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.
Right. Logically and historically, the Church = the Catholic Church (not Rome, BTW. See this article).
No, I’m assuming (actually, logically deducing) that any kind of doctrinal error serious enough to split the church, which is expressly forbidden by scripture and which Christ prayed would never happen, would constitute a breach of that promise.
The promises that Christ gave were to the leaders of the Church, to guide the Church.
What were the Orthodox Churches, then?
Yep, but you know in what sense I’m referring to Rome. C.f. the footnote to the article you link: “Popes and Councils have sometimes included “Roman” among the distinctive marks of the Church, as in “One, Holy, Catholic, Roman and Apostolic” and similar, or used Roman Church as inclusive of the whole. This usage reflects the reality that the One Church of Christ is Petrine and thus Roman, having Peter and his successors in the See of Rome as its temporal head”
Yet such splits have, in fact, occurred. Cf. the particular Eastern Churches, which we’re constantly told on this forum don’t differ greatly in doctrine from the Roman Church.
Exactly. Any failure is on their part, not his. The endpoint of your argument is not so much a condemnation of Luther et al., but the recognition that the charisms of the Church don’t work the way Rome teaches. The Papacy, supposedly the great guarantor of Church unity, has failed utterly in preserving the visible unity of the Church Catholic. Placing one’s ecclesiological faith in the occupant of that See - however holy and venerable he may personally be - is to set oneself up for a fall.
That’s a very common red herring. Unless you’re an EO, or becoming one, then it doesn’t apply. We’d have to start a thread on this issue, but suffice it to say that they are the “other lung” of the Church.
You’ll need to guide me through that logical leap. I don’t see it.
How so?
We place our faith in Christ, and His promises regarding St. Peter, such as:
Not a red herring at all. So they’re orthodox(ish) particular churches out of communion with Rome. Your implication that there were only Roman Catholics in 1500 etc. was incorrect.
I never said there were “only Roman Catholics in 1500”. In fact, I pointed out that the term Roman Catholics is itself technically incorrect. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
True.
See? We can’t even use that name you’d prefer since there’s another group of, well, protestants that have taken on that name, and using it would be confusing to all.
Then why address ‘Protestantism’ at all? Why not address Calvinists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc? By using the term in the way you are using it, you are lumping a Lutheran and an Anabaptist into the same group. That makes as much sense as to say that a Democratic and a Republican senator is the same because ‘they’re both politicians.’ The point I’m trying to make is that an argument that works to tear up the claim of an anabaptist is not destined to work on a Lutheran or vice versa. We simply aren’t the same.
But that is the debate. You lay claim to the word ‘catholic,’ a claim that Lutherans do not agree to. I am a Western Catholic, in the Church of Norway. I claim to follow the Catholic faith and the Church Fathers, centring on the definitions of Nicea and Chalcedon, cf. Confessio Augustana articles I, III, and XXI. For a Lutheran perspective on the catholicity of Confessio Augustana, read Wolfhart Pannenberg’s article «The Confessio Augustana as a Catholic Confession and a Basis for the Unity of the Church,» in The Role of the Augsburg Confession: Catholic and Lutheran Views, ed., Joseph A. Burgess (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1980): 27-45. Pannenberg is a German Lutheran systematic theologian.
My cynical side suggests that some Catholics like to use the word ‘Protestant’ to encompass all non-Catholics [besides Orthodox] because it is easier and doesn’t require much if any insight. They then go on to complain about the many Christian denominations as some sort of example of Martin Luther’s fault.
That was not my point. You are using the word ‘Protestant’ as if it denotes any significant similarity between the various groups. Take, for instance, Anabaptists and Lutherans. We do not agree on fundamental issues such as baptism, and thus it makes no sense to lump us together. Or take those who are in the Salvation Army, and see that as their only church. They do not celebrate the Eucharist, and they do not baptise. Thus they aren’t even a church in Lutheran terms (cf. VIIConfessio Augustana). The word ‘Protestant,’ though perhaps accurate, is too general. It is like talking about ‘people’ or ‘Europeans.’
). The word ‘Protestant,’ though perhaps accurate, is too general. It is like talking about ‘people’ or ‘Europeans.’
Do you refer to the Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Polish National Catholics as Protestant?
You know that there’s a difference between the Protestant situation and the Orthodox. Protestant is the term that’s used to refer to those who separated due to or after the Protestant reformation. Old Catholics are referred to as Old Catholics.
Okay. What I was wondering is whether disagreeing with the jurisdictional authority of the Latin church is what defines one as Protestant.
See post #315.
Hey Jon, the Church Triumphant is comprised of the saints in Heaven, therefore it would be impossible for the gates of hell to prevail against…
