostles not make you want to re-read the Bible to verify that your teachings are correct?

I agree that Christ is in your presence and I am not trying to be difficult. I am curious if you saw historical records showing that we are doing as the Christian’s taught by the Apostles were doing if that made a difference to you?

No, it doesn’t bother me. I understand about the historical writings…I have a copy of them myself and read them daily…I think they bring much needed spiritual insight. I find that the apostles did other things which I do not practice…like attending worship in the Temple…or circumcision…even Paul who advocated that Gentile didn’t have to be circumcised, suffered a Gentile to be circumcised to appease the group in Jerusalem…

I do believe there is a spiritual continuity…but I am not judged by whether I do as someone else does…I am judged by what I do, and where you see “command” to do a ritual to appease a requirement…I see no such command given to me…Quakerism isn’t for everyone I guess…but it has met my deepest and most profound spiritual needs…

I do not try to disuade you from your chosen spiritual tradition, if it brings you joy and into close relationship with the Risen One, wonderful.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So, us having historical proof that the earliest of Christians followed our beliefs concerning the Eucharist does not bother you? We have writings from the earliest of times showing that Christ commanded that the Eucharist had to be taken. Does this historical evidence from the Apostles and the first generation of Christians taught by the Apostles not make you want to re-read the Bible to verify that your teachings are correct?

I agree that Christ is in your presence and I am not trying to be difficult. I am curious if you saw historical records showing that we are doing as the Christian’s taught by the Apostles were doing if that made a difference to you?

This is an EXCELLENT point, PerryJ. I myself have had many moments, I’m sad to admit, where I was wanting to justify certain notions I had/certain beliefs that were in contrast to the RCC’s theology. Many times I have not liked a Catholic teaching and have actively sought to prove Protestantism RIGHT so I could follow my own ways and my own easier path. But I must say, looking at the Early Church Fathers has made me obedient and faithful and convinced that Roman Catholicism is legitimate and the true authority of what constitutes a real Church, not “a” church or sect, but “the” Church. The early fathers, a few of them, were ACTUALLY FIRST GENERATION DISCIPLES of the Apostles themselves!! Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, and some other Fathers were actually disciples of St. John, etc. And they speak of episcopacy, Eucharist as sacrificial, the body and blood of Christ, sacraments, they use the word “Catholic” right and left, and they have a priesthood, not a mere group of “ministers.” Protestantism ceases to exist in my mind when I do three things: read Scripture, read the Early Fathers, and read about the AFTERMATH of the Reformation in Europe. It boils down to chaos vs. holy unity. I dislike so many medievel popes and hate the disgusting abuse of indulgences, I hate so much of the silly profiteering that took place with false shrines and phony pilgrimage sites and fake “relics” that were all mixed in with legitimate and holy relics and shrines and teachings. The Middle Ages was full of corruption in behavior by many Catholics but ultimately the truth was always there and still is. The deal-breaker for me is the Early Fathers.

I fail to see how anyone who believes in the Quaker lifestyle could possibly believe it after reading Scripture and the Fathers. There is nothing but Catholicism in the Fathers…and when logically asked to decide between 2,000 years of theology vs. folks who started beliefs in the 1700’s, no comparison.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Publisher,

Do Friends have a concept of a “Deposit of Faith” – or as Jude puts it “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints”?

 

[Nickkname]

If you are a non Catholic or Protestant; And you believe your Christian faith is the Truth that Jesus left here on earth, and built his church upon your faith? explain why the first 1500 years of Christians who walked the earth before your Non Catholic or Protestant Christian faith began, can deny your Truth of your Christian faith to these first Christians who many of them went to their death joyfully for their Christian faith that does not reflect your non catholic or protestant christian belief’s?

Can you justify why your Christianity changed from these 1500 years of Christians who lived and died for their Christian faith, and why you dont practice Christianity the same as they did, and yet believe your Christianity supersedes these first 1500 years of Christians?

Peace

When you make a claim, you need to back it up with hard, solid evidence. Where’s your evidence for your claims?

 

[PerryJ]

When you make a claim, you need to back it up with hard, solid evidence. Where’s your evidence for your claims?

I don’t understand this post. Wether one believes in being Protestant or not it is hard to read any history and not see that the faith was changed after 1,500 years. Whole books are written about this concept.

 

[Reformed]

I don’t understand this post. Wether one believes in being Protestant or not it is hard to read any history and not see that the faith was changed after 1,500 years. Whole books are written about this concept.

Why so much attention on history books, and other extra-biblical sources because they are all fallible? The only book that Protestants and Catholics agree to be infallible and God breathed is the Bible. That is where all the discussion and debates should be grounded in. The Protestant Reformation was about the recovery of the Biblical gospel of God’s grace which was lost in the 16th century Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Trent sealed the deal of the rejection of the Biblical gospel of God’s grace on behalf of sinners for the Catholic Church.

 

[Publisher]

Hi Publisher,

Do Friends have a concept of a “Deposit of Faith” – or as Jude puts it “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints”?

If you’re asking do Friends believe in the scriptures…yes…one Yearly Meeting states…

“Nevertheless, because the scriptures are only a declaration of the Source, and not the Source itself, they are not to be considered the principal foundation of all truth and knowledge. They are not even to be considered as the adequate primary rule of all faith and practice. Yet, because they give a true and faithful testimony of the Source itself, they are and may be regarded as a secondary rule that is subordinate to the Spirit, from which they obtain all their excellence and certainty. **We truly know them only by the inward testimony of the Spirit **or, as the scriptures themselves say, **the Spirit is the guide by **which the faithful are led into all Truth (John 16:13). Therefore, according to the scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader (Rom 8:14). Because we are receptive to the scriptures, as the product of the Spirit, it is for that very reason that the Spirit is the primary and principal rule of faith.”

What Friends would consider a “necessary rule of faith” , a Catholic probably wouldn’t. For Quakers, Truth is something lived out in our daily lives…it is not a set of rules, doctrines and dogmas…although those things do have their use and place…but how we integrate our faith into the daily of our lives and in our communities is more important. Friends have gotten bogged down in the past on what clothes should be allowed, should the “plain clothing” be made part of who we are…what speech should be accepted, should the “plain speech” be part of our lives in the community or should it be kept separate and part of our religious community? Should we adopt a more formal system such as a “pastoral system” in the Meetings?

If we adopt a formal pastoral system do we lose sight of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ concept…each Friend is a minister…no “priesthood” can offer any “sacrament” or perform any “rite” on our behalf as a means to confer grace. Accepting a “magisterium” is very foreign to our thought…sometimes to our own detriment we have pulled away from “formal teaching”…for those Meetings which have kept the ‘non-pastoral’…“unprogrammed” forms of worship, we sometimes have held onto silence for silence sake…instead of using it as a tool to Listen to the Spirit speak to us and teach us His ways through others vocal ministry.

We as humans demand structure…sometimes to the point where we lose sight of what is truly important. We focus on the “outward forms” and soon those “outward forms” become more important…

Friends are not against sacraments…each meal is an opportunity to embrace “sacrament” and union with the Eternal…God is found in the face of the person who sits across from us…not in bread and wine. He is found in offering water to a thirsty person…not in a baptismal font. Healing can take place by a caring hand during a visit to a hospital room with as much “sacramental” meaning as any “extreme unction” could accopmplish.

These are some of the ideals we try to live by…but so often we fail and forget the message that brought us together…“There is One, even Christ Jesus that can speak to thy condition.”

 

[PerryJ]

Why so much attention on history books, and other extra-biblical sources because they are all fallible? The only book that Protestants and Catholics agree to be infallible and God breathed is the Bible. That is where all the discussion and debates should be grounded in. The Protestant Reformation was about the recovery of the Biblical gospel of God’s grace which was lost in the 16th century Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Trent sealed the deal of the rejection of the Biblical gospel of God’s grace on behalf of sinners for the Catholic Church.

Because you have the wrong Bible and as such the wrong conclusions. History proves that Protestants have removed books from the Bible that belong there. They were used by Christ. History including archeaology proves this to be true.

If you read history heretical groups have done this many times in the past. They have included and excluded books to support their theology. If you read history you will know that the Reformation was just one more episode. Do you truly believe that the Reformation was the first time man changed the Bible to fits his theology? It is the core weakness of man that causes him to believe in his own wisdom. It started with Adam and continues through the ages.

Satan does not attack people directly he attacks man indirectly. Satan gets people away from the true Church. Then he gets a group to not believe in the Eucharist as he taught it. Then he gets a group to not believe in confession. Then he gets a group to believe in gay marriage. He then gets a group to believe in abortion. People slide down the slippery slope of sin to their demise because they put their wisdom above God’s teachings.

History proves you are wrong. History proves that you do not have all of the inspired word of God. God does not hide his revelation from man. Man chooses not to look for the truth. Look at the truth. Luther was just a man that was scared and changed all of Christendom and the Bible to meet his personal fears.

One can try to make it romantic; however, that is all the Reformation comes down to. A scared man that was afraid to die. Your theology is based on one man’s fear. History proves this out. If we read what the change in theology is you will see the Bible shows this also. Look at the books and verse he removed. The Bible is the biggest detractor of Luther and his changes.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t understand this post. Wether one believes in being Protestant or not it is hard to read any history and not see that the faith was changed after 1,500 years. Whole books are written about this concept.

Which is evidence that the matter is not as simply as you are implying.

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

Because you have the wrong Bible and as such the wrong conclusions. History proves that Protestants have removed books from the Bible that belong there. They were used by Christ. History including archeaology proves this to be true.

If you read history heretical groups have done this many times in the past. They have included and excluded books to support their theology. If you read history you will know that the Reformation was just one more episode. Do you truly believe that the Reformation was the first time man changed the Bible to fits his theology? It is the core weakness of man that causes him to believe in his own wisdom. It started with Adam and continues through the ages.

Satan does not attack people directly he attacks man indirectly. Satan gets people away from the true Church. Then he gets a group to not believe in the Eucharist as he taught it. Then he gets a group to not believe in confession. Then he gets a group to believe in gay marriage. He then gets a group to believe in abortion. People slide down the slippery slope of sin to their demise because they put their wisdom above God’s teachings.

History proves you are wrong. History proves that you do not have all of the inspired word of God. God does not hide his revelation from man. Man chooses not to look for the truth. Look at the truth. Luther was just a man that was scared and changed all of Christendom and the Bible to meet his personal fears.

One can try to make it romantic; however, that is all the Reformation comes down to. A scared man that was afraid to die. Your theology is based on one man’s fear. History proves this out. If we read what the change in theology is you will see the Bible shows this also. Look at the books and verse he removed. The Bible is the biggest detractor of Luther and his changes.

We can use the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible and the end results will be the same.

 

[PerryJ]

We can use the Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible and the end results will be the same.

Do you believe in Purgatory?

For the most part heretics were not crazy people. They were not evil people. They were not poorly educated. They were people trying to love God. They also normally knew the Bible well. They just did not understand the Bible. Every century we have had people thinking they could understand the Bible. They were given a special message from God. They were the elect. God throughout the Bible tells of being humble and that he would make the wise unwise. Yet no one listens. Every new generation believes they can interpret the Bible and be their own God. The Devil doesn’t attack he misleads.

 

[Peter_J]

Do you believe in Purgatory?

For the most part heretics were not crazy people. They were not evil people. They were not poorly educated. They were people trying to love God. They also normally knew the Bible well. They just did not understand the Bible. Every century we have had people thinking they could understand the Bible. They were given a special message from God. They were the elect. God throughout the Bible tells of being humble and that he would make the wise unwise. Yet no one listens. Every new generation believes they can interpret the Bible and be their own God. The Devil doesn’t attack he misleads.

It’s easy for us Catholics to look at Protestants and see a lack of humility, and vice versa.

It’s not always so easy for either side to see their own lack of humility.

For example, was it humility that led the bishops at Vatican I to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility?

 

[Peter_J]

If you’re asking do Friends believe in the scriptures…

No, that’s not what I’m asking. When I speak of a Deposit of Faith, I mean that I believe that the entire Christian Faith was revealed to the first Christians, and that no new doctrines can ever to added to it.

So for example, when we Catholics claim that the “Immaculate Conception” is a dogma, we are implicitly claiming that it was always a doctrine of the Church, even before it was a dogma.

(You might say that this is one reason that many Roman Catholics, including myself, think it would be unwise to dogmatically define a new Marian dogma like “Co-redemptrix” – it’s just not very apparent that this teaching was always believed.)

 

[SyCarl]

No, that’s not what I’m asking. When I speak of a Deposit of Faith, I mean that I believe that the entire Christian Faith was revealed to the first Christians, and that no new doctrines can ever to added to it.

So for example, when we Catholics claim that the “Immaculate Conception” is a dogma, we are implicitly claiming that it was always a doctrine of the Church, even before it was a dogma.

This is something that has always puzzled me. A dogma like the Immaculate Conception is proclaimed. As you indicate that is implicitly claiming that it always was a doctrine. Yet when people who didn’t believe it are mentioned, we are told it is okay that they didn’t because it had not been proclaimed. If it was always a doctrine why didn’t they have to believe it? Did God change what had to be believed when the dogma was proclaimed by the Church? If always was a doctrine that had to be believed, didn’t the Church fail the people by not proclaiming it until 1854?

 

[Peter_J]

This is something that has always puzzled me. A dogma like the Immaculate Conception is proclaimed. As you indicate that is implicitly claiming that it always was a doctrine. Yet when people who didn’t believe it are mentioned, we are told it is okay that they didn’t because it had not been proclaimed. If it was always a doctrine why didn’t they have to believe it? Did God change what had to be believed when the dogma was proclaimed by the Church? If always was a doctrine that had to be believed, didn’t the Church fail the people by not proclaiming it until 1854?

Good question. I don’t claim to understand all the nuances, but basically I would say: the Deposit of Faith never changes, but the circumstances that we live in do change.

When the Church defines a dogma, a judgment is made that considering circumstances, someone who does not agree with that particular belief can be said to have a problematic (heretical?) faith. (Note, however, that the dogmatic definition is itself part of the circumstances to be considered. Hence, if someone disagreed with that particular belief, but hadn’t yet heard that it was dogmatically defined, one couldn’t make any judgment without first informing him/her.)

I hope that helps. Blessings,

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, as an organized group Friends find their beginnings in the mid-17th century…it began when a young man named George Fox sought religious truth, he visited various Christian priests and ministers of his day…“get married”…“sing psalms”…“smoke tobacco”…he heard it all and when he had given up in despair and…“And when all my hopes in them and all men were gone. . . I heard a voice which said, “There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition,” and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy.” 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.

George Fox then began his preaching through out England speaking of God’s immediate access in Christ Jesus…without need of priest, minister, outward forms or “steeplehouses”. Groups began meeting in homes and soon Meeting Houses were built…Friends were identified by refusing to doff their hats to their “betters” and used “plain language”, they addressed everyone as “thee” instead of the more formal “you” which their betters expected. They refused to fight or take oaths as they felt their word was enough…an oath implied that one could not be trusted or believed unless one was under oath…a Friend believed their “word was their bond”…and a simple “yes” or “no” was enough to insure a Friend told the truth.

As I said before, Friends believe they represent a “rediscovery” of “Primitive Christianity”…not a “rediscovery” of it’s rituals, but in it’s belief in the Living Presence of Christ among us now…the “Church” is comprised of those who meet in His name and who experience His Living Presence in their lives.

So “Friends” founder was George Fox? who rediscovered “Primitive Christianity” in the 17th century? How do you worship God according to "Primitive Christianity?