How do protestants explain history

[Isaiah45_9]

The descendent’s of Abraham were the chosen people of God.

Adam, Eve, Noah… they weren’t chosen?

After the amazing demonstration of love through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and the even more amazing conquering of death through the Resurrection, Jesus gave instructions to His Apostles to go and make disciples of all the nations… Paul would later join this group and would take that message to the gentiles.

This is very Catholic.

The church that came out of this beginning was like a young horse.

I hear the Bonanza song in the background

It took constant tending and much love to manage.

Yes

The **majority **of the Apostles lost their lives, martyred for their King, Jesus Christ.

Ok, you lost me here. Which one of the Apostles is still alive?

Philosophers took over for the Apostles, applying their own thoughts and concepts to the God’s Word.

Source please.

Roman rulers persecuted Christians without mercy until the arrival of Constantine.

Only Romans?

Once Christianity became a state religion, greed, ego, privileged and corruption entered into the clergy ranks.

Source please.

A calling from God was not required to serve the Church, just enough coin to buy one’s position.

Source please.

Blood was spilled for the church’s greed

Source please.

Like the chosen people before, the initial start of Christ’s Church failed.

When, where and how.

This split has been a blessing for both sides.

Goodness gracious. Do you have any idea of how many lives have been lost over the splits.
The split of the Church is a blessing? I’m all for optimism but you take it to a whole new level.

Sadly, your posts does reflect this misconstrued concept of some Protestants regarding Church history…

 

[Contarini]

There is no doubt in my mind that we are all serving God and that we all are doing exactly what He needs us to do. If only we could get past ourselves long enough to take the message to those that do not God at all…

Brophius, what do you think the job of the Church is?

Do you think the job of the Church is to convert as many people to personal faith in Jesus as possible?

If so, then I think you are absolutely right.

But if the job of the Church is to bring people into unity with God and with each other, then you are terribly, terribly wrong.

Edwin

 

[SoMissCatholic]

The descendent’s of Abraham were the chosen people of God. They still are the chosen people of God. They had ample opportunities to submit themselves to God and apply themselves to plan He had laid out for them. They continually came up short. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ to them. This was the biggest, and greatest miracle they would ever witness, yet they discarded Him and through that they severed their unique status and we were given an opportunity to come into the family of God. They are still the chosen people of God but God sought out others to work through.

After the amazing demonstration of love through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and the even more amazing conquering of death through the Resurrection, Jesus gave instructions to His Apostles to go and make disciples of all the nations… Paul would later join this group and would take that message to the gentiles.

The church that came out of this beginning was like a young horse. It took constant tending and much love to manage. The majority of the Apostles lost their lives, martyred for their King, Jesus Christ. Philosophers took over for the Apostles, applying their own thoughts and concepts to the God’s Word. Roman rulers persecuted Christians without mercy until the arrival of Constantine. Once Christianity became a state religion, greed, ego, privileged and corruption entered into the clergy ranks. A calling from God was not required to serve the Church, just enough coin to buy one’s position. This went all the way up to the highest of high. Blood was spilled for the church’s greed, soul’s lost (the blame to which can be squarely place at our feet), we failed…

Like the chosen people before, the initial start of Christ’s Church failed. The Holy Spirit works regardless of our brokenness. The split of the church was a wake up call not only to the Catholic church but was also a declaration to the world that God is present and taking charge of the issues at hand. This split has been a blessing for both sides. It has given the Catholic denomination an opportunity to straighten up their house and step up to meet the challenges that they were struggling to face for centuries. This was a much needed and healthy growth point. In turn the Protestant church continues to grow its ranks by allowing people to come to know Jesus Christ in ways that the Catholic Church find uncomfortable with.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are all serving God and that we all are doing exactly what He needs us to do. If only we could get past ourselves long enough to take the message to those that do not God at all…

Your argument, in addition to being inaccurate, is remeniscent of the objection posed in this article:

One possible objection to my argument against ecclesial deism is that God in His providence might allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy in order to bring about a greater good. According to this objection, by letting the Church fall into heresy or apostasy God could be teaching the Church a lesson. This is a good objection, but it does not undermine the fundamental reason why ecclesial deism must be false. It presupposes some form of ecclesial Docetism, as though the Church is a merely human institution to which Christ is related extrinsically. The Church is not a merely human institution; it is the Body of Christ, who is divine. He is the greatest good, the good than which there can be none greater. So God could never separate Christ from the Church in order to lead the Church to something greater than Christ. The promises of Christ to the Church are not accidentally tacked on to the Church; they flow from the very identity of the Church as the Body of Christ. The Church cannot fall into heresy because she is the Body of Christ, and Christ cannot fall into heresy or apostasy. The Holy Spirit, who is the very Soul of the Church, cannot be led into heresy or apostasy. The essential holiness (i.e. purity of doctrine) and unity of the visible hierarchy of the Church52 entail that God will never allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy. The four marks of the Church are not accidents that can be variously gained or lost; they are intrinsic to the very nature of the Church.

 

[Memaw]

Hi: I heard that before. I also heard that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus then it is good enough for me. Of course the church you attended obviously did not know history of the early church or decided to change the history to reflect their own beliefs.

I think it’s called the King James Version for a reason, God Bless, Memaw

 

[hereagain]

It is true that the church began as one church and like all things that man touches, it fell to corruption. Power and ego became more important to church leaders than the message of Jesus Christ. Chief positions, including that of the Pope, were bought and sold according to political and economical gain. Terrible things were done all in the name of the church and yet the Holy Spirit found away to hold us all accountable. The split of the church, first to the Orthodox and then to the Protestant movements helped keep all of us in line with what God’s will is. No longer was one man or one set of men in charge of what was taught or told to the people. Questions could be asked concerning one’s faith and answered through avenues that were not controlled by a broken system.

This has helped the Catholic Church as it has also grown the Protestant movement. Knowing that people can make a choice has kept the Vatican and those making decisions in the Catholic church very cautious concerning their involvement with outside groups. The Vatican has also started to listen to where the world is today rather that believing the world must bend to its will. These are all results of a healthy checks and balance of a dual tract choice. Hold on too tightly and people will leave and convert one way or another. The same will happen if things are too loosely applied.

The Protestant church has also grown from the relationship with the Catholic church. While we disagree with some points, many denominations believe that there are people that can find comfort in the tradition of the Catholic denomination. We feel that this comfort allows these folks a greater connection to God and that is really the whole point. It does not bother us where people go to church and connect as long as they go…

Excellent post. While I’m no where near as deep in history and theology as you others on this thread, I see it this way too. I often wonder what the Church would be today had there not been a Reformation.

Personally, I also ultimately believe that people knowing CHRIST is what’s more important–there’s a black mass being planned in a civic center in Oklahoma City as we post all this. Maybe that’s the case-God is working in all the Christian denominations for His glory and kingdom advancement.

Peace to us all,
HA

 

[benhur]

Your argument, in addition to being inaccurate, is remeniscent of the objection posed in this article:

To assert ecclesial deism to protestants is a bit "either or " and not “both” which Catholics are so fond of( both). It is a term only appropriate in a catholic paradigm, a paradigm that presupposes “once right always right” (ala once saved always saved) and lack of free will to a congregation/church/office/council/etc/ etc (like Calvin’s strict predestination but applied to the institutional church) with infallibilty the eventual end fruit as like a cherry on top. And of course the definition of “church”, the Body of Christ, the Bride is a “developed” one, much more narrow and defined than at the beginning. On the contrary, the Protestant paradigm keeps free will for the church/office etc , and has strict ecclesial theism and "church’’ in all its aspects is still relatively more "universal’’ and inclusive and in harmony with what the “Body, the Bride” really is (no need for special inclusion of second class citizens-those not in full union with Rome) It is a bit like Judaism up to the time of Christ. There were many sects, beliefs. There was much harmony yet disharmony . Some things were God’s perfect will and others not (such as having a king) yet Jehovah was ever making things out for the good without overriding free will of the collective nation. She perfectly delivered to the world the Messiah, as the church will be delivered as the Bride

 

[Contarini]

And of course the definition of “church”, the Body of Christ, the Bride is a “developed” one, much more narrow and defined than at the beginning.

Rather the opposite, I think. Early Christian texts, including NT ones, are very black-and-white: if you are a heretic (and in the NT “haeretikos” seems basically to mean “sectarian” or “schismatic”), you’re basically a child of the devil. The development has gone in the direction of recognizing how complex the question of union with the Church is and how much goodness and piety can be found among those who aren’t fully united with the Church.

Edwin

 

[Brophius]

Your argument, in addition to being inaccurate, is remeniscent of the objection posed in this article:

It amazes me that throughout Jesus’ entire ministry, He opposed those that came from highly decorated, visually apparent and self-entitled religious caste and instead went to the people that knew nothing, expected nothing and were the most grateful when He forgave them and healed them.

The more we struggle and argue about who is king here on earth, the further we are from ever understanding the message of Jesus Christ. Catholic or Protestant alike, God does not see our denomination, or if you prefer the term ‘church’ I will use that. He DOES see what is in our hearts though. I will go with that. Better to side with Him and not be elegant in my presentation than to wear my tassels long on my robe, pray loudly for all to see yet still forget to have enough oil for my lamp…

B

 

[SoMissCatholic]

It amazes me that throughout Jesus’ entire ministry, He opposed those that came from highly decorated, visually apparent and self-entitled religious caste and instead went to the people that knew nothing, expected nothing and were the most grateful when He forgave them and healed them.

The more we struggle and argue about who is king here on earth, the further we are from ever understanding the message of Jesus Christ. Catholic or Protestant alike, God does not see our denomination, or if you prefer the term ‘church’ I will use that. He DOES see what is in our hearts though. I will go with that. Better to side with Him and not be elegant in my presentation than to wear my tassels long on my robe, pray loudly for all to see yet still forget to have enough oil for my lamp…

B

The Catholic Church agrees that Christ is present in Protestant denominations and that He uses them as channels of salvation; however, we also believe that Christ founded only one Church (a visible Church) and that He calls all people to be united under the banner of this one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**I. THE CHURCH IS ONE

“The sacred mystery of the Church’s unity” (UR 2)

813 **The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her “soul”: "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:

What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

• apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.266

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

Continued in next post

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Continued from previous post

**Wounds to unity

817** In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

**Toward unity

820** "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

• a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280
• conversion of heart as the faithful “try to live holier lives according to the Gospel”;281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ’s gift which causes divisions;
• prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'282
• fraternal knowledge of each other;283
• ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284
• dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285
• collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize “that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts.” That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It amazes me that throughout Jesus’ entire ministry, He opposed those that came from highly decorated, visually apparent and self-entitled religious caste and instead went to the people that knew nothing, expected nothing and were the most grateful when He forgave them and healed them.

I think your prejudice is getting in the way of your thinking.

The more we struggle and argue about who is king here on earth, the further we are from ever understanding the message of Jesus Christ.

Straw man.

We are not arguing about who is king on earth. But about those Christ left to teach us everything He taught them (Matthew 28).

Catholic or Protestant alike, God does not see our denomination, or if you prefer the term ‘church’ I will use that.

God sees everything.

In in fact, your concept is not entirely consistent with Christ’s prayer in John 17

Dissension is [not] a fruit of the Spirit

He DOES see what is in our hearts though. I will go with that.

He sees everything, so yes the heart is included.

Better to side with Him and not be elegant in my presentation than to wear my tassels long on my robe, pray loudly for all to see yet still forget to have enough oil for my lamp…

Straw man, straw man.

Do you know how many men of God have worn robes and sacrificed their entire lives for the service of God?
Is it not the heart that makes the difference? And yet you judge the heart in condition to the robes…

You have not addressed [any] of your prior comments and allegations.

 

[spina1953]

Hi So Miss Catholic: I very much enjoyed your posts #725-726 very well done!

Sadly, I must say that whether Catholic or Protestant, many of us are very much lacking in charity towards each other, at least here in the USA, as I really do not know about how it is in Europe and elsewhere. It is from my own observations over the years that I see such lack by those who call themselves Christians in word but not in deed. I also realize that this is not true of all but only of those who claim to be Christian but nevertheless live a life contrary to what they say they believe as the Gospels proclaim we are to live as taught by the CC and also by non-Catholic Christians who at try to adhere to what the Gospels teach.

It is charity that seems to be lacking among those who profess to be Christians yet, do not really practice what they say they believe in while others it seems have distorted the Gospels to the point that they condemn anyone not of their beliefs. History is full of those who also have used their position within the CC and those outside of it to try and make the Church into what they think it should be or needs to be contrary to what the Church stands for which is unity in love of God and our fellow man. While it is one thing to adhere to what has been passed on from Christ to the Apostles and passed to us though time to the present age, we must always remember that it is by what we say and what we do towards each other is to be always by God’s love working though us so that others may give glory to God the Father and never to us.

 

[fasolislithuan]

You need to explain this to the Eastern Church, which venerates Constantine as a saint

It doesn’t need to explain anything. That’s irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn’t change the fact Constantine was baptized heretically for an heretical bishop.
And more important Constantine willingly embraced an heresy (arianism) in the year 337 a.D. with perfect knowledge about the explicit condemnation of this heresy (arianism) for the Catholic Church in the Council of Nicea 12 years before (325 a.D.). Eastern Church can venerate whatever they want but from catholic perspective Constantine is without a doubt an heretic. If he died being arian (Constantine free will chose arianism to the detriment of catholic faith), then he died being an heretic. That’s an irrefutable fact.

You are wrong about Catholics not recognizing Arian baptism. Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council says that Arians who were baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as opposed to the Eunomians, the radical Arians who apparently didn’t use the trinitarian formula) were received by chrismation and profession of faith, not baptism. Granted, Constantine was baptized much earlier than this, but if anything the lines would have been less clearly drawn.

First. The authority of the Canon 7 is doubtful at best (rather spurious). The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch and it doesn’t belong to the Council.

But without considering this your assertion is problematic. The reason is easy. When Constantine is baptized in the arian faith (year 337 a.C.) the conditions of baptized heretics are established not for the Council of Constantinople (hold 44 years later of Constantine baptism) rather for the Nicea Council. And the lines of course were more clearly drawn in this moment than in Constantinople. This council says the heretics must to be rebaptized (canon 17). The text mentions “paulianists” (followers of Paul of Samosata) but paulianists like later arians baptized with the formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”. So this formula is not enough to guarantee a valid sacrament like you point to. In fact today I think Jehovah’s Witnesses and mormons baptize exactly the same way and Catholic Church doesn’t recognize those baptisms valid. Because the formula “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” has a fundamentally different meaning in those heresies (paulinism,arianism,mormonism, etc) than in the Catholic Church’s belief.If Jesus is not God (arian belief) then although you baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”, this baptism is not valid.

I have never before heard of anyone questioning the validity of his baptism just because the bishop who baptized him had Arian sympathies.

The Bishop who baptized him had not arian sympathies. Eusebius of Nicomedia was in fact an heretic arian, a stubbornly disobedient to the Catholic faith and he conspired several times against holy catholic bishops with false charges causing exile (because those bishops were faithful to the nicean creed and the Catholic Church).

Furthermore, Constantine was a Christian catechumen for years before his baptism. He was accepted as a Christian by the bishops and even presided at the First Council of Nicea…

Another false statement. The council of Nicea was presided by a bishop of my home town (Andalusia, Spain), Osio of Cordoba. Osio was exiled in today Serbia and hit with a whip to the dead for the thugs of the arian emperor (357 a.D.) He was 101 years old.

The idea that Constantine “founded the Catholic Church” is obviously ridiculous. But you don’t help matters when you give out mistaken historical information in an attempt to counter this absurdity.

“Mistaken historical information”. What? Explain where. Say that Constantine presided the Council of Nicea (wrong, Osio of Cordoba was) or Eusebius of Nicodemia had Arian Sympathies (wrong, he was without reservations an arian bishop who commited crimes to defend his heretic faith) is rather that I’d call to give mistaken historical information.

Saludos.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Bishop who baptized him had not arian sympathies. Eusebius of Nicomedia was in fact an heretic arian, a stubbornly disobedient to the Catholic faith and he conspired several times against holy catholic bishops with false charges causing exile (because those bishops were faithful to the nicean creed and the Catholic Church).

Another false statement. The council of Nicea was presided by a bishop of my home town (Andalusia, Spain), Osio of Cordoba. Osio was exiled in today Serbia and hit with a whip to the dead for the thugs of the arian emperor (357 a.D.) He was 101 years old.

“Mistaken historical information”. What? Explain where. Say that Constantine presided the Council of Nicea (wrong, Osio of Cordoba was) or Eusebius of Nicodemia had Arian Sympathies (wrong, he was without reservations an arian bishop who commited crimes to defend his heretic faith) is rather that I’d call to give mistaken historical information.

Saludos.

Actually,

Osio served as Constantine’s ecclessial advisor after the Council of Elvira (Modern Granada? and the 1st Church Council in Spain) ~320AD. And I believe it was Constantine who sent Osio as an Imperial Emysary to the Eastern Churches in regards to the Arian disputes. He was also buddies with Athanasius, I think.

Also, I believe he was allowed to return to Spain, where he died. But not sure.

 

[Contarini]

It amazes me that throughout Jesus’ entire ministry, He opposed those that came from highly decorated, visually apparent and self-entitled religious caste

Why would it amaze you? You’re a modern Protestant. All your cultural and religious prejudices lead you to expect that “highly decorated” religious people are the bad guys.

This is just a cheap shot.

What ought to amaze you–if you actually ever figure it out–is that people can dress in shorts and a T-shirt and have church in a storefront and be full of pride and self-righteousness. That’s the world I grew up in.

Clerical robes are a good thing, like rattles on a poisonous snake.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Actually,

Osio served as Constantine’s ecclessial advisor after the Council of Elvira (Modern Granada? and the 1st Church Council in Spain) ~320AD. And I believe it was Constantine who sent Osio as an Imperial Emysary to the Eastern Churches in regards to the Arian disputes. He was also buddies with Athanasius, I think.

Also, I believe he was allowed to return to Spain, where he died. But not sure.

May 21
Constantine, Emperor, and Helena, his mother
Constantine I served as Roman Emperor from A.D. 306 to 337. During his reign the persecution of Christians was forbidden by the Edict of Milan in 312, and ultimately the faith gained full imperial support. Constantine took an active interest in the life and teachings of the church and called the Council of Nicaea in 325 at which orthodox Christianity was defined and defended. His mother, Helena (ca. 255-329), strongly influenced Constantine. Her great interest in locating the holy sites of the Christian faith led her to become one of the first Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Her research led to
the identification of Biblical locations in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and beyond, which are still maintained as places of worship today.

Even we grumpy old Lutherans of the LCMS recognize Constantine, as the above brief bio from our calendar shows.

Jon

 

[fasolislithuan]

Actually,

Also, I believe he was allowed to return to Spain, where he died. But not sure.

About the violence and torture applied to Osio by arian bishops when he was 101 year old, in his exile in Sirmio, today Serbia (sorry the bibliography is in Spanish):

ATANASIO, Historia de los arrianos 45; ID., Apología de su huida 5;
SÓCRATES DE CONSTANTINOPLA, Historia eclesiástica II, 31, 2-4;
SOZOMENO, Historia eclesiástica IV, 6, 13;
CASIODORO, Historia tripartita V, 9, 1-4. Los homeousianos Basilio de Ancira y Jorge de Laodicea hablan de “una carta que arrancaron al venerable Osio”: cf. EPIFANIO DE SALAMINA, Panarion 73, 14, 7.

Osio, died in his exile, not in Spain see:
“Vida griega de Osio”, en J.J. AYÁN-M. CRESPO-J. POLO-P. GONZÁLEZ, Osio de Córdoba, 830-831; Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum, ed. H. Delehaye, en Acta sanctorum. Propylaeum novembris, 930-93; Menologio del emperador Basilio, PG 117, 608-609.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

About the violence and torture applied to Osio by arian bishops when he was 101 year old, in his exile in Sirmio, today Serbia (sorry the bibliography is in Spanish):

ATANASIO, Historia de los arrianos 45; ID., Apología de su huida 5;
SÓCRATES DE CONSTANTINOPLA, Historia eclesiástica II, 31, 2-4;
SOZOMENO, Historia eclesiástica IV, 6, 13;
CASIODORO, Historia tripartita V, 9, 1-4. Los homeousianos Basilio de Ancira y Jorge de Laodicea hablan de “una carta que arrancaron al venerable Osio”: cf. EPIFANIO DE SALAMINA, Panarion 73, 14, 7.

Osio, died in his exile, not in Spain see:
“Vida griega de Osio”, en J.J. AYÁN-M. CRESPO-J. POLO-P. GONZÁLEZ, Osio de Córdoba, 830-831; Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum, ed. H. Delehaye, en Acta sanctorum. Propylaeum novembris, 930-93; Menologio del emperador Basilio, PG 117, 608-609.

Thanks for the references! Always welcomed!

And no worries - Yo hablo Espanol (Perdona la falta de acentos y la tilde pero mi computadora no quiere cooperar ).

Paz de Cristo

 

[benhur]

Actually,

Osio served as Constantine’s ecclessial advisor after the Council of Elvira (Modern Granada? and the 1st Church Council in Spain) ~320AD. And I believe it was Constantine who sent Osio as an Imperial Emysary to the Eastern Churches in regards to the Arian disputes. He was also buddies with Athanasius, I think.

Also, I believe he was allowed to return to Spain, where he died. But not sure.

Not sure but I thought Constantine had him arrested.

 

[benhur]

Rather the opposite, I think. Early Christian texts, including NT ones, are very black-and-white: if you are a heretic (and in the NT “haeretikos” seems basically to mean “sectarian” or “schismatic”), you’re basically a child of the devil.

Don’t doubt that but it was over bigger issues, like Christology not over consubstantation vs transubsatnatiation or allegiance to Rome or not.

The development has gone in the direction of recognizing how complex the question of union with the Church is

Yes. Like the nicene creed is basic , universal stuff and if that is all we had to today I think we’d all be one, at least by that standard. I think CC has the largest amount of dogma to be believed to be considered a first class citizen of the kingdom today. Like many P’s on this forum will say “well the main thing is to know Jesus, be born again” and the rebuttal is a littany of “qualifications”, beyond the Nicene Creed or qualifying it. I mean look at Nicea vs Trent for things to be believed in. We have all expanded and some rightfully so, but CC the most i think.

and how much goodness and piety can be found among those who aren’t fully united with the Church.

Thank you for this . I think it is a late edition, from second vatican (lumen gentum, not sure), but thank you . Still, i think CC is only church that considers the other churches and it’s members as "imperfect’ due to lack of union with Rome. Another words, not sure if any other denomination would say imperfection is due to not being a member of their church …They may say you are imperfect due to certain differing dogmas, but not directed to specific membership and not "imperfect or inferring second class in the Body. You are either in the Body or you are not.