How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie39 said:
Would you give me the refrences for these quotes?

Thanks
Annie

Here is evidence to the contrary. The ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts, vi, 6; xvi, 22; I Tim., v, 22; II Tim., i, 6; Tit., i, 5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. Con. Nic. I, can. 4, Apost. Const. VIII, 28 “A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain.” A council held at Alexandria (340) declared the orders conferred by Caluthus, a presbyter, null and void (Athanas., “Apol. contra Arianos”, ii). For the custom said to have existed in the Church of Alexandria see EGYPT. Nor can objection be raised from the fact that chorepiscopi are known to have ordained priests, as there can be no doubt that some chorepiscopi were in bishops’ orders (Gillman, “Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient,” Munich, 1903; Hefele-Leclercq, “Conciles”, II, 1197-1237). No one but a bishop can give any orders now without a delegation from the pope, but a simple priest may be thus authorized to confer minor orders and the subdiaconate. It is generally denied that priests can confer priests’ orders, and history, certainly, records no instance of the exercise of such extraordinary ministry. The diaconate cannot be conferred by a simple priest, according to the majority of theologians. This is sometimes questioned, as Innocent VIII is said to have granted the privilege to Cistercian abbots (1489), but the genuineness of the concession is very doubtful. For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization

I plan to post a little more ASAP
Click to expand...
Source?
 
SyroMalankara said:
So the laity had a say in the election of bishops - some still do; especially in Eastern Churches, and many traditionally Catholic Western countries. Some laymen are also included in voting for Anglican higher clergy, why choose the Lutheran version as opposed to one of these?
Click to expand...
Theological disagreement with those particular denominations.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Looks like old Fabian was elected and appointed by the congregation of the people.
Click to expand...
HH there was an assembly in Rome to elect a Bishop as successor to Antherius. After a dove landed on Fabian’s head the people shouted that he was worthy. There was no opposition so he was ordained by the bishops of the assembly. But then, you knew that didn’t you?

In 236, an assembly was held in Rome to elect a bishop as successor to Antherius. In the throng was one Fabian, a layman from another part of Italy. Suddenly, according to the historian Eusebius, a dove flew over the crowd and lighted on Fabian’s head. Despite his being both a stranger and not a candidate in the election, the people unanimously chose Fabian to be bishop, shouting, “Axios! He is worthy! He is worthy!” Fabian was ordained to the episcopate without opposition.
 
Annie39 said:
HH there was an assembly in Rome to elect a Bishop as successor to Antherius. After a dove landed on Fabian’s head the people shouted that he was worthy. There was no opposition so he was ordained by the bishops of the assembly. But then, you knew that didn’t you?
Click to expand...
That’s adding to what Eusebius says. I will just go with Eusebius.

Congregational election was the norm in the early church, the new Roman Catholic practice is the novelty. That’s why most Protestant churches do it, it was largely regressive, going back to the practice of the early church.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
So the Catholic Encyclopedia.

You don’t think that the Catholic encyclopedia might be a bit biased on its assessment? Especially adding “this is doubtful”. This is doubtful according to whom? The Roman Catholic Church? Of course they are going to doubt a historical event that disputes a modern practice.
Click to expand...
Not unless everything catholic is suspect to you I order to confirm your own Protestant sense of history…🤷
 
House_Harkonnen said:
That’s adding to what Eusebius says. I will just go with Eusebius.

Congregational election was the norm in the early church, the new Roman Catholic practice is the novelty. That’s why most Protestant churches do it, it was largely regressive, going back to the practice of the early church.
Click to expand...
Huh. I wasn’t aware that Protestants had studied early Church history and came to this conclusion. That’s the first I’ve heard of this. And I’m a former Protestant. So how did your particular church come to the conclusion that congregational election was the norm? Were they perhaps looking for a way to justify their views?

So, in your estimation, when did the “new” Roman Catholic practice begin?
 
pablope said:
Not unless everything catholic is suspect to you I order to confirm your own Protestant sense of history…🤷
Click to expand...
And in reverse? All things Protestant are suspect to you unless they conform to your sense of history? Why is it ok for you to take such a position? Do you realize how you come across? Not positively.
 
Tomyris said:
I see. So no Protestant can have any intellectual integrity? That goes along with this whole insulting premise of the OP and a lot of the posts on this thread.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there are some groups that believe this gap thing. Isn’t that the premise of the Trail of Blood?

Where the OP misses, ISTM, is that he uses the term protestant, instead of identifying specific communions or groups that believe this. He further makes the mistake of naming Lutherans in this regard.
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
Jon
 
Tomyris said:
Denise1957;12163673:
Were they perhaps looking for a way to justify their views?
I see. So no Protestant can have any intellectual integrity? That goes along with this whole insulting premise of the OP and a lot of the posts on this thread.
Click to expand...
Well, if they weren’t looking for a way to justify their views, I’d like to know about it, and then I’ll concede that I was hasty in making an unfair judgment.

But I don’t see how you can believe that I’m somehow saying that Protestants cannot have intellectual integrity. Of course they can have integrity. But the human mind is an odd thing sometimes. We have to ability to sincerely believe that something is true, and then look for ways to justify it. It doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is not sincere or lacks integrity (but sometimes, it DOES mean that).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Denise1957 said:
Huh. I wasn’t aware that Protestants had studied early Church history and came to this conclusion. That’s the first I’ve heard of this. And I’m a former Protestant. So how did your particular church come to the conclusion that congregational election was the norm? Were they perhaps looking for a way to justify their views?

So, in your estimation, when did the “new” Roman Catholic practice begin?
Click to expand...
No. There are many Protestants who are steeped in church history and the fathers. That’s why I said there is no 1500 year gap. That would be what Mormons and JWs and restorationists believe. Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists etc believe in no such gap. The conservative reformation was regressive not progressive. They were trying to get back to what the early church was doing. Per guys like Cyprian they were doing presbyter ordination, and congregational election of bishops, even the medieval Catholic Church practiced these as well. No need to “justify our views”. Just go back to what the early church was doing.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
No. There are many Protestants who are steeped in church history and the fathers. That’s why I said there is no 1500 year gap. That would be what Mormons and JWs and restorationists believe. Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists etc believe in no such gap. The conservative reformation was regressive not progressive. They were trying to get back to what the early church was doing. Per guys like Cyprian they were doing presbyter ordination, and congregational election of bishops, even the medieval Catholic Church practiced these as well. No need to “justify our views”. Just go back to what the early church was doing.
Click to expand...
I think part of it goes back to the difference which is often not made between Protestants and other non-Catholics in the west. Protestant churches are those you listed, who separated from the Roman communion in the 1500s. Typically there is a sense of history. In contrast to that you have some non-Catholic churches, such as the non-denominational churches, without a sense of history, except perhaps to the Azusa Street revival, and put the emphasis almost entirely on what God is doing RIGHT NOW - to them history really is of no interest. I’ve observed some charismatic churches that follow that pattern, and I forgot about the ‘Trail of Blood’ people, which I have only heard about on CAF but have never met or read anyone from that background. JWs and Mormons and some Baptists and anaBaptists, for all I know, go for the gap, and the OP should have been more specific. The way he wrote the OP was that everyone except Catholics goes for the gap.

If you read Calvin you will find he continually refers to his theological forbears throughout history. It’s not like he jumps from 318 to 1517. But his historical view of the church is far too nuanced, and I don’t know it well enough, to explain it further than that.
 
Denise1957 said:
So, in your estimation, when did the “new” Roman Catholic practice begin?
Click to expand...
Not sure if i missed it but when did CC adopt what it does today in electing bishops ? Peter certainly did not appoint all the bishops of first church and Ignatius tells congregations to elect their own as does scripture. So you tell me when it “changed” ?
 
Tomyris said:
I think part of it goes back to the difference which is often not made between Protestants and other non-Catholics in the west. Protestant churches are those you listed, who separated from the Roman communion in the 1500s. Typically there is a sense of history. In contrast to that you have some non-Catholic churches, such as the non-denominational churches, without a sense of history, except perhaps to the Azusa Street revival, and put the emphasis almost entirely on what God is doing RIGHT NOW - to them history really is of no interest. I’ve observed some charismatic churches that follow that pattern, and I forgot about the ‘Trail of Blood’ people, which I have only heard about on CAF but have never met or read anyone from that background. JWs and Mormons and some Baptists and anaBaptists, for all I know, go for the gap, and the OP should have been more specific. The way he wrote the OP was that everyone except Catholics goes for the gap.

If you read Calvin you will find he continually refers to his theological forbears throughout history. It’s not like he jumps from 318 to 1517. But his historical view of the church is far too nuanced, and I don’t know it well enough, to explain it further than that.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
Adamski said:
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
Click to expand...
That is funny because every time I show catholics writings from church “fathers” they always say that not everything that they wrote is truth. As far as I understand it catholics say anything that doesn’t agree with the current teachings of the church is not a part of tradition.

I would be suprised if a protestant even knew what the didiache was. My apologies if this was already said I have been gone for a month doing missions work in Ecuador.
 
Protestor said:
That is funny because every time I show catholics writings from church “fathers” they always say that not everything that they wrote is truth. As far as I understand it catholics say anything that doesn’t agree with the current teachings of the church is not a part of tradition.

I would be suprised if a protestant even knew what the didiache was. My apologies if this was already said I have been gone for a month doing missions work in Ecuador.
Click to expand...
Would you post one or two of those quotes from the CF that you write about?

Annie
 
Protestor said:
That is funny because every time I show catholics writings from church “fathers” they always say that not everything that they wrote is truth. As far as I understand it catholics say anything that doesn’t agree with the current teachings of the church is not a part of tradition.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top