How di the Church Deal with Protestants before the Bible?

[Wildkit]

Arianism and in part, Nestorianism, in the early 5th Century, were clearly condemed by the Church. How could they do that before the bible was distributed to all knowing Christians or those who sought Christ? Why couldn’t they come to their own logical conclusion and interpretation?

 

[JRKH]

Arianism and in part, Nestorianism, in the early 5th Century, were clearly condemed by the Church. How could they do that before the bible was distributed to all knowing Christians or those who sought Christ? Why couldn’t they come to their own logical conclusion and interpretation?

I’m not sure what you are asking here, but based on what you’ve said:

The Short answer is because the Church has the Authority and Responsibility to Declare and Protect the True teachings of Christ.

As to your sepcific points, the Bible had indeed been declared and “canonized” by the 5th century. It would have been available at any diocese. The faithful were taught orally and if there were questions or concerns over teachings then the Priests and Bishops would be charged with answering these issues.
The faithful, when encountering these heretical teachings would follow Christs Teaching to “Take it to the Church” which would then rule on the matter.

James

 

[Wildkit]

I guess I was looking for someone to tell me that before the Bible, the Church had to rely on tradition and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Without the “road map” and someone’s interpretation of things,…was this how Arianism and Nestorianism were dealt with?

It seems like very logical arguements could have been made then for their positions.

 

[JRKH]

I guess I was looking for someone to tell me that before the Bible, the Church had to rely on tradition and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Without the “road map” and someone’s interpretation of things,…was this how Arianism and Nestorianism were dealt with?

It seems like very logical arguements could have been made then for their positions.

Actually you have answered your own question.
The Church did indeed rely on the Sacred Tradition and the Guidence of the Holy Spirit.
In the early Days of the Church, it had the advantage of a number of people who were trained by the Apostles themselves. The sense of Truth and how scripture should be interpreted was passed onto these men by the Apostles. This put them in the position of better understanding the spirit behind the Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[Ignatius]

Arianism and in part, Nestorianism, in the early 5th Century, were clearly condemed by the Church. How could they do that before the bible was distributed to all knowing Christians or those who sought Christ? Why couldn’t they come to their own logical conclusion and interpretation?

Arians weren’t Protestants. Neither Arius or Nestorius believe Jesus Christ was God made flesh. It was The Catholic Church which recognized and condemned these heresys.

Sacred Tradition preceeded even the writing of the New Testiment. The Word of God was passed down by Sacred Tradition for 70 years before the last of the New Testiment Scriptures was written. It was Sacred Tradition in which the Truth was passed down. The declarations in matters of Faith and Morals from the Pillar and Foundation of The Truth, which is The Church, were then as now binding on all Christians.

CCC
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;[33]
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.[34]

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.”[35] Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”[36]
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.”[37] “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”[38]
79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”[39]

 

[PaulDupre]

I guess I was looking for someone to tell me that before the Bible, the Church had to rely on tradition and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Without the “road map” and someone’s interpretation of things,…was this how Arianism and Nestorianism were dealt with?

It seems like very logical arguements could have been made then for their positions.

Yes, the Early Church Fathers argued forcefully against heresies prior to the existence of the bible. They did use the writings of the apostles, however.

Remember that although the canon of the bible was not settled until the 4th century, the gospels and the letters of the apostles (along with some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers) were read aloud during the mass almost as soon as they were written. That’s how the faithful learned what the apostles had written. These writings were given great authority even before the canon was settled.

Paul

 

[Wildkit]

Arians weren’t Protestants. Neither Arius or Nestorius believe Jesus Christ was God made flesh. It was The Catholic Church which recognized and condemned these heresys.

Sacred Tradition preceeded even the writing of the New Testiment. The Word of God was passed down by Sacred Tradition for 70 years before the last of the New Testiment Scriptures was written. It was Sacred Tradition in which the Truth was passed down. The declarations in matters of Faith and Morals from the Pillar and Foundation of The Truth, which is The Church, were then as now binding on all Christians.

If the Church had to deal with these heresies without the Bible being formulated,…what does that say regarding the need for the Bible to be the infalible roadmap for non catholics and their intrepretations?

 

[SIA]

Arianism and in part, Nestorianism, in the early 5th Century, were clearly condemed by the Church. How could they do that before the bible was distributed to all knowing Christians or those who sought Christ? Why couldn’t they come to their own logical conclusion and interpretation?

The church beat, burned and killed those who didn’t submit to it.

 

[swariffin]

Arianism and in part, Nestorianism, in the early 5th Century, were clearly condemed by the Church. How could they do that before the bible was distributed to all knowing Christians or those who sought Christ? Why couldn’t they come to their own logical conclusion and interpretation?

Yes, they did established their own “church” together with their followers. They were the first Protestant, I believe. Especially the Nestorian. Historically, I do believe that the Nestorian need to be approached further, before being excommunicated.

 

[Ignatius]

The church beat, burned and killed those who didn’t submit to it.

You are confusing The Church with the Reformers.

Most of the other Reformers. Luther, Knox, Zwingli, also burnt, hung, drowned or otherwise executed their opponents.

For example:

The Protestant Reformers authorized torture and murder.

The simple fact is that at the time some accuse Catholics of religious cruelties, reformers** were doing the same or worse.**

In actual fact, as reputable histories will tell you. Anti-Catholic propaganda magnified the Inquisition beyond all measure. The Spanish Inquisition in 500 years executed around 3,000 - 6,000 people. Fewer than the Catholics Cromwell killed in one week in Ireland!

ENGLAND
King Henry erected a system built on fear, torture and death to back his attack on the Catholic Church. Criticising the king, calling him a heretic, or failing to agree that Henry was head of the church, were punished by **disembowelment whilst still alive, hanging and quartering. **In the end, even failing to denounce anyone else who criticised these things became treason. Guilty verdicts were ensured by the introduction of the “Double Grand Jury” which made the jury trying a case liable to face trial themselves by a second jury if they came up with the wrong verdict. Acts of Attainder, allowing the execution of victims without any trial whatsoever, were also introduced. All these things were needed to enforce the Reformation in England.

Abbots who refused to surrender their monasteries also fell victim: Letter of Richard Pollard to Thomas Cromwell, November 16, 1539

Pleaseth it your Lordship to be advertised that…[On November 15] the late abbot of Glastonbury went from Wells to Glastonbury, and there was drawn through the town upon a hurdle to the hill called the Torre, where he was put to execution; …Afore his execution [he] was examined upon divers articles and interrogatories to him ministered by me, but he could accuse no man of himself of any offence against the king’s highness, nor would he confess no more gold nor silver nor any other thing more than he did before your Lordship in the Tower…I suppose it will be near Christmas before I shall have surveyed the lands at Glastonbury, and take the audit there….

 

[Ignatius]

On 8 April, 1538, Friar Forrest was taken to Lambeth, where, before Cranmer, he was required to state that King Henry was Head of the Church. This, however, he firmly refused to do. Forrest was sentenced to death, and on the 22nd of May he was taken to Smithfield and burned. To add to the “godly” humour of this public spectacle, the friar was burnt over a bonfire of religious statuary.

After Catholics rose up in protest at the closing of the Monasteries in 1536, King Henry wrote: Our pleasure is that . . . you shall cause such dreadful execution to be done upon a good number of the inhabitants of every town, village, and hamlet that have offended, as they may be a fearful spectacle to all others hereafter that would practice any like matter. Hundreds were massacred at random in the Catholic areas.

Others disembowelled or burnt within months included:1534: Elizabeth Barton, q.v. (The Holy Maid of Kent), with five companions;John Dering, O.S.B., Edward Bocking, O.S.B., Hugh Rich, O.S.F., Richard Masters p., Henry Gold p., 1537. Monks, 28. - After the pilgrimage of grace and the rising of Lincolnshire many, probably several hundred, were executed, of whom no record remains. The following names, which do survive, are grouped under their respective abbeys or priories. - Barling: Matthew Mackerel, abbot and Bishop of Chalcedon, Ord. Præm. Bardney: John Tenent, William Cole, John Francis, William Cowper, Richard Laynton, Hugh Londale, monks. Bridlington: William Wood, Prior. Fountains: William Thyrsk, O. Cist. Guisborough: James Cockerel, Prior.Jervaulx: Adam Sedbar, Abbot; George Asleby, monk. Kirkstead: Richard Harrison, Abbott, Richard Wade, William Swale, Henry Jenkinson, monks. Lenten: Nicholas Heath, Prior; William Gylham, monk. Sawlet: William Trafford, Abbott; Richard Eastgate, monk. Whalley: John Paslew, Abbott; John Eastgate, William Haydock, monks. Woburn: Robert Hobbes, Abbott; Ralph Barnes, sub-prior; Laurence Blonham, monk. York: John Pickering, O.S.D., Prior. Place unknown: George ab Alba Rose, O.S.A. Priests: William Burraby, Thomas Kendale, John Henmarsh, James Mallet, John Pickering, Thomas Redforth. Lords: Darcy and Hussey. Knights: Francis Bigod, Stephen Hammerton, Thomas Percy. Laymen (11): Robert Aske, Robert Constable, Bernard Fletcher, George Hudswell, Robert Lecche, Roger Neeve, George Lomley, Thomas Moyne, Robert Sotheby, Nicholas Tempest, Philip Trotter. 1538 (7): Henry Courtney, the Marquess of Exeter; Henry Pole, Lord Montague; Sir Edward Nevell and Sir Nicholas Carew; George Croft p., and John Collins p.; Hugh Holland l… Their cause was “adhering to the Pope, and his Legate, Cardinal Pole”. 1540 (6): Lawrence Cook O. Carm., Prior of Doncaster; Thomas Empson, O.S.B.; Robert Bird p.; William Peterson p.; William Richardson p.; Giles Heron l. 1544 (3): Martin de Courdres, O.S.A., and Paul of St. William, O.S.A.; Darby Genning

Over the next few reigns around 600 Catholic priests alone, and thousands of ordinary Catholics were disembowelled or otherwise murdered by Protestants because of their faith. Topcliffe, Elizabeth’s chief torturer, had a special house full of torture equipment to be used on Catholic priests. One elderly priest was tortured 12 separate times to gain information on other priests and believers.

 

[Ignatius]

CALVIN

Within a few years of Calvin coming to power in Geneva fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile took place. Two examples:

1. James Gruet, was alleged to have posted a note which implied that Calvin should leave the city:

He was at once arrested and a house to house search made for his accomplices. This method failed to reveal anything except that Gruet had written on one of Calvin’s tracts the words ‘all rubbish.’ The judges put him to the rack twice a day, morning and evening, for a whole month . . . He was sentenced to death for blasphemy and beheaded on July 26, 1547.

1. The Spanish Reformer Servetus had dared to criticize Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” and began an angry correspondence with him. Calvin had his critic arrested. Calvin drew up forty articles of charges concerning the nature of God, infant baptism, and the attacks on his own teaching. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote: “I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death”

On October 26, the Council ordered that he be burned alive on the following day. Servetus took half an hour to die. Calvin noted: "'He showed the dumb stupidity of a beast . . . He went on bellowing . . . in the Spanish fashion: “Misericordias!” .

In 1554 Calvin wrote the treatise Against the Errors of Servetus, in which he tried to justify the execution: “Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.”

The modern-day Congregational, Prebyterian, Reformed, Baptist and many of the Charismatic churches, all look to this same Calvin as their founding spiritual authority.

Most of the other Reformers. Luther, Knox, Zwingli, also burnt, hung, drowned or otherwise executed their opponents.

One would expect leaders of a new movement “reforming” the Church and supposedly correcting the “errors” of the historic Church to be beyond reproach in their behaviour and Christian lives. But what do we see? The opposite.

Luther was well known for his hot temper, pride and violent language, rather than for his saintliness and humility. He even heaped abuse on fellow-reformers like Zwingli and Bucer who disagreed with him. He encouraged the German Princes to seize church property in return for protection for the Reformation. Along with others, he issued a licence permitting the Landgrave of Hesse to keep 2 wives simultaneously. However worse was to come.
PEASANTS REVOLT
Inspired by the writings of Luther and others, which declared the Freedom of the Christian Man, and led by Thomas Muntzer, an ex-pupil of Luther’s, German peasants demanded to be freed from Serfdom, joining in the Great Peasants Revolt. They hoped for Luther’s support. But Luther owed his protection and high position to the German aristocrats. So instead, in a pamphlet entitled Against the Murderous Peasants, Luther told the princes and the nobility that it was right and lawful to slay at the first opportunity a rebellious person, "just as one must slay a mad dog."Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel… For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers.
Urged on by their spiritual leader, the nobles and their armies suppressed the revolts with great savagery. In all more than 100,000 peasants were slain.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Arianism and in part, Nestorianism, in the early 5th Century, were clearly condemed by the Church. How could they do that before the bible was distributed to all knowing Christians or those who sought Christ? Why couldn’t they come to their own logical conclusion and interpretation?

Even in the very early days of the church, the new Christians accepted the teachings that the apostles passed down about Jesus. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth. But those who make up their own ‘truth’, their own logical conclusion and interpretation, have separated themselves from the Church. Even if they are sincere, they aren’t guaranteed the Holy Spirit to protect them from error.

 

[Wildkit]

I was hoping some Protestant would respond here besides SIA, which has been answered time and again,………but your remarks, or lack there of,……solidify this point you have made in my mind. Tradition counts!

Thank you.

 

[Linda_Marie]

The church beat, burned and killed those who didn’t submit to it.

Please provide proof of your allegation here and keep in mind that the OP is talking about the time from Christ’s death to the declaration of the canon of the Bible.

The first 300 or so years of Christianity, until Constantine made it legal to be Christian, were marked by the persecution of the Church by the established polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire. Most of the time, the Church was in hiding, because Rome put Christians to death. They would gather them up in great sweeps and keep them in prison until time for the Games when they would be fed to lions, or put to death in other ways for the entertainment of the crowds. (the Passion of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity) Nero once had hundreds of Christians tied to high poles lining the streets of Rome and set alight.

When in all this did the Church have the opportunity, authority or power to ‘beat, burn and kill’ the Arians, the Nestorians, the Novationists, the Montanists, those adhering to Dualism, Docetism, the Marcionite heresy or any of the other early heresies?

 

[Linda_Marie]

The church beat, burned and killed those who didn’t submit to it.

Please provide proof of your allegation here and keep in mind that the OP is talking about the time from Christ’s death to the declaration of the canon of the Bible.

The first 300 or so years of Christianity, until Constantine made it legal to be Christian, were marked by the persecution of the Church by the established polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire. Most of the time, the Church was in hiding, because Rome put Christians to death. They would gather them up in great sweeps and keep them in prison until time for the Games when they would be fed to lions, or put to death in other ways for the entertainment of the crowds. (the Passion of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity) Nero once had hundreds of Christians tied to high poles lining the streets of Rome and set alight.

When in all this did the Church have the opportunity, authority or power to ‘beat, burn and kill’ the Arians, the Nestorians, the Novationists, the Montanists, those adhering to Dualism, Docetism, the Marcionite heresy or any of the other early heresies?

 

[Linda_Marie]

The church beat, burned and killed those who didn’t submit to it.

Please provide proof of your allegation here and keep in mind that the OP is talking about the time from Christ’s death to the declaration of the canon of the Bible in around 380.

The first 300 or so years of Christianity, until Constantine made it legal to be Christian, were marked by the persecution of the Church by the established polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire. Most of the time, the Church was in hiding, because Rome put Christians to death. They would gather them up in great sweeps and keep them in prison until time for the Games when they would be fed to lions, or put to death in other ways for the entertainment of the crowds. (the Passion of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity) Nero once had hundreds of Christians tied to high poles lining the streets of Rome and set alight.

When in all this did the Church have the opportunity, authority or power to ‘beat, burn and kill’ the Arians, the Nestorians, the Novationists, the Montanists, those adhering to Dualism, Docetism, the Marcionite heresy or any of the other early heresies?

 

[Linda_Marie]

The church beat, burned and killed those who didn’t submit to it.

Please provide proof of your allegation here and keep in mind that the OP is talking about the time from Christ’s death to the declaration of the canon of the Bible in around 380.

The first 300 or so years of Christianity, until Constantine made it legal to be Christian, were marked by the persecution of the Church by the established polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire. Most of the time, the Church was in hiding, because Rome put Christians to death. They would gather them up in great sweeps and keep them in prison until time for the Games when they would be fed to lions, or put to death in other ways for the entertainment of the crowds. (the Passion of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity) Nero once had hundreds of Christians tied to high poles lining the streets of Rome and set alight.

When in all this did the Church have the opportunity, authority or power to ‘beat, burn and kill’ the Arians, the Nestorians, the Novationists, the Montanists, those adhering to Dualism, Docetism, the Marcionite heresy or any of the other early heresies?

 

[Linda_Marie]

The church beat, burned and killed those who didn’t submit to it.

Please provide proof of your allegation here and keep in mind that the OP is talking about the time from Christ’s death to the declaration of the canon of the Bible in around 380.

The first 300 or so years of Christianity, until Constantine made it legal to be Christian, were marked by the persecution of the Church by the established polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire. Most of the time, the Church was in hiding, because Rome put Christians to death. They would gather them up in great sweeps and keep them in prison until time for the Games when they would be fed to lions, or put to death in other ways for the entertainment of the crowds. (the Passion of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity) Nero once had hundreds of Christians tied to high poles lining the streets of Rome and set alight.

When in all this did the Church have the opportunity, authority or power to ‘beat, burn and kill’ the Arians, the Nestorians, the Novationists, the Montanists, those adhering to Dualism, Docetism, the Marcionite heresy or any of the other early heresies?

 

[Wildkit]

When in all this did the Church have the opportunity, authority or power to ‘beat, burn and kill’ the Arians, the Nestorians, the Novationists, the Montanists, those adhering to Dualism, Docetism, the Marcionite heresy or any of the other early heresies?

Your point is well taken regarding the other early heresies against the Church including Docetism, Novationists, Marcionites, and Montanists. If well-meaning, very smart people who formed their own opinion, without the Bible, what did the Church have to defend its position against their belief/cult/church?

Yes, ……….the tradition of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit!

Where are these Protestant beliefs today?

Let me hear from someone that tradition has no place in the Church as promulgated by it?