How do protestants explain history

[adrift]

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.

I have created a new thread to hear further your comments.

The Eucharist

 

[SirEwenii]

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.

Communion, yes, confession not so much. not for several centuries. This sacrament developed significantly over time. The first few centuries in was public, eventually private confession began to be implemented but for centuries people were only allowed to receive the sacrament once in their lives, and this was usually followed by lengthy penance- involving being cut off from commnion, for 20-30 years. But if all this sounds impossible for anyone to manage to die in a state of grace the only sins which one was required to confess were adultery, murder and heresy/apostasy. But once confession was made it could not be done again in someones life, though Augustine said that if a person truly repented they could trust their case to the mercy of God even if they could not confess.

It was like this for centuries.

But you were right to correct the communion thing.

 

[SirEwenii]

By the way, I’m sorry I am being so critical, I am just a bit concerned if people continue to simply believe catch phrases abotu the Church in the first centuries and fail to know the actual state of the historical record they may one day be very confused, as I was, when they read the Church Fathers for themselves.

I am not saying the Apostolic fathers were not Catholic, of course I believe they were or I would nto be Catholic myself, but it is just that this fact cannot be demonstrated from history clearly. All we can do is show they held to certain distinctively Catholic beliefs while also acknowledging that they held to many barefaced heresies. This does not mean they were heretics, ok, because things had not been defined, but a Protestant can find as much fodder against Catholic beliefs in the apostolic fathers as the Catholic can find to defend it.

It’s a matter of walking in faith.

 

[benjohnson]

=
I am very interested in the claim that, apparently, some Lutheran pastors ‘have’ Apostolic Succession, and, also apparently, ‘other’ Lutheran pastors do not.

Lutheran Bishops in Europe generally kept AS - and there’s been some grafting from Anglicans and the famous Dutch Touch from Old Catholics.

The world’s longest game of tag continues…

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

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

Look into the Scandinavian national Churches, where bishops followed their national churches into Lutheranism Also, “Dutch touch” lines through Anglicans

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Look into the Scandinavian national Churches, where bishops followed their national churches into Lutheranism Also, “Dutch touch” lines through Anglicans

Jon

Frankly, I don’t much feel like it’s any of our business … Much as Orthodox will say it isn’t their business whether we Catholics have a real Eucharist.

 

[Topper17]

Look into the Scandinavian national Churches, where bishops followed their national churches into Lutheranism Also, “Dutch touch” lines through Anglicans

Jon

Hi Jon,

You made the claim regarding Lutheran Apostolic Succession and the ability to trace Lutheran beginnings back to the Catholic Church. All I am doing is asking that you please provide the details which would substantiate your claim. As in all of these kinds of situations, the validity of the claim is almost always shown to be obvious, one way or the other, when the details and the specifics come to light.

I would suggest that when you post those details, the situation will be obvious and your claim will be proven to be illogical and not consistent with the facts. On the other hand, if you have confidence that you can show through ‘undeniable lines’ (your term) that Lutherans DO have AS, then you should be more than willing to prove your point. So, again, could you please flesh out this supposed “Scandinavian situation” and also explain which of the Lutheran denominations ‘have AS’ and which ones do not. Once we have the details we can all make a personal determination as to what the facts actually show.

BTW, just pointing me in a direction does not at all answer my question or back up your claim. I could probably read a dozen articles about this Scandinavian thing without reading one which depicts the situation your point of view. As we all know, there are more than enough competing Protestant perspective on virtually every situation. That is why I am asking you specifically to explain the claim that you specifically made.

I am sure you recognize what is at stake. It would be HUGE for your side if you could prove ‘undeniably’ that even SOME Lutherans have Apostolic Succession. On the other hand, if you make the claim (which you have done) and it turns to dust, that shoots a pretty big hole in your position. That being the case, I would suggest that this issue is worth the time for you to flesh out in a complete and compelling manner. I am of course ready to do likewise from my point of view.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Jon,

You made the claim regarding Lutheran Apostolic Succession and the ability to trace Lutheran beginnings back to the Catholic Church. All I am doing is asking that you please provide the details which would substantiate your claim. As in all of these kinds of situations, the validity of the claim is almost always shown to be obvious, one way or the other, when the details and the specifics come to light.

I would suggest that when you post those details, the situation will be obvious and your claim will be proven to be illogical and not consistent with the facts. On the other hand, if you have confidence that you can show through ‘undeniable lines’ (your term) that Lutherans DO have AS, then you should be more than willing to prove your point. So, again, could you please flesh out this supposed “Scandinavian situation” and also explain which of the Lutheran denominations ‘have AS’ and which ones do not. Once we have the details we can all make a personal determination as to what the facts actually show.

BTW, just pointing me in a direction does not at all answer my question or back up your claim. I could probably read a dozen articles about this Scandinavian thing without reading one which depicts the situation your point of view. As we all know, there are more than enough competing Protestant perspective on virtually every situation. That is why I am asking you specifically to explain the claim that you specifically made.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

A simple google search will help you. And the most current ecumenical effort by Catholics and Lutherans acknowledge that Lutherans have valid apostolic succession:

B. The Bishop as Sign and Instrument of Apostolic Succession

1. As a regional minister of oversight, the bishop is called to foster the koinonia that extends beyond any one local community. The bishop maintains koinonia with the church’s apostolic foundations through proclamation of the gospel and apostolic faith. A truly evangelical oversight will focus on the church’s faithfulness to the gospel and thus seek to safeguard and further its true apostolicity. The episcopal task is thus inherently bound up with a concern for apostolic continuity. As the ELCA-Episcopal Church agreement stated, a ministry of episcopé, conferred through the laying on of hands by other bishops and prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit, is one of the ways "in the context of ordained ministries and of the whole people of God, in which the apostolic succession of the church is visibly expressed and personally symbolized in fidelity to the Gospel through the ages."128

1. Prior to the late 1530s, the theme of succession played little role in Reformation debates on the role and authority of the bishop. The authority and ministry of the bishop, not any particular concept of succession, were the subject of debate. The Lutheran Confessions explicitly regret the loss of the "order of the church"129 that resulted from the presbyteral ordinations the Lutherans judged to be necessary for the life of their churches, but neither Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession on the power of bishops nor the response by the imperial Catholic theologians to it in the Confutation refers explicitly to succession.130 Thus, when the Lutheran churches felt compelled to ordain pastors apart from the Catholic hierarchy, they were not consciously rejecting any concept of episcopal succession, for such a concept was not current in theological discussions of the period . Only with the renewed attention to patristic sources in the subsequent debates was such a concept reasserted.131 Unfortunately, when the writings of such figures as Irenaeus were taken up in the debate, they were used within a canonical argument over validity which the Lutherans could only reject.132 More recent ecumenical discussions of succession as a sign of the continuity of the church (e.g., the Anglican-Lutheran Niagara Report, 1987) have found much greater (though not universal) acceptance in Lutheran circles.133 In 2001, the ELCA entered a new relation with The Episcopal Church, committing both to "share an episcopal succession that is both evangelical and historic."134 Similar Lutheran-Anglican agreements in Canada and Northern Europe in which Lutherans have affirmed episcopal succession put Lutheran-Catholic relations in a new context.

1. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the succession of episcopal consecrations; this succession was broken in continental Lutheranism, maintained in parts of Nordic Lutheranism, and has been reclaimed by the ELCA. What is the significance of either preserving or breaking this succession? That question must not be isolated and made to bear the entire weight of a judgment on a church’s ministry. Whether a particular minister or church serves the church’s apostolic mission does not depend only upon the presence of such a succession of episcopal consecrations, as if its absence would negate the apostolicity of the church’s teaching and mission.135 Recent ecumenical discussions of episcopacy and succession do not remove our former disagreements, but they do place them in a richer and more complex context in which judgments made exclusively on the basis of the presence or absence of a succession of consecrations are less possible.
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Our claim is that we are a continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Of course, you’re 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.

Maybe you missed it in my earlier post (#54), but I asked for the specifics which would substantiate your claim that:

“We view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church, as begun in Pentecost. At no point did we ‘split’ or ‘found’ a new church - if we did, our church would be a mockery of Christ’s commands.”

Again, I thought that you put a whole lot of chips on the table with your statement, because, it seems to me at least, that if you cannot substantiate your claim to be a valid continuation of the western church – then – your church would be……….well……… sort of what you said. Please understand that it wasn’t me who made such a potentially harsh judgment.

So again, I am asking for the specifics about your claim that Lutheranism is a ‘valid continuation of the western church’. As with all of these things, it is in the specifics and the details that claims like this become obvious as being either true or false.

You also say that we (meaning we Catholics I guess) trust you (Lutherans) that the Formula of Concord doesn’t say that the Catholic Church is an un-Christian institution. Actually I have no problem at all in trusting you personally, but it appears to me that you are not totally familiar with the Formula of Concord. When I claimed that the F of C indicates that the Catholic Church is an un-Christian institution, I did not make that claim lightly. The following is why I said what I did:

The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537

“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.

Ben – for the record, I am an “adherent” of the Bishop of Rome. According to the F of C then, personally, I bear the marks of the Antichrist.

41] This being the case, all Christians ought to beware of becoming partakers of the godless doctrine, blasphemies, and unjust cruelty of the Pope. On this account they ought to desert and execrate the Pope with his adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist; just as Christ has commanded, Matt. 7:15: Beware of false prophets.

42] To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty. On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused; for the errors of the kingdom of the Pope are manifest. And Scripture with its entire voice exclaims that these errors are a teaching of demons and of Antichrist.

57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling.

59] But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].”

My guess is that, to your credit, you don’t agree with the sentiments of the F of C on this matter. But the fact is, as you know, this tract is a Lutheran creedal document. My understanding is that Lutheran pastors have to agree to Formula of Concord doctrines, including the ‘doctrines’ listed above.

As you can see, my claim that official Lutheranism considers the Catholic Church to be an un-Christian institution is very well founded and documented. I guess what I have to wonder is this – Why in the world was it ‘necessary’ for Lutherans to write so offensively about the Catholic Church?

Personally, I believe that Catholics and Lutherans will not be able to achieve a meaningful communion until Lutherans retract and refute the Formula of Concord. Do you think that is a possibility?

If you see it differently, please explain - I would LOVE to be proven wrong.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Publisher]

One of my favorite things to read is early Christian history and how the proto-catholic/orthodox groups, of which they were one among many differing groups gained prominance as the “true church”…it didn’t happen overnight however the proto orthodox/catholic tradition had a great network which by the 4th century the Roman government allowed Christianity to be legal. Such was the beginning of an “official” church organization that aligned itself with government authority and power.

Constantine was a bit confused concerning the “authentic” view of Christogy in the church since a large number of clergy and bishops were Arian in belief while others were “orthodox”.

Arians, Gnostics of all varieties worshipped side by side for decades…Nicea and other councils were called to e entually hammer out some of the conflicting beliefs both clergy and laity held.

I love church history…I simply do not find the “faith affirming” history it presents concerning itself vey credible.

Reading “History of the Church” published by the LDS one can find all the “miracles” claimed by the fledging Catholic Church ivy the LDS. We do not give much credibility with the LDS history…the “history” by Eusebius is in the same vein as the LDS…it’s a “faith affirming” history…not actual history …but an “interpretation” and embellishment of those who wish to “prove” their claim.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

One of my favorite things to read is early Christian history and how the proto-catholic/orthodox groups, of which they were one among many differing groups gained prominance as the “true church”…it didn’t happen overnight however the proto orthodox/catholic tradition had a great network which by the 4th century the Roman government allowed Christianity to be legal. Such was the beginning of an “official” church organization that aligned itself with government authority and power.

Constantine was a bit confused concerning the “authentic” view of Christogy in the church since a large number of clergy and bishops were Arian in belief while others were “orthodox”.

Arians, Gnostics of all varieties worshipped side by side for decades…Nicea and other councils were called to e entually hammer out some of the conflicting beliefs both clergy and laity held.

I love church history…I simply do not find the “faith affirming” history it presents concerning itself vey credible.

Reading “History of the Church” published by the LDS one can find all the “miracles” claimed by the fledging Catholic Church ivy the LDS. We do not give much credibility with the LDS history…the “history” by Eusebius is in the same vein as the LDS…it’s a “faith affirming” history…not actual history …but an “interpretation” and embellishment of those who wish to “prove” their claim.

And you are entitled to you **personal **opinion. What a wonderful world we live in!

 

[benjohnson]

it seems to me at least, that if you cannot substantiate your claim to be a valid continuation of the western church – t

The simple proof would be that Germans worshiped with the same priests and bishops before, during, and after the reformation.

Ben – for the record, I am an “adherent” of the Bishop of Rome. According to the F of C then, personally, I bear the marks of the Antichrist.

You’re extending the Lutheran judgment of the office of the Pope to all Catholics? Please don’t do that.

But the fact is, as you know, this tract is a Lutheran creedal document. My understanding is that Lutheran pastors have to agree to Formula of Concord doctrines, including the ‘doctrines’ listed above.

I agree with FoC and the whole Book of Concorde. Didn’t stop my family from having my third child’s sponsors (godparents) be Catholic.

As you can see, my claim that official Lutheranism considers the Catholic Church to be an un-Christian institution is very well founded and documented.

Your opinion of the document, not ours.

I guess what I have to wonder is this – Why in the world was it ‘necessary’ for Lutherans to write so offensively about the Catholic Church?

Strong people, strong words - on both sides.

Personally, I believe that Catholics and Lutherans will not be able to achieve a meaningful communion until Lutherans retract and refute the Formula of Concord. Do you think that is a possibility?

I think this world will give Catholic and Lutherans so much trouble in the upcoming years, that we’ll be driven together regardless of our differences.

 

[benjohnson]

Such was the beginning of an “official” church organization that aligned itself with government authority and power.

That’s a keen insight into some of the troubles of our modern church - that we’re can be so aligned with the secular world that we’ve lost a bit of our ability to counter it.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11726664]Hi Jon,
You made the claim regarding Lutheran Apostolic Succession and the ability to trace Lutheran beginnings back to the Catholic Church. All I am doing is asking that you please provide the details which would substantiate your claim. As in all of these kinds of situations, the validity of the claim is almost always shown to be obvious, one way or the other, when the details and the specifics come to light.

This is rather well recognized historically, but here is a brief acknowledgement of the fact.
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/30289/apostolic-succession

I would suggest that when you post those details, the situation will be obvious and your claim will be proven to be illogical and not consistent with the facts. On the other hand, if you have confidence that you can show through ‘undeniable lines’ (your term) that Lutherans DO have AS, then you should be more than willing to prove your point. So, again, could you please flesh out this supposed “Scandinavian situation” and also explain which of the Lutheran denominations ‘have AS’ and which ones do not. Once we have the details we can all make a personal determination as to what the facts actually show.

See above. EC has also provided for you additional information. Additionally, this:
princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Apostolic_Succession.html

I am sure you recognize what is at stake. It would be HUGE for your side if you could prove ‘undeniably’ that even SOME Lutherans have Apostolic Succession. On the other hand, if you make the claim (which you have done) and it turns to dust, that shoots a pretty big hole in your position. That being the case, I would suggest that this issue is worth the time for you to flesh out in a complete and compelling manner. I am of course ready to do likewise from my point of view.

Topper,
I’m not trying to “prove” anything. You asked the question with Lutheran synods have AS. I told you about the Scandinavian churches. The ELCA also claims it through Anglican lines, as do the Provoo communion churches mostly in northern Europe. The lines are there and undeniable. OTOH, I am making no claim regarding whether or not the Catholic church accepts or recognizes them, mainly because the CC has never said one way or another AFAIK, like they have with Anglican lines. My suspicion is they would pronounce them at least illicit, but most likely invalid. That wouldn’t mean the succession is not there, but only that the CC doesn’t recognize them as valid (or licit).
The issue is not worth a significant amount of time, because, were our communions to be that close to reconciliation, the issue of AS would be resolved. Lutheranism is not opposed to AS. In fact, we are in favor of it. Our confessions say so.

But here is the current state of affairs, as I see them. Lutherans recognize Catholic orders.
Therefore, we recognize the validity of your sacraments (something we wouldn’t do if we thought the CC was unChristian, as you falsely accuse us in a previous post) The Catholic Church does not recognize our presbyter orders, and probably would not recognize the orders some Lutherans have through AS. While we would be most grateful and even joyful if the CC recognized our orders as we do yours, it isn’t something we are needing. We have certain and complete knowledge in our orders, and our sacraments either way.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

One of my favorite things to read is early Christian history and how the proto-catholic/orthodox groups, of which they were one among many differing groups gained prominance as the “true church”…it didn’t happen overnight however the proto orthodox/catholic tradition had a great network which by the 4th century the Roman government allowed Christianity to be legal. Such was the beginning of an “official” church organization that aligned itself with government authority and power.

Constantine was a bit confused concerning the “authentic” view of Christogy in the church since a large number of clergy and bishops were Arian in belief while others were “orthodox”.

Arians, Gnostics of all varieties worshipped side by side for decades…Nicea and other councils were called to e entually hammer out some of the conflicting beliefs both clergy and laity held.

I love church history…I simply do not find the “faith affirming” history it presents concerning itself vey credible.

Reading “History of the Church” published by the LDS one can find all the “miracles” claimed by the fledging Catholic Church ivy the LDS. We do not give much credibility with the LDS history…the “history” by Eusebius is in the same vein as the LDS…it’s a “faith affirming” history…not actual history …but an “interpretation” and embellishment of those who wish to “prove” their claim.

I think what is most disturbing (and the best reason for me to throw away my computer ) is the nonstop “propaganda war” on the net. I’ve become more and more convinced that even well meaning posters can hardly avoid supporting this war in one way or another.

 

[spina1953]

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.

Hi adawgj: I agree with you as I have read the book and it makes some very fine points in favor of the Catholic Church.

 

[spina1953]

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.

Hi adawgj: I to have read the book How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization and have found it to be very good history and worth reading by anyone wanting to know about how the Church history about such things as the book talks about.

 

[dmwessel]

Any honest study of the Early Church shows that it was incredibly Catholic.

Incredibly Catholic - why yes of course - because for the longest time to be anything else would have likely got you imprisoned or killed for heresy. I think it’s better now when people can pick and choose.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Incredibly Catholic - why yes of course - because for the longest time to be anything else would have likely got you imprisoned or killed for heresy. I think it’s better now when people can pick and choose.

I’m sorry, but no.

In the Early Church, BEING Catholic would likely get you killed.

 

[dmwessel]

Some Protestants explain early Christian history since Constantine as having fallen away from the true church (church of the Apostles). Constantine mixed early Christianity with his worship of the ‘sun’ God - changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and the rest shall we say, is history.