How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[Denise1957]

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.

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.

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

As for speaking for all Catholics, I try to relay what the Catholic church teaches, rather than my opinion.

It’s fine that you think that there is no gap, but you (and others here) seem to have denied that other Christians can’t account for the gap, or see it as you do. And when this has been brought up, until now, you and others have ignored it. I think that you and other Lutherans (and one or two Anglicans) have hijacked the thread and insinuated that you speak for all or most Christians, but you don’t. Some of us Catholics have personally spoken with Protestants who seem to feel that there is a gap, or can’t explain it, even though we can’t provide a link to a source which state as such.

 

[joe371]

seanman611;12202389]I understand that, but can you see how the sins of those Popes might lead to trouble?

Not any sort of deviation from doctrinal truth if in fact God is in control, and, as per scripture, God is. :thumbsup:This is what Jesus said to His fledgling Church leaders and I believe Him:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever–

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, ** will teach you all things** and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[joe371]

Denise1957;12202403]As for speaking for all Catholics, I try to relay what the Catholic church teaches, rather than my opinion.

Hey Denise. Me too, as do all Catholics, and that’s why there is unity…:thumbsup:The Lutheran church which Jon belongs to, follows the same pattern…

It’s fine that you think that there is no gap, but you (and others here) seem to have denied that other Christians can’t account for the gap, or see it as you do. And when this has been brought up, until now, you and others have ignored it. I think that you and other Lutherans (and one or two Anglicans) have hijacked the thread and insinuated that you speak for all or most Christians, but you don’t. Some of us Catholics have personally spoken with Protestants who seem to feel that there is a gap, or can’t explain it, even though we can’t provide a link to a source which state as such.

:yup:

 

[seanman611]

Not any sort of deviation from doctrinal truth if in fact God is in control, and, as per scripture, God is. :thumbsup:This is what Jesus said to His fledgling Church leaders and I believe Him:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever–

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, ** will teach you all things** and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

So, you are saying that when the Pope sinfully involves himself in sinful secular political intrigue, that can have a negative impact on millions of people, it is okay because he is the Pope and God is in control? I’m not talking about “doctrinal truth,” but the consequences brought on by serious sins of the Pope.

 

[Denise1957]

Hey Denise. Me too, as do all Catholics, and that’s why there is unity…:thumbsup:The Lutheran church which Jon belongs to, follows the same pattern…

:yup:

Thanks Joe, I agree.

 

[GKC]

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?

The actual origin of the Faith in the British Isles is fuzzy. There are a couple of vague references in classical sources, such as Tertullian and Origen, which are suggestive, but not proof, for a date in the 200s. St. Alban, who, if really an historical figure, could put the Church in the islands around 300 or so. No one really knows.

Those who hold to AD 47 (or AD 36) are usually following pious beliefs and folklore, as may be found in Lewis’ ST. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA AT GLASTONBURY or Gray’s ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN. Which is not history at all.

What is known, from a little later on, is that by around 300 or so, the Church in England was sufficiently established as to be organized into sees. Three British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314 (London, York and Caerleon). Three British bishops attended the Council of Rimini in 359, though they were too poor to pay their own way. It is debated whether there were British bishops at Nicea in 325 and Sardica in 347, but it is reported that the British Church agreed with those Councils.

Your last statement is certainly correct.

GKC

 

[joe371]

So, you are saying that when the Pope sinfully involves himself in sinful secular political intrigue, that can have a negative impact on millions of people, it is okay because he is the Pope and God is in control? I’m not talking about “doctrinal truth,” but the consequences brought on by serious sins of the Pope.

It certainly can have an impact. Did it involve the alteration or the changing of doctrine? No. I will defer to Jesus on this matter, regarding the person occupying the chair of Peter:

Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, v.2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

 

[joe371]

So, you are saying that when the Pope sinfully involves himself in sinful secular political intrigue, that can have a negative impact on millions of people, it is okay because he is the Pope and God is in control? I’m not talking about “doctrinal truth,” but the consequences brought on by serious sins of the Pope.

Now that I responded to your statement, do you agree with the following:

Not any sort of deviation from doctrinal truth if in fact God is in control, and, as per scripture, God is. :thumbsup:This is what Jesus said to His fledgling Church leaders and I believe Him:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever–

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, ** will teach you all things** and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[seanman611]

The actual origin of the Faith in the British Isles is fuzzy. There are a couple of vague references in classical sources, such as Tertullian and Origen, which are suggestive, but not proof, for a date in the 200s. St. Alban, who, if really an historical figure, could put the Church in the islands around 300 or so. No one really knows.

Those who hold to AD 47 (or AD 36) are usually following pious beliefs and folklore, as may be found in Lewis’ ST. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA AT GLASTONBURY or Gray’s ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN. Which is not history at all.

What is known, from a little later on, is that by around 300 or so, the Church in England was sufficiently established as to be organized into sees. Three British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314 (London, York and Caerleon). Three British bishops attended the Council of Rimini in 359, though they were too poor to pay their own way. It is debated whether there were British bishops at Nicea in 325 and Sardica in 347, but it is reported that the British Church agreed with those Councils.

Your last statement is certainly correct.

GKC

I was using a source written by British monk Gildas, but realized that might not be the best source (upon investigating his work, it seems clear he is not a historian one could take very seriously). Although it may be fuzzy, I would say that it could be reasonable to assume that Christianity had made it to the isles in the 200s. Since it is accepted that the Church in England was sufficiently established enough to send 3 bishops to the Council of Arles in 314, it would seem reasonable to assume that Christianity made an appearance at least sometime in the 200s, perhaps earlier.

 

[GKC]

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 becapuse 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.

Slight refocus

Like many things then, and now, Henry’s Great Matter was a mix of politcs and theology.

While Henry’s argument in his* causa* was fairly good (as good as was normal, in the day), and better than he actually made, in that he did not argue on the basis of an undispensed diriment impediment of the public honesty in his marriage to Catherine, the strongest point he had, but on the weaker and more dangerous line of the Levitical prohibition, against marrying a brother’s widow, it faced the daunting figure of Charles V, Catherine’s nephew. And given the real-politic in that situation, no way was a Pope going to rule for Henry. So he did not get his decree of nullity. Unlike his sister Margaret, who had a weaker case, but with fewer political entanglements.

Hank’s an old hobby of mine. Got lots of hobbies, I do.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I was using a source written by British monk Gildas, but realized that might not be the best source (upon investigating his work, it seems clear he is not a historian one could take very seriously). Although it may be fuzzy, I would say that it could be reasonable to assume that Christianity had made it to the isles in the 200s. Since it is accepted that the Church in England was sufficiently established enough to send 3 bishops to the Council of Arles in 314, it would seem reasonable to assume that Christianity made an appearance at least sometime in the 200s, perhaps earlier.

No, that’s correct. Gildas is a weak reed. And yes, in the 200s, maybe, is a fair estimate.

GKC

 

[seanman611]

Slight refocus

Like many things then, and now, Henry’s Great Matter was a mix of politcs and theology.

While Henry’s argument in his* causa* was fairly good (as good as was normal, in the day), and better than he actually made, in that he did not argue on the basis of an undispensed diriment impediment of the public honesty in his marriage to Catherine, the strongest point he had, but on the weaker and more dangerous line of the Levitical prohibition, against marrying a brother’s widow, it faced the daunting figure of Charles V, Catherine’s nephew. And given the real-politic in that situation, no way was a Pope going to rule for Henry. So he did not get his decree of nullity. Unlike his sister Margaret, who had a weaker case, but with fewer political entanglements.

Hank’s an old hobby of mine. Got lots of hobbies, I do.

GKC

100% agree with what you wrote. My intention was to show that the actions of the man sitting in St. Peter’s chair is going to have consequences. It wouldn’t be reasonable for Henry to accept a very political ruling by the Pope simply because he is the Pope. A decision, I might add, that could have a very negative impact on the future of England.

EDIT- Also, I absolutely affirm that Henry believed in the truth of his cause and that it wasn’t as simple as being an excuse to leave Catherine. Witnesses of the time have concluded that Henry’s conscience was really vexed by this matter.

 

[GKC]

100% agree with what you wrote. My intention was to show that the actions of the man sitting in St. Peter’s chair is going to have consequences. It wouldn’t be reasonable for Henry to accept a very political ruling by the Pope simply because he is the Pope. A decision, I might add, that could have a very negative impact on the future of England.

EDIT- Also, I absolutely affirm that Henry believed in the truth of his cause and that it wasn’t as simple as being an excuse to leave Catherine. Witnesses of the time have concluded that Henry’s conscience was really vexed by this matter.

No, not that simple. Few things are. But it certainly involved an itch he wished to scratch, with la Boleyn, and the conventional wisdom on the dynastic matter (legitimate male heir, best bet for peace and tranquility), esp. considering all the red and white rose petals that littered the ground, a few years before his father got his bum on the throne.

Authorities differ on his views on the validity of the marriage to Catherine, but likely he was truly concerned.

And there was a lengthy struggle, stretching back to the first Statue of Westminster, between the Throne and Rome, for power in the realm.

As with almost everything, almost nothing is only one thing. History is complicated.

GKC

 

[joe371]

100% agree with what you wrote. My intention was to show that the actions of the man sitting in St. Peter’s chair is going to have consequences. It wouldn’t be reasonable for Henry to accept a very political ruling by the Pope simply because he is the Pope. A decision, I might add, that could have a very negative impact on the future of England.

Yes, any bad actions of the man sitting in St. Peter’s chair is going to have consequences; they too are sinners, and some in the past, have sinned boldly, and it certainly has had a negative impact. Even those bad priests who attacked children, causing them untold emotional, psychological and physical damage, and in turn causing them to question their faith, result horrible consequences; very sad!!! However, the question remains: can the actions of the man occupying the chair of Peter result in doctrinal changes or errors? Catholic have faith that the answer is no. I suppose all we can do, if the man occupying the chair of Peter, acts badly, is take Jesus’ advice, and trust that Jesus is protecting the deposit of faith from the bad man sitting in Peter’s chair, if that were to happen:

Matt 23:1-12: “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, v.2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

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

Many Protestants (especially those belonging to the magisterial traditions, such as Lutherans, or those such as Methodists, that broke away from the Anglican Communion) accept the teachings of the first seven councils but do not ascribe to the councils themselves the same authority as Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do. The Lutheran World Federation, in ecumenical dialogues with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has affirmed all of the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative.
princeton.edu/~achaney/tm…l_council.html

 

[JonNC]

As for speaking for all Catholics, I try to relay what the Catholic church teaches, rather than my opinion.

It’s fine that you think that there is no gap, but you (and others here) seem to have denied that other Christians can’t account for the gap, or see it as you do. And when this has been brought up, until now, you and others have ignored it. I think that you and other Lutherans (and one or two Anglicans) have hijacked the thread and insinuated that you speak for all or most Christians, but you don’t.

Perhaps I haven’t been clear. I don’t speak for protestants, other communions. I only speak as a Lutheran. For example, if you check #70, I tell Adamski he needs to ask Baptists about what they believe.
From all that I recall, the Lutherans were speaking as Lutherans. Certainly there are those who believe the Church fell into apostasy, or believe the “true Christians” were persecuted until the Reformation, but Adamski in the OP mentioned Lutherans, and that’s why the Lutherans here responded, not to deny what others say, but to confirm what we say.

Some of us Catholics have personally spoken with Protestants who seem to feel that there is a gap, or can’t explain it, even though we can’t provide a link to a source which state as such.

Absolutely, and some of them (I’ve checked out a few websites) say we Lutherans are no better than Catholics without the pope. No Lutheran, that I recall, denied that others may believe in the gap, just that Lutherans don’t, or at least shouldn’t.

I’m sorry we were not clear.

Jon

 

[joe371]

Many Protestants (especially those belonging to the magisterial traditions, such as Lutherans, or those such as Methodists, that broke away from the Anglican Communion) accept the teachings of the first seven councils but do not ascribe to the councils themselves the same authority as Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do. The Lutheran World Federation, in ecumenical dialogues with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has affirmed all of the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative.
princeton.edu/~achaney/tm…l_council.html

In other words, they were authoritative, ecumenical, and free from the possibility of doctrinal errors?

 

[JonNC]

Many Protestants (especially those belonging to the magisterial traditions, such as Lutherans, or those such as Methodists, that broke away from the Anglican Communion) accept the teachings of the first seven councils but do not ascribe to the councils themselves the same authority as Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do. The Lutheran World Federation, in ecumenical dialogues with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has affirmed all of the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative.
princeton.edu/~achaney/tm…l_council.html

Correct. Authoritative, ecumenical.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

I would transfer my membership to an ELCA parish if I moved, but I wouldn’t judge their faith either

I presume you meant ‘would not.’

 

[KjetilK]

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.

I was hoping that you could provide documentation on the subject. EvangelCatholic says that Lutheran priests are valid regardless of gender. So obviously, there’s disagreement about the validity of women as Lutheran priests.

Herein lies the problem, which I have highlighted several times in this discussion. You are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a Church (the Roman Catholic Church) to an ecclesial tradition. The LCMS and the ELCA are not part of the same ‘Lutheran church.’ EvangelCatholic and JonNC aren’t in communion. Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition. It is the individual churches who do, or do not, ordain women. But if they do, they do it contrary to their own confessions.

But then you are denying others the right to define interpretation as they see fit (especially since your communion cannot declare anything infallible).

Yes, the LCMS isn’t postmodern.

The last thing that needs to be said is that the ‘1500 year gap’ theory is based upon a specific Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and thus Roman Catholics cannot use it as the starting point of a discussion without begging the question. Lutherans, following VIIConfessio Augustana, maintains this ecclesiology: The Church is the congregation of saints (Lt. congregatio sanctorum) – the gathered people of God, God’s ecclesia, gathering around the right teaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments. Thus, on Lutheran ecclesiology, for there to be a ‘gap’ there would have to be a time when the Gospel wasn’t rightly taught, and the sacraments not properly administered.