P
Peter_J
Guest
It *is *entertaining. At the same time, a lot of Catholics do think that way (at least, judging by the conversations I have had).
- Status
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Not very similar. When the Portuguese found the Goa Christians, they found them rife with error and superstition,
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
When did the catholic church become the false church then? Was it when Martin Luther apostatized? But would you really accept Nicaea 2 which says the following in its anathemas;
Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIABULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754
(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.
(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc. (By etc it means anathema)
(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!
Source: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.asp
I think many Lutherans would have problems with such definitions and anathemas yet this was the orthodox faith, acceptance of the councils and their decrees. But would you say as a lutheran that the true church was in the Orthodox or Catholic tradition until Lutheranism came along?
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Now I do not think Lutherans have always accepted Nicea 2, at least in it’s fullness, maybe in the specific sense of devotion to images but not wholly. As I just quoted, part of Nicaea 2 was anathema against those who deny the benefits of those who invoke the saints and heres what the Lutheran scholars of Tubingin say concerning this topic to his holiness Patriarch Jeremiah:No. I understand what you are saying. In fact, your point about the differences between Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism was exactly my point.
Lutheranism was vocally opposed to the iconoclasm that occurred during the Reformation era, and has always supported Nicea 2 and the use of iconography.
Admittedly, the irony about our use of the Filioque is that we often speak out about the CC doing things without a truly ecumenical council, which of course is the case of Filioque. Sometimes our western-ness overcomes us.
And here you would be wrong. While we believe scripture to be inerrant, we do not believe any other writing, regardless of its source, is equal to scripture in that way. That doesn’t mean we reject other writings. The very first section in our confessional Book of Concord consists of the Three early Creeds, and we pledge ourselves to them. We actually believe that the early Church had it right, and most of our disagreements with the Catholic Church have to do with doctrines that have developed since the Schism. But that doesn’t mean that they Church is not found in the Vatican, or with those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Church is indeed found there, and has always been found there, for the Church is the congregation of believers where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. And just as the real presence is not excluded because of an evil priest being the celebrant, the Church is no less the Church even if there are errors in teaching of a given communion.
Do I believe our teaching to be apostolic and true? Yes. Does that make Lutheranism the only place His grace is found in word and sacrament? Of course not.
Perhaps what I have said here helps you see that your conclusions are mistaken.
Jon
Second exchange to Constantinople (329) We do not invoke the saints, for we do not find even one divine command nor example concerning this in the God-inspired scriptures. Rather Isaiah says that Abraham and Israel do not know the thins which were done by us on earth, from whence the Prophet also forthright takes refuge there in direct help from the heavenly father. It should be known then, Reverend Sir, the reasons by which you endeavour to support the invocation of the saints (and we beg you accept it calmly) do not ease our conscience, nor do they satisfy our mind.
If you have the English translation a whole list of arguments against the invocation to the dead can be found on page 270 and onwards. Just a few pages after that is a direct attack on the whole concept of the worship of icons which I suppose might have been a misunderstanding on their behalf as to what the worship of the icon was (that it goes throught he image on to the prototype, but that is complicated by this reference.
Second exchange to Constantinople: Nor do we tender civil worship to the image of the ruler but to the ruler himself. Therefore, the civil honour which a man tenders to another is not properly transferred to the icons. Never in the least did the saints demand whatsoever honour and worship their own icons. Therefore the honour toward the icon never passes over to the original depicted therein.
Perhaps you might help me understand what the scholars were trying to say here, if I have misunderstood it. It seems to me they did not understand the orthodox position and yet denied it at the same time.
Now I really cannot respond to your idea of church because it seems you hold to an invisible church authority instead of a visible church authority. In which case you could hold many in being in the church all throughout history but you could not give a specific example. I have nothing more to add.
A
adawgj
Guest
I would recommend you read “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods. Then you will see that our history was nicer than you think.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Jesus commissioned His Church to baptise and forgive and retain sin on earth. That is the commission of the apostles and their apostolic successors.
Jesus also commissioned Peter to confirm his brethren after they returned from losing their faith.
The history of the Church from any view cannot leave what the Master commissioned.
Jesus also commissioned Peter to confirm his brethren after they returned from losing their faith.
The history of the Church from any view cannot leave what the Master commissioned.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Our claim is that we are a continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
Of course, your’e not held to our belief, but you also trust us when we say the Formula of Concord doesn’t say what you think it says about catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome - you are certainly Christian, and in a deeply and profoundly Christian institution.
B
benjohnson
Guest
It never was/is a false church, just burdened - the Roman Catholic church consist of those catholics that retained their communion with the Bishop of Rome. We’re catholics that are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and who deny that more modern papal powers.
Perhaps our definition of a valid church is different than the Othodox definition?
Our churches are filled with our own icons and images. Our music, frankly, is in its own form of icon that we profess.
I’m sure you’ll find many Lutherans who don’t know their own faith.
We certainly profess that our own church is a true church - I have no doubt that your church and the Catholic church are also true. My synod has probably said as much.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I see that others have already dealt with the proselytizing Catholics vs proselytizing Protestants question. As far as the question about what’s shown at the top of the page I say, isn’t it best that newcomers know what to expect, right off the bat?
What they are saying is what they said. Typically, while Lutherans are not iconoclasts - Lutheran are free to have them in their homes, and older churches certainly have them - we don’t venerate them. That doesn’t mean one can’t do so. Personal piety, not doctrine is involved here.
Its both/and. The Church is quite visible, if we find it where we find the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments. It is invisible in the sense of sheep and goats.
Jon
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I’m sorry, but this is factually false.
Even IF it were true in some manner in the middle ages, it doesn’t account for the FACTS that, even while being persecuted and having little or no secular powers, the Church held beliefs that were contrary to yours, and fully in line with the Church today.
Care to try again?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
This has certainly been my experience as well. It seems to me that apologists cherry-pick the Church fathers (particularly the Western Fathers) to support contemporary doctrines, and then extrapolate those quotes across time and geography in an effort to totalize history and belief. I realize how easy it is for people to fall into this trap. But if you actually take the time to do the reading yourself, one finds that the early Church fathers were pretty diverse in their views, and many would no doubt disagree with many of the views of Catholics today as expressed, say, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To my mind, the entire cherry-picking enterprise actually undermines the credibility of the Catholic Church—at least for people who take the time to do their own reading and research—because it comes across as very disingenuous. I think Catholic apologists do a wonderful job of explaining contemporary Catholic beliefs and practices, but any time history is involved, their work seems extremely selective and biased to me. But you have to become aware of what’s not being quoted to figure that out.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I’d invite you to start a thread on this to back up what you say.
Take one prominent Church Father - preferably an Apostolic Father - and show us how he disagreed with a Church doctrine.
B
Buddyroe
Guest
Revisionism is human nature, explaining history to favor a doctrine or a culture in general is irresistible. Many protestants I know have a marginal interest in Church history, which becomes increasingly skewed when approaching the reformation era. Not to say that all protestants don’t strive for objectivity. I’m sure Catholics have similar experiences good and bad.
For my part Catholic church history is vital, without it my church culture, doctrine and faith would have no origin, no reasonable testimony of its own.
How about some fun? A history trivia question.
For my part Catholic church history is vital, without it my church culture, doctrine and faith would have no origin, no reasonable testimony of its own.
How about some fun? A history trivia question.
- Easy. Which Christian denomination established in the Western Hemisphere the first Church (congregation and building).
- A little more difficult. Where and when did this happen?
S
SirEwenii
Guest
Coming from the perspective of a Catholic that would be incredibly easy to do. Most of the apostolic fathers were heretics in one way or another. This may be due to development of doctrine that an above poster mentioned but there is no denying the fact. While they said some very Catholic things they said many other pure heresies.I’d invite you to start a thread on this to back up what you say.
Take one prominent Church Father - preferably an Apostolic Father - and show us how he disagreed with a Church doctrine.
This is not really a problem for the Catholic or the Protestant but it I’d certainly more of a problem for the Catholic, especially if people continue to make false appeals to history saying that it is historically clear the Church has ALWAYS held to certain beliefs. We must have held to them always I believe in f faith at least the seed of these doctrines, but such a conclusion is not clear from reading the apostolic fathers.
P
Peter_J
Guest
M
manualman
Guest
This is flat out incorrect. There has never, EVER been a period of catholic history where the Eucharist was not proclaimed to be the real presence of Christ. Over times, language has evolved and terms were invented to distinguish what we believe from what we don’t (for example the word ‘transubstantiation’ was invented to distinguish the truth from the error of consubstantiation). You may be dimly recalling that there have been periods where lay people received the Eucharist infrequently due to an overly rigorous (possibly scrupulous) interpretation of the need to be in a state of Grace to receive. But there has never been any authoritative catholic source that questions the reality of Jesus present in the Eucharist. The sorts of evangelicals who assert that communion is a symbolic ordinance quite simply must step over the overwhelming evidence of the historical record in order to assert that theirs is the correct interpretation of Scripture.
Please don’t present partially informed speculation as historical facts. It only muddies the waters for everybody.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
This isn’t quite right.
There were books that were deemed truthful but not inspired.
There were heretical books that were deemed so from the beginning. They weren’t “destroyed” (the Church didn’t have this kind of power), they just weren’t revered and therefore not copied and scrupulously kept and passed on.
Again, no. Their words were lost.
Doctrines developed, true, but many distinctives of Catholic belief existed from the very beginning.
NOT true. The PV was believed all along. It was challenged by Helvidius, and responded to by St. Jerome in 383.
However, St. Jerome didn’t want to respond as he thought the very idea was beneth a reply:
Not so many as you might think. And further, that doesn’t make them “protestants” since the Church had not given a definition of the belief until it was widely challenged.
The Eucharist was around since the beginning.
It was encouraged to be celebrated at least weekly.
However, like St. Paul tells us, it should only be taken “in a worthy manner”:
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Some people out of scrupulosity would avoid receiving the Eucharist, and the Church then said that a Christian should both receive sacramental confession and the Eucharist at least yearly.
1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.224 But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.
The Church’s doctrines are not in a state of flux.
Its disciplines can change, but its doctrines, once promulgated, cannot.
B
Buddyroe
Guest
Using scripture a history reference, Catholics are reasonable in their understanding and application of the Eucharist. This is true both literally and contextually.
Protestants have several positions on this subject, the most consistent one denies the ‘real presence’.
Since we are discussing our Lord’s Supper from a context of history the elements can be debated but needs to be discussed in a spirit of respect (alas, not my gift).
There is a reasonable interpretation also literal and in context that does not include the real presence. I would prefer to discuss that privately or on another thread devoted exclusively to the Eucharist.
Anyway our Lord gave instruction and example about His body and blood as related to the Eucharist/Communion, that is genuine history.
Protestants have several positions on this subject, the most consistent one denies the ‘real presence’.
Since we are discussing our Lord’s Supper from a context of history the elements can be debated but needs to be discussed in a spirit of respect (alas, not my gift).
There is a reasonable interpretation also literal and in context that does not include the real presence. I would prefer to discuss that privately or on another thread devoted exclusively to the Eucharist.
Anyway our Lord gave instruction and example about His body and blood as related to the Eucharist/Communion, that is genuine history.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
If as you say, it is ‘undeniable’ that the ‘haves’ actually do have AS, then obviously you have very clear proof to substantiate your claim. Could you please post that information so that we can all see if it is really ‘undeniable’?
I am also very interested to learn how, specifically and exactly of course, you can trace your “beginnings in the Catholic Church which dates back to Pentecost”. Could you please post that specific lineage, including of course the names of the people through whom you trace your doctrinal ancestory?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
I am very interested in the claim that, apparently, some Lutheran pastors ‘have’ Apostolic Succession, and, also apparently, ‘other’ Lutheran pastors do not. First of all, which Lutheran denominations are the ‘haves’ (and why) and which are the ‘have nots’ (and why)?
If as you say, it is ‘undeniable’ that the ‘haves’ actually do have AS, then obviously you have very clear proof to substantiate your claim. Could you please post that information so that we can all see if it is really ‘undeniable’?
I am also very interested to learn how, specifically and exactly of course, you can trace your “beginnings in the Catholic Church which dates back to Pentecost”. Could you please post that specific lineage, including of course the names of the people through whom you trace your doctrinal ancestory?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
- Status