How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[joe371]

Papal infallibility can be replaced with everyone deciding for themselves what truth is. I can see how Lutherans would like a plan like this. In such a scenario, I would think that there would be fracturing of Catholics into thousands of different denominations who would be an authority unto themselves, as are Protestants. Sounds more like disunity to me. Lutherans themselves aren’t unified, from what I can tell. And they’re only one denomination among many.

And it’s unbiblical…

 

[joe371]

You probably know where I’m going with this, Jon.

No where in the history of the Catholic Church have women received holy orders. You claim that the Lutheran church is a continuation of the Catholic church, but the ordination of women to the Lutheran priesthood means that it is not true. And there’s no one supreme authority in the Lutheran church that can make the decision that women cannot be ordained. This is where papal infallibility comes in handy.

You are probably aware of the penalty that a Catholic bishop receives if he ordains a woman to the priesthood. He is excommunicated. Plain and simple. He can no longer receive the sacraments.

You and other Lutherans here want the Catholic Church to get rid of papal infallibility. But then how will the integrity of the faith be ensured? Pope John Paul ll declared that the church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. We will never have women ordained to the Catholic priesthood (unless, of course the Catholic Church decides to become Lutheran or adopt the Lutheran way of doing things).

Yet if the Catholic church were to adopt the Lutheran view, then we risk fracturing due to no central or supreme authority to maintain the integrity of the Faith. And then truth will be determined by individuals rather than maintained by a central or supreme authority.

Seems reasonable…

 

[Denise1957]

Yes there is a disagreement, just like there is a disagreement between Catholics on the matter - Rome, and Old Catholics (Utrecht Union).
EC is a member of the ELCA, and his synod does ordain women. I am a member of the LCMS. We, like the Catholic Church and EO, do not ordain women, and do not consider the ordinations valid.

We don’t make infallible declarations, but we do point to scripture. Thanks for your hopes that we maintain orthodoxy on the issue. If the synod does drift from scripture and orthodox Lutheranism, they will do it without me.

Jon

Since you are not an Old Catholic, I’m not going to respond the your assertions regarding them.

Since your communion points to scripture, I assume that you mean the interpretation of scripture, and you believe that your communion holds the proper interpretation, and the others don’t. But then you are denying others the right to define interpretation as they see fit (especially since your communion cannot declare anything infallible).

In the history of the Catholic Church, three things have been used to point to the definition truth and doctrine: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. You can respond by pointing to the Orthodox or Old Catholics, but I won’t respond to deflections anymore. Since Lutherans don’t use all three of these, they are not a continuation of the Church. This is not to infer that Lutherans are not well-intentioned, or good people. I think that they strive to do the right thing, though they are hindered by the problem of private interpretation of scripture as their main source of authority.

 

[seanman611]

There was a church in England long before the year 1500 (Christianity arrived in England in 47 AD). Anglicans hold that the Church in England held a degree of autonomy, while being in Communion with the Pope. As the Papacy became more powerful, the English church found itself increasingly under the thumb of the Papacy, but still with a degree of autonomy not found in the mainland European Catholic Churches. Thus, there were problems for centuries between the Church in England and the Papacy. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the crux of it.

Therefore, as an Anglican, I’m not sure why I would have to explain any 1500 year gap?

 

[joe371]

Yes there is a disagreement, just like there is a disagreement between Catholics on the matter - Rome, and Old Catholics (Utrecht Union).
EC is a member of the ELCA, and his synod does ordain women. I am a member of the LCMS. We, like the Catholic Church and EO, do not ordain women, and do not consider the ordinations valid.

We don’t make infallible declarations, but we do point to scripture. Thanks for your hopes that we maintain orthodoxy on the issue. If the synod does drift from scripture and orthodox Lutheranism, they will do it without me.

Jon

Hey Jon. Would you agree with the following statement: Since Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), this means that Jesus’ Church can never pass out of existence. However if the Church ever apostatized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist i.e. it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church, comprised of fallible leaders, including the apostles in the 1st century, are protected by God from teaching heresy, meaning that anything his church, comprised of all fallible leaders, solemnly defines for the faithful to believe, is in fact true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16)?

 

[Denise1957]

There was a church in England long before the year 1500 (Christianity arrived in England in 47 AD). Anglicans hold that the Church in England held a degree of autonomy, while being in Communion with the Pope. As the Papacy became more powerful, the English church found itself increasingly under the thumb of the Papacy, but still with a degree of autonomy not found in the mainland European Catholic Churches. Thus, there were problems for centuries between the Church in England and the Papacy. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the crux of it.

Therefore, as an Anglican, I’m not sure why I would have to explain any 1500 year gap?

And the problem that finally severed the tie was King Henry Vlll, and the Pope not granting him a divorce or decree of nullity. Not a very auspicious start to a new independence for the CofE. Especially since the king had two of his wives murdered.

Ireland also had a certain amount of autonomy, but they never left, or took the path that England did.

 

[joe371]

You know, Denise, that there are Catholics in the Old Catholic Church that now ordain women. Of course, the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome are not responsible for them. Similarly, our synod cannot be held accountable for the practices of others.

For me, the issue of infallibility is woven into that of papal supremacy. I do not see supremacy in the early Church. Poster and friend Pablope has linked interesting documents regarding this, and I am grateful to him, but I am not convinced that it was the intention of Christ or the early Church.

Further, Orthodoxy has maintained itself without this claim of infallibility ex cathedra for any one bishop and in fact, division seems to have been a bigger problem here in the west.

Jon

The Orthodox churches accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils as infallible i.e. error free - right?

 

[joe371]

For me, the issue of infallibility is woven into that of papal supremacy. I do not see supremacy in the early Church. Poster and friend Pablope has linked interesting documents regarding this, and I am grateful to him, but I am not convinced that it was the intention of Christ or the early Church.

Jon

You mentioned that there does not seem to be proof of infallibility, in the early church. The Lutheran church which you belong to embraces the early councils, and the exercise of the charism of infallibility occurred (although the word infallible was not used) during those early ecumenical council (a formal meeting of all the bishops with the Holy Father). For instance, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381) promulgated the Nicene Creed, an infallible testament of our faith. We both believe that the articles of the creed are true, certain and error free, and to deny any or part of them would be heresy? These decisions of the councils on matters of faith and morals “must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith” (No. 25)?

 

[JonNC]

Since you are not an Old Catholic, I’m not going to respond the your assertions regarding them.

Since your communion points to scripture, I assume that you mean the interpretation of scripture, and you believe that your communion holds the proper interpretation, and the others don’t. But then you are denying others the right to define interpretation as they see fit (especially since your communion cannot declare anything infallible).

In the history of the Catholic Church, three things have been used to point to the definition truth and doctrine: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. You can respond by pointing to the Orthodox or Old Catholics, but I won’t respond to deflections anymore. Since Lutherans don’t use all three of these, they are not a continuation of the Church. This is not to infer that Lutherans are not well-intentioned, or good people. I think that they strive to do the right thing, though they are hindered by the problem of private interpretation of scripture as their main source of authority.

Not sure how we got to this, Denise, but I wasn’t using them as deflections, but as an example of the relationship we have with the ELCA. I think I stayed well on topic to your questions.

As for private interpretation, as I explained, it isn’t what we do regarding doctrine. Its why we have confessions. And again, none of this points in any way to a belief in the mythical 1500 year gap.

Jon

 

[seanman611]

And the problem that finally severed the tie was King Henry Vlll, and the Pope not granting him a divorce or decree of nullity. Not a very auspicious start to a new independence for the CofE. Especially since the king had two of his wives murdered.

Ireland also had a certain amount of autonomy, but they never left, or took the path that England did.

I highly doubt that you would want to go down the road of morality. There are renaissance Popes that make Henry VIII look pretty docile. Shall we discuss them?

Furthermore, the issue was not Henry VIII wanting a divorce, but a decree of nullity. The Pope refused Henry VIII for political reasons, plain and simple. The relationship between Rome and Canterbury has always been difficult, if it didn’t come to a head with Henry, it would have almost certainly have come to a head shortly after.

 

[JonNC]

You mentioned that there does not seem to be proof of infallibility, in the early church. The Lutheran church which you belong to embraces the early councils, and the exercise of the charism of infallibility occurred (although the word infallible was not used) during those early ecumenical council (a formal meeting of all the bishops with the Holy Father). For instance, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381) promulgated the Nicene Creed, an infallible testament of our faith. We both believe that the articles of the creed are true, certain and error free, and to deny any or part of them would be heresy? These decisions of the councils on matters of faith and morals “must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith” (No. 25)?

Hi Joe,
Sure, we would agree to this. Our confessions say so, as you know. We pledge ourselves to them. What we wouldn’t say is that any writing is equal to scripture, which is inerrant. Are the early councils authoritative? Absolutely. But infallible/inerrant we reserve for scripture. Even the confessions, while we consider them a correct reflection of scripture, we do not consider infallible. Right? Yes. Infallible? No. Something does not have to be infallible in order to be right.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Not sure how we got to this, Denise, but I wasn’t using them as deflections, but as an example of the relationship we have with the ELCA. I think I stayed well on topic to your questions.

As for private interpretation, as I explained, it isn’t what we do regarding doctrine. Its why we have confessions. And again, none of this points in any way to a belief in the mythical 1500 year gap.

Jon

I think we got to this point by you saying that the Lutheran Church is a continuation of the Catholic Church (or words to that effect), for which I disagree.

And though you personally don’t believe that there has been a gap, that’s not to say that you speak for all Lutherans, or that the Anglicans here speak for all Anglicans.

Certainly there are non-Lutherans and non-Anglican Christians who can’t account for the gap, or they have trouble explaining it. I think that this is what the OP is referring to. I have known Protestants who have trouble explaining the gap, not that they necessarily believe in one, but they can’t explain it. I’ve mentioned this earlier on the thread, but I think that it was ignored by the Lutherans, who appear to claim that they speak for everyone who’s Christian, or who is a real Christian.

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,
Sure, we would agree to this. Our confessions say so, as you know. We pledge ourselves to them. What we wouldn’t say is that any writing is equal to scripture, which is inerrant. Are the early councils authoritative? Absolutely. But infallible/inerrant we reserve for scripture. Even the confessions, while we consider them a correct reflection of scripture, we do not consider infallible. Right? Yes. Infallible? No. Something does not have to be infallible in order to be right.

Jon

I understand on the underlined part. :thumbsup:You do or do not believe that those early councils that I mentioned were free from all doctrinal error due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Denise1957]

I highly doubt that you would want to go down the road of morality. There are renaissance Popes that make Henry VIII look pretty docile. Shall we discuss them?

Furthermore, the issue was not Henry VIII wanting a divorce, but a decree of nullity. The Pope refused Henry VIII for political reasons, plain and simple. The relationship between Rome and Canterbury has always been difficult, if it didn’t come to a head with Henry, it would have almost certainly have come to a head shortly after.

Yes we can discuss them, but on another thread. Perhaps you can start one. Even though there were sinful Popes (and I’ll bet that I can name more of them than you can), but they didn’t mess with the Deposit of Faith. Personal sins, even great ones, do not nullify their papacy.

 

[joe371]

I highly doubt that you would want to go down the road of morality. There are renaissance Popes that make Henry VIII look pretty docile. Shall we discuss them?

Furthermore, the issue was not Henry VIII wanting a divorce, but a decree of nullity. The Pope refused Henry VIII for political reasons, plain and simple. The relationship between Rome and Canterbury has always been difficult, if it didn’t come to a head with Henry, it would have almost certainly have come to a head shortly after.

The key: bad popes, and there were some pretty bad ones - even though they acted contrary to the teachings of Jesus’ church - they cannot alter those teachings, thanks to God. I would imagine that Christians belonging to the Anglican Church believe the same…?

 

[joe371]

Yes we can discuss them, but on another thread. Perhaps you can start one. Even though there were sinful Popes (and I’ll bet that I can name more of them than you can), but they didn’t mess with the Deposit of Faith. Personal sins, even great ones, do not nullify their papacy.

:yyeess:

 

[joe371]

Not sure how we got to this, Denise, but I wasn’t using them as deflections, but as an example of the relationship we have with the ELCA. I think I stayed well on topic to your questions.

As for private interpretation, as I explained, it isn’t what we do regarding doctrine. Its why we have confessions. And again, none of this points in any way to a belief in the mythical 1500 year gap.

Jon

This seems like a reasonable conclusion: Logically speaking, there couldn’t be a 1500 year gap if the Catholic Church was present (from the 1st century to the reformation) preaching/teaching the word of God and administering the sacraments free of doctrinal errors thanks to God’s ineffable guidance in terms of preserving doctrinal truth, so that all generations could have access…

 

[JonNC]

=Denise1957;12202326]I think we got to this point by you saying that the Lutheran Church is a continuation of the Catholic Church (or words to that effect), for which I disagree.

Oh. Ok. Well, I’m not surprised that you would disagree with that. Many Catholics do. None of us here, Ben, Don, House, me, are trying to say that you have to believe it. Just understand that we do.

And though you personally don’t believe that there has been a gap, that’s not to say that you speak for all Lutherans, or that the Anglicans here speak for all Anglicans.

Well, ok here too, and you and no other Catholic here speaks for other Catholics, but I think, Denise, that we try diligently to provide a window into what Lutheranism generally teaches.

Certainly there are non-Lutherans and non-Anglican Christians who can’t account for the gap, or they have trouble explaining it. I think that this is what the OP is referring to. I have known Protestants who have trouble explaining the gap, not that they necessarily believe in one, but they can’t explain it. I’ve mentioned this earlier on the thread, but I think that it was ignored by the Lutherans, who appear to claim that they speak for everyone who’s Christian, or who is a real Christian.

Only those for whom a gap exists, maybe those Baptists who agree with the Carroll’s Trail of Blood. As I said, Lutherans at least should believe that the Church exists in the Catholic Church through word and sacrament, and that on account of these, there has been no gap…

Jon

 

[joe371]

Only those for whom a gap exists, maybe those Baptists who agree with the Carroll’s Trail of Blood. As I said, Lutherans at least should believe that the Church exists in the Catholic Church through word and sacrament, and that on account of these, there has been no gap…

Jon

 

[seanman611]

Yes we can discuss them, but on another thread. Perhaps you can start one. Even though there were sinful Popes (and I’ll bet that I can name more of them than you can), but they didn’t mess with the Deposit of Faith. Personal sins, even great ones, do not nullify their papacy.

I understand that, but can you see how the sins of those Popes might lead to trouble? It is easy to sit here and tell dissenters to “deal with it,” but Henry VIII was denied for political reasons. Henry was concerned with leaving his country without a male heir and throwing his country into civil war, chaos, and violence. Saying that Henry isn’t allowed to dissent because he isn’t the Pope and isn’t responsible for the Deposit of Faith is rather weak. The Pope’s actions have consequences for both Henry and his Kingdom. Personal sins may not nullify their papacy, but these sins certainly will and should have consequences. We can separate the sins of the man from the position of the Papacy all we want, however, these sins will still impact the faith and the church. I just can’t take any arguments seriously that lays this squarely at the feet of King Henry. Tolerating the Pope’s sins just because he is the Pope can’t be a serious argument. Saying that “well King Henry had a point, but he should have ignored the Pope’s sins and political intrigue and submitted to him 100% because the Pope is the Pope” is rather silly. You can’t just separate the sinful man from the office of the Papacy like that, it can be used by the Pope to justify almost anything and everything.