How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[joe371]

Novocastrian;12191572]Huge logical misstep.

You’re assuming that the Church = Rome, which we’ve already established is a premise that House doesn’t hold.

Jesus established the Catholic Church, and its eventual headquarters ended up in Rome; there are also 22 other Rites. If you can prove otherwise, I will concede. So, if Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church then who did and when, and please provide evidence to support your claim. We can leave all of the Protestant Churches out of discussion because we can both provide the name of the person who founded each Protestant Church and when, and it was not Jesus.

 

[estesbob]

There are two problems in this thread.

First, many, not all, of the Roman Catholic participants use the term ‘Protestant’ to include everything from a LCMS Lutheran to a non-denominational evangelical anabaptist. It’s like asking about ‘people.’

Second, many, not all, of the Roman Catholic participants keep hampering on the 1500 year old gap, as if that is a neutral premise in the debate. I can assure you all that none of the Lutherans here believe that there is such a gap, but see the Lutheran church in continuation with the Church of History. We can, of course, debate if that is an accurate estimation, but to keep bringing up the ‘1500 year old gap’ – as the starting point of such a discussion – is simply to beg the question.

It is also important to note that the term Lutheran was not coined by Lutherans themselves, and in many countries, in Germany, for instance, the preferred term is ‘evangelical’ (Ger. evangelische, not to be confused with the modern American use of that phrase) or ‘evangelical catholic.’

How can it be a continuation when it adopted doctrines that were unheard of for the previous 1500 years.?

 

[joe371]

Do you refer to the Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Polish National Catholics as Protestant?

All Protestant Churches, beginning with the first Protestant Church (Lutheran Church) are offshoots of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Churches are not offshoots of the Catholic Church i.e. they were not newly formed churches in the 16th, 17th…21st century. They possess apostolic pedigree…

Polish National Catholics: “Fr. Hodur challenged several Roman Catholic Church teachings, including papal infallibility and supremacy. In 1904 - 1st General Synod of the Polish National Catholic Church is held in September in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Its actions include: A decisive break with the Roman Catholic Church.” Therefore the church established by Hodur was not founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[joe371]

Okay. What I was wondering is whether disagreeing with the jurisdictional authority of the Latin church is what defines one as Protestant.

What defines one as Protestant? One who belongs to a Protestant Church, as opposed to the Catholic Church; one who rejects Catholic teachings…in favor of the teachings of either the Protestant Church which they belong to or their own teachings, based on their interpretation/understanding of the Holy Bible. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[joe371]

How can it be a continuation when it adopted doctrines that were unheard of for the previous 1500 years.?

Agreed. :yup:

 

[rfournier103]

It is also important to note that the term Lutheran was not coined by Lutherans themselves, and in many countries, in Germany, for instance, the preferred term is ‘evangelical’ (Ger. evangelische, not to be confused with the modern American use of that phrase) or ‘evangelical catholic.’

May I take this opportunity to say that “ROMAN” Catholic is ALSO a misnomer.

The term “Roman” Catholic was coined by Protestants who still considered themselves to be Catholic; yet wanted to differentiate themselves from the actual Universal Church.

Protestants are always saying that “the church” is the body of believers, in a sense they are right. The Church IS the UNIVERSAL BODY OF BELIEVERS = the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

There can only be one real McCoy. The question is; who is it?

 

[rfournier103]

What defines one as Protestant? One who belongs to a Protestant Church, as opposed to the Catholic Church; one who rejects Catholic teachings…in favor of the teachings of either the Protestant Church which they belong to or their own teachings, based on their interpretation/understanding of the Holy Bible. Does that seem reasonable?

The Church thinks so. And it makes sense to me, too.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

But, in the year 1500 (and 1400, and 1300, …, 100), it WAS “His Church”, as there was no other with that claim. And in the year 1500, YOU CLAIM that it was OK to disobey and split from that Church … His Church.

Why?

Either it became NOT His Church, meaning He defected on His promise, or the disobedient sinned by splitting.

No, the Roman Catholic denomination is only a part of his church, nor did Jesus promise indefectability to it or any denomination. Even in 1400, 1300, 100 there were factions, denominations and sects both in the east and west that were also part of the church. Also, my hero Martin Luther didn’t split, he was kicked out.

 

[joe371]

May I take this opportunity to say that “ROMAN” Catholic is ALSO a misnomer.

The term “Roman” Catholic was coined by Protestants who still considered themselves to be Catholic; yet wanted to differentiate themselves from the actual Universal Church.

Protestants are always saying that “the church” is the body of believers, in a sense they are right. The Church IS the UNIVERSAL BODY OF BELIEVERS = the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

There can only be one real McCoy. The question is; who is it?

As a Christian, like you, belonging to Jesus’ Catholic Church, the term “Roman Catholic” used to bother me, but no more. After all The worldwide headquarters of the Catholic Church is the Vatican, in Rome. The uniqueness of the Catholic Church: it began in Jerusalem and eventually spread throughout the entire world, as per Jesus’ prophecy; pretty cool:

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

 

[joe371]

No, the Roman Catholic denomination is only a part of his church, nor did Jesus promise indefectability to it or any denomination. Even in 1400, 1300, 100 there were factions, denominations and sects both in the east and west that were also part of the church. Also, my hero Martin Luther didn’t split, he was kicked out.

In the sense that the Catholic Church, like all churches, is a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices, sure it is a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost. As time progressed, and Jerusalem was sacked, beginning with the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the worldwide headquarters of the Catholic Church ended up in Rome where Peter and Paul were martyred. Some disagree but provide no evidence to counter the claim…

 

[joe371]

No, the Roman Catholic denomination is only a part of his church, nor did Jesus promise indefectability to it or any denomination. Even in 1400, 1300, 100 there were factions, denominations and sects both in the east and west that were also part of the church. Also, my hero Martin Luther didn’t split, he was kicked out.

Speaking as a former Lutheran, I discovered that Martin Luther, as a Christian belonging to the RCC, was deeply concerned (rightfully so) only with the abuses within the CC (something that has plagued the CC in every century, including the 1st century); not the teachings of the Catholic Church. That came later.

The Catholic Church, comprised of all fallible leaders, starting with the apostles, is indefectible, in spite of the fact that every CC leader, beginning with the fallible apostles, are full of defects. Jesus did in fact promise indefectibility as per scripture, if in fact God uses these fallible leaders to protect and preserve (John 16:13 and John 14: 16) doctrinal truth via apostolic succession, which is found in the NT. If God failed to uses these fallible leaders, with the exception of the apostles) to protect and preserve doctrinal truth in every age, as opposed to just the apostolic age, then yes you are right, and the Catholic Church is defectible, and doctrinal truth becomes suspect.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Also, my hero Martin Luther didn’t split, he was kicked out.

I had this job once where I didn’t like my boss but I didn’t want to quit it. So I just became very annoying so that he would fire me.

Willful disobedient/dissenting behavior is just as bad as splitting.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I had this job once where I didn’t like my boss but I didn’t want to quit it. So I just became very annoying so that he would fire me.

Willful disobedient/dissenting behavior is just as bad as splitting.

Then Luther should have abandoned his conscience? Or should he have followed his conscience?

 

[KjetilK]

Their similarity is in the fact that they all protest against the authority and jurisdiction of the Catholic church.

Yes, and so…?

 

[estesbob]

Then Luther should have abandoned his conscience? Or should he have followed his conscience?

He should have humbly accepted the fact he wss wrong.He should have honored his vows to obey the Bishop and his vows of celibacy.

 

[KjetilK]

How can it be a continuation when it adopted doctrines that were unheard of for the previous 1500 years.?

Such as? I’m not necessarily saying that didn’t happen, but examples would be helpful. Examples from Lutheranism, that is, since that is what I was referencing. And preferably examples that can be rooted in the ‘founding documents’ of Lutheranism, not practices which can be abused. That we find everywhere, including the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Norway, of which I am part, has as its basis the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Luther’s Small Catechism, and Confessio Augustana. It would be helpful if you could point out these ‘new doctrines’ in those confessions.

If they aren’t there, I’m not bound by them, and thus your critique doesn’t necessarily harm me.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

He should have humbly accepted the fact he wss wrong.He should have honored his vows to obey the Bishop and his vows of celibacy.

Even over his own conscience?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Then Luther should have abandoned his conscience? Or should he have followed his conscience?

He had a case of selective conscience…

[If] his conscience was so led by the spirit, dissension should not have been the fruit of his actions.

He was right in regards to some issues and he was not taken seriously or in due time by the Church. [That] does not justify the rest of his actions.

 

[estesbob]

Such as? I’m not necessarily saying that didn’t happen, but examples would be helpful. Examples from Lutheranism, that is, since that is what I was referencing. And preferably examples that can be rooted in the ‘founding documents’ of Lutheranism, not practices which can be abused. That we find everywhere, including the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Norway, of which I am part, has as its basis the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Luther’s Small Catechism, and Confessio Augustana. It would be helpful if you could point out these ‘new doctrines’ in those confessions.

If they aren’t there, I’m not bound by them, and thus your critique doesn’t necessarily harm me.

Luther threw out 5 sacraments,5 books of the Bible, rejected Papal primacy and created two new doctrines-Sola Fideles and Sola Scriptura.If Luther was correct in doing this it means God allowed his people to be in error for 1,500 years.

 

[joe371]

Then Luther should have abandoned his conscience? Or should he have followed his conscience?

Perhaps he could have trusted that God would remedy things e.g. indulgence abuses? Jesus said: “I will build my church” and for Martin Luther God’s church was the Catholic Church, at least until he thought that God could no longer bring positive reform to His church. If a person is going to leave the CC, or challenge its authority when faced with corrupt leaders, to the point of getting removed, due to the bad behavior of church leaders, as opposed to trusting in God’s providence, then there really is no reason for anyone to belong to the CC, or any church for that matter; corrupt leaders and bad behavior are never going away, regardless of the denomination just as Jesus predicted in the NT. However, doctrinal truth, is here to stay, just as Jesus predicted in the NT.