How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[Picky_Picky]

And what I find is that such quotes are usually taken out of context, or that the meaning that a protestant is hoping to derive from it is dubious. Oftentimes, the words’ meanings have evolved and the person is trying to assess the meaning using today’s lexicon.

And, yes, some of the Church Fathers had some non-orthodox opinions on some things. That’s why we say that where the Fathers are in universal agreement on a subject (i.e., “unanimous”, although not necessarily in the strict technical sense of the word - see the linked article), that their teaching should be considered Apostolic Teaching. Especially when they say as much.

Thank you for the definition of unanimous. Splendid stuff!

 

[Annie39]

And what I find is that such quotes are usually taken out of context, or that the meaning that a protestant is hoping to derive from it is dubious. Oftentimes, the words’ meanings have evolved and the person is trying to assess the meaning using today’s lexicon.

And, yes, some of the Church Fathers had some non-orthodox opinions on some things. That’s why we say that where the Fathers are in universal agreement on a subject (i.e., “unanimous”, although not necessarily in the strict technical sense of the word - see the linked article), that their teaching should be considered Apostolic Teaching. Especially when they say as much.

That’s why I asked for only one or two quotes. I don’t want to spend too much time on this issue.

Annie

 

[benhur]

Thank you for the definition of unanimous. Splendid stuff!

So “unanimous” now means “consensus”…The P’s have a lot more unaniminity than most think also.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So “unanimous” now means “consensus”…The P’s have a lot more unaniminity than most think also.

Other than being Non-Catholic?

 

[benhur]

Other than being Non-Catholic?

That is a start.A while back it was a really big one.

 

[Kay_Cee]

How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap? Some don’t. Some completely ignore it.

I was shocked by a Protestant friend who told me, “We’re studying Christian history at our church. We began with Martin Luther.”

Began with Martin Luther? Isn’t that skipping a big chunk of history? Isn’t that like saying you’re going to study American history but skipping from the Revolutionary War to 1950?

 

[JonNC]

How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap? Some don’t. Some completely ignore it.

I was shocked by a Protestant friend who told me, “We’re studying Christian history at our church. We began with Martin Luther.”

Began with Martin Luther? Isn’t that skipping a big chunk of history? Isn’t that like saying you’re going to study American history but skipping from the Revolutionary War to 1950?

It isn’t where Luther would start.

Jon

 

[benhur]

How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap? Some don’t. Some completely ignore it.

I was shocked by a Protestant friend who told me, “We’re studying Christian history at our church. We began with Martin Luther.”

Began with Martin Luther? Isn’t that skipping a big chunk of history? Isn’t that like saying you’re going to study American history but skipping from the Revolutionary War to 1950?

Agreed yet to fully understand Luther one looks at his(ours) past and present. At least it is something,for much is skipped today even in US history.

 

[joe371]

This was the real question I had in a previous thread that got derailed. Personally leaving my non denominational church and coming home to the Catholic Church if both had a solid answer from the bible I had to go with the catholic one because it was rooted in history such as the writings from the first three centuries after Christ.

When ever I show protestants of any kind writings such as the Didiache, polycarp, and ignatius of Antioch. They say “well false teachers were there from the beginning and I have the truth from the bible”. This had come from Lutherans to baptists

As a former non-Catholic, I had to ask myself: how do I know that I possess the truth (based on my interpretation of the Bible) which clashes with the interpretation of another person, as they interpret their Bible, regarding the certain teachings i.e. how can they know that they are not the false teachers? Moreover, does the Holy Spirit guide each and every Christian, regardless of church affiliation, regarding doctrinal truth? If the HS does then the HS failed…

 

[joe371]

I don’t see Lutheranism as a breach with 1500 years of church history, more of a continuation of it.

I don’t have a problem with the Didache, Polycarp, Ignatius, or any other church father.

A continuation is nice but why not belong to the Catholic Church?

 

[joe371]

Well that’s just like, uh, your opinion man.

Thankfully, your past few popes have seen us in a much more positive light.

I ask respectfully: is the Lutheran church a continuation of the Catholic Church, or did Luther establish a movement that eventually transformed into another church with different beliefs/perspectives, to some degree?

 

[joe371]

I left for lots or reasons all amounting to I didn’t believe any of the distinctive Catholic dogmas anymore. I was raised non religious but became Christian and Catholic in college. I was drawn to its history and intellectual tradition. There were a few things I couldn’t quite accept but on direction from my spiritual advisor he told me to practice the faith and those things would fall into place. They never did. Ten years later I was trying to practice my faith that was getting more dead and moribund by the day. I was going through the motions and getting more and more resentful of the church. Yet my resentment was making me terrified of my salvation. I laid awake at night terrified that my contrition was not perfect or if I even had it at all. I did confession because it was an obligation. It gave me no comfort. I went to mass because I was obligated and it gave me no comfort. I bought every book Catholic Answers put out and read all their tracts. I went and crossed swords with Protestants in real life and online. I was not trying to convince them, I was trying to convince myself. I realized all my “answers” were pathetic.

I started to hate all the obligations of the church. I hated going to mass. I hated going to confession. I pretended to be on the same page as everyone else. Even though they looked as miserable as me. They all ran out of the church so fast after mass that you would think the building was on fire. My dismal and dead faith offered me no peace, no comfort. It became a source of pain in my life. I was in a state of spiritual torture and agony, I had to make it stop.

All this coupled with some very negative experiences at my local parish, where I was a lector and my wife a Eucharistic minister. I finally told her on the way home from church that I wanted to check out somewhere else. I related all this to a coworker who was feeling very bad about his Reformed baptist church. We both decided to check out a local tiny confessional Lutheran parish in my town. The pastor told me the Lutheran Law Gospel distinction. He offered to baptize my daughter free of charge with no strings attached. Folks actually stayed after church and enjoyed each other’s company. It was like coming up for air. I recently moved and found a new small confessional lutheran parish similar to the first. I was confirmed in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod late last year.

Working with my pastor I have let go of my anger towards my former church. Turns out I may have something called scrupulosity. Something that my hero Luther also may have had. His writings on the issue felt so close to home. I can relate. Now I actually respect my former church more now than a year ago and half ago. I believe that the Catholic Church preaches the word and administers the sacraments, I believe it is a legitimate coequal, co blessed by God, beloved Christian Church home to many Christians. But its simply not for me.

Thanks for sharing. My sister went though something quite similar. In view of the fact that you said the Catholic Church administers the sacraments, you must believe that the bread and wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood upon the words of consecration? If so do you believe that this trasnformation occurs upon the words of consecration of a Lutheran Pastor? Just curious…

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Thanks for sharing. My sister went though something quite similar. In view of the fact that you said the Catholic Church administers the sacraments, you must believe that the bread and wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood upon the words of consecration? If so do you believe that this trasnformation occurs upon the words of consecration of a Lutheran Pastor? Just curious…

Yes.

 

[joe371]

Yes.

 

[KjetilK]

How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

This kind of uninformed question is a constant irritation to my Catholic friends, many of whom are very conservative theologians. The Lutheran confessions do not disregard the history of the Church, and refers to the Church Fathers. In Confessio Augustana it is said, in the conclusion in article 21, that in the doctrinal part of the confession (articles 1-21), “there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers.” What is meant by ‘its writers’ is the Church Fathers.

 

[benjohnson]

I ask respectfully: is the Lutheran church a continuation of the Catholic Church, or did Luther establish a movement that eventually transformed into another church with different beliefs/perspectives, to some degree?

That’s a fair question, and I can see why that question should be asked.

When looking the Lutheran church, it’s really hard to pick out the bits and pieces to assemble anything like what the church should be. We suffer from pietism, bad catechesis, contemporary worship, politics, wayward pastors and apathetic sheep, state ownership and drying the creeds.

But, we expect that. The church will always suffer.

One of my favorite pastors put it thus:

“empty pews are not a disgrace. When they abound under the preaching and celebrating of Jesus’ narrow way, they are a sign of the truth among us. Such signs will not easily flourish.”

mtio.com/articles/aissar1.htm

So I would say ‘yes’ - that a valid continuation of the western church still exists in this mess. If I didn’t, I’d try to find it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s a fair question, and I can see why that question should be asked.

When looking the Lutheran church, it’s really hard to pick out the bits and pieces to assemble anything like what the church should be. We suffer from pietism, bad catechesis, contemporary worship, politics, wayward pastors and apathetic sheep, state ownership and drying the creeds.

But, we expect that. The church will always suffer.

So I would say ‘yes’ - that a valid continuation of the western church still exists in this mess. If I didn’t, I’d try to find it.

So this is tolerable from Lutheranism but not from Catholicism?

 

[Lek]

The entire Lutheran religion kind of falls apart since Martin Luther himself, in his own writings, speaks of the validity and absolute authority and oneness of the Catholic Church. Lutherans are not Catholic. They are not in communion with Rome and have no ties to Apostolic Succession. Their “priesthood” is not valid. Their ministers are self ordained, not ordained by God. They are not a continuation of the Church. They are a dissident group who broke away from the True Church and created their own religion/ideology to suit their needs.

According to the apostle Paul, the church consists of all followers of Christ. The Catholic church accepts all Christian baptisms as valid. Romans 6:3-4 says: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” I don’t see any mention of the need for all that other stuff you mentioned in order to walk with Christ or belong to the “body of Christ”.

 

[Denise1957]

According to the apostle Paul, the church consists of all followers of Christ. The Catholic church accepts all Christian baptisms as valid. Romans 6:3-4 says: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” I don’t see any mention of the need for all that other stuff you mentioned in order to walk with Christ or belong to the “body of Christ”.

Since you are a Protestant, do you mind if I ask about how you would explain the 1500 year gap?

 

[Lek]

Since you are a Protestant, do you mind if I ask about how you would explain the 1500 year gap?

Sure. I have to go out now, but I will return and give you my explanation.