How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[Tomyris]

Isn’t this discussion just a wee bit off-topic?

Here, I will agree with you.

Catholics will infer there is a 500 year gap from 1500 on.

And it is a civil war, or a brother against brother sort of conflict, no?

That or I just need to go to sleep.

 

[guanophore]

People who study the bible with a preconceived agenda will inevitably find something that will sort of confirm their agenda. Such are not of the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

Now I don’t see anything in here about eucharist, baptism, or anything about any ritual other that gathering in the name of Christ. That’s what I mean about trying to push the scripture into saying what you want it to say, when it doesn’t say it.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics will infer there is a 500 year gap from 1500 on.

Departure from the Apostolic faith, but not a “gap”. A gap implies that something was there, then gone, then back.

 

[Jo_Jo_G]

The entire Lutheran religion kind of falls apart since Martin Luther himself, in his own writings, speaks of the validity and absolute authority and oneness of the Catholic Church. Lutherans are not Catholic. They are not in communion with Rome and have no ties to Apostolic Succession. Their “priesthood” is not valid. Their ministers are self ordained, not ordained by God. They are not a continuation of the Church. They are a dissident group who broke away from the True Church and created their own religion/ideology to suit their needs.

Exactly. Lutherans have no Apostolic Succession and no Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Without Christ Himself, No Grace, No Church.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly. Lutherans have no Apostolic Succession and no Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Without Christ Himself, No Grace, No Church.

Welcome to the discussion, Jo Jo.

You might be interested to read some of what your church has published about Lutheran theology.

Cardinal Ratzinger has made some very interesting statements about Lutheran Eucharist.
The gap of understanding is narrowing, as can be seen in this statement from Round Ten of the dialogues on Koinonia:

“107. Catholic judgment on the authenticity of Lutheran ministry need not be of an all-or-nothing nature. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II distinguished between relationships of full ecclesiastical communion and those of imperfect communion to reflect the varying degrees of differences with the Catholic Church.(164) The communion of these separated communities with the Catholic Church is real, even though it is imperfect. Furthermore, the decree positively affirmed:

Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.(165)

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

Certainly Many Lutherans experience a more authentic spiritual communion than most American Catholics, who do not even regularly attend Mass, and the huge percentage that do not believe in the Real Presence.

Here is an interesting article on the validity of Lutheran Holy Orders. What makes you think they are not valid?

Your statement that there is “no Christ, No Grace” is a direct contradiction to the Catholic Catechism.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Exactly. Lutherans have no Apostolic Succession and no Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Without Christ Himself, No Grace, No Church.

Good evening Jo Jo, SaintFrancis & Company:

The Catholic Church has developed a thoroughly inclusive understanding of soteriology in relation to other faiths, that has an explicitly theological foundation. St. Pope John Paul II explained that this approach to other religions is based upon sacred tradition, the church fathers and the very origins of the Christian revelation:

Quote:

"…You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions. The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.

From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: “There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God inhabited the entire earth with the whole human race. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all. . . . Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death…and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2).

The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern…

In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions. I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.…”

• Pope Saint John Paul II (1994), Crossing the Threshold of Hope

He is expressing a theological statement. Lumen Gentium is a dogmatic constitution and it explains that the Holy Spirit operates outside the church among non-believers. This is the document which states that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. A dogmatic constitution of the Magisterium and not some paper produced by the Vatican City State. Note this section:

Quote:

“The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church. From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions”

• Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (1963)

In closing, not a little has been said on this thread about such things as Apostolic Succession and the like. It makes sense, I think, that if such things matter to you, then you should take notice of what these two successors to the throne of St Peter have had to say in the quotations above on this very matter, and be wary that the mission of Christ in the annals of human affairs is not petty sectarianism.

Thank you,
Gary Sheldrake

 

[ragsbinwashed]

So, your contention is that I could go to ANY group of 2-3 Christians for a resolution?

What happens if we each go to different groups, and they come to different conclusions?

That plan isn’t a very good one if one sincerely wants to find the Truth. I reject the notion that Jesus’ plan isn’t a good one; therefore I reject your interpretation.

Originally Posted by ragsbinwashed View Post
This passage is Matthew teaching us how to deal with wayward brethren. Verse 17 tells us the final step in the process, which is to “tell it unto the church” and then he goes on to tell some of the characteristics of the church. The last being v. 20 For .where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

What exactly do you reject about this interpretation?

So, you are saying that Christ’s church is not “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” But it is where there is a gathering of people with a priest in the midst of them. I don’t know I just find that a little convoluted.

rags

 

[MartinJordan]

Good evening Jo Jo, SaintFrancis & Company:

The Catholic Church has developed a thoroughly inclusive understanding of soteriology in relation to other faiths, that has an explicitly theological foundation. St. Pope John Paul II explained that this approach to other religions is based upon sacred tradition, the church fathers and the very origins of the Christian revelation:

Quote:

"…You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions. The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church.

From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: “There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God inhabited the entire earth with the whole human race. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all. . . . Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death…and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2).

The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in the Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern…

In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions. I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.…”

• Pope Saint John Paul II (1994), Crossing the Threshold of Hope

He is expressing a theological statement. Lumen Gentium is a dogmatic constitution and it explains that the Holy Spirit operates outside the church among non-believers. This is the document which states that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. A dogmatic constitution of the Magisterium and not some paper produced by the Vatican City State. Note this section:

Quote:

“The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words “Nostra aetate” (“In our time”). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the earliest Fathers of the Church. From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions”

• Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (1963)

In closing, not a little has been said on this thread about such things as Apostolic Succession and the like. It makes sense, I think, that if such things matter to you, then you should take notice of what these two successors to the throne of St Peter have had to say in the quotations above on this very matter, and be wary that the mission of Christ in the annals of human affairs is not petty sectarianism.

Thank you,
Gary Sheldrake

How is this about Lutherans who are Christians?

MJ

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

How is this about Lutherans who are Christians?

MJ

Good evening Martin: In what ways do you suppose Lutherans are more off base from a certain narrowly defined state of religious correctness than say a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim? The documents as well as the statements by JPII and John XXIII in regards to them cover the full span of the human experience of God.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[guanophore]

What exactly do you reject about this interpretation?

So, you are saying that Christ’s church is not “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” But it is where there is a gathering of people with a priest in the midst of them. I don’t know I just find that a little convoluted.

rags

Jesus established a visible Church, with authority. He commissioned them to govern His flock. The Church He founded upon the Apostles and Prophets passed into the care of their successors, the Bishops. Their disciples recognized the Church founded by Christ because it was “catholic”, and united with the Bishop.

Of course Christ can be present wherever the faithful gather to call upon His name, but equating such a gathering to “church” represents a very deficient and truncated understanding of Church.

Just like building the whole identity of doctrine on a handful of apocalyptic verses while omitting what the rest of the Scriptures say, it leaves one with a very abbreviated reduction of the Teachings of Christ.

You seem to be happy with it, however, so I commend you to it. May God richly bless your faithfulness to the smidgen of revelation you have embraced.

 

[MartinJordan]

Good evening Martin: In what ways do you suppose Lutherans are more off base from a certain narrowly defined state of religious correctness than say a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim? The documents as well as the statements by JPII and John XXIII in regards to them cover the full span of the human experience of God. I do suppose however, that there will always be those who seek some sort of religious high ground, but I also suppose that these will in the end be the very ones who missed the point. Wanting to be first will always make us last.

Thank you,
Gary

Good evening (although it’s midday here)

I was just pointing out you gave an example from the NE and Vatican documents that has nothing to do with dialogue with Lutherans but about the religions of the Far East.

However, I come from originally Hindu heritage and I appreciate the said link you shared. It doesn’t change the fact that the said documents also state Jesus is the Way, The Truth and the Life.

I have no qualms about the sincerity of Lutherans.

Peace.

God bless.

MJ

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good evening (although it’s midday here)

Jesus is the Way, The Truth and the Life.

Good Morning Martin : That is true, but perhaps the ultimate truth behind that truth is:

Ishwar Allah Tero Nam,

Sabako Sanmati De Bhagavan

Jesus says that He is the vine and we are the branches. Coming from a Hindu culture, you are of course aware that the vine is not something separate from it’s branches. The wise know Jesus when they see Him. The fortunate know where to find Him. Those who do not see Him plainly every day, but instead seek Him through ritual, dogma and theology are perhaps missing the destination by being engaged too heavily in reading the map.

It’s a pleasure meeting you by the way.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[ragsbinwashed]

Of course Christ can be present wherever the faithful gather to call upon His name, but equating such a gathering to “church” represents a very deficient and truncated understanding of Church.

Matt18
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This doesn’t say that Christ possibly, maybe, sort of, could be in the midst of them. It says He IS in the midst of them. So, just to be clear I would be interested to see what exactly, more than this, you would consider not to be “a very deficient and truncated understanding of Church” from a scriptural standpoint?

Just like building the whole identity of doctrine on a handful of apocalyptic verses while omitting what the rest of the Scriptures say, it leaves one with a very abbreviated reduction of the Teachings of Christ.

“whole identity of doctrine” Whom are you referring to here? It certainly isn’t me because if you will recall this thread used to be about “How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap”
which is what I was trying to do and not trying to convince you or anyone else that this was in any way my “whole identity of doctrine”

You seem to be happy with it, however, so I commend you to it. May God richly bless your faithfulness to the smidgen of revelation you have embraced.

I embrace all of God’s revelation, but thank you for the blessing anyhow.

rags

 

[guanophore]

  Matt18

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This doesn’t say that Christ possibly, maybe, sort of, could be in the midst of them. It says He IS in the midst of them. So, just to be clear I would be interested to see what exactly, more than this, you would consider not to be “a very deficient and truncated understanding of Church” from a scriptural standpoint?

Jesus was speaking to His Apostles. It is to them he gave authority. They consitituted the visible authority of hte Church on earth… Church was defined by those who were in unity and obedience to them.

These are not people who picked up a New Testament 2000 years later and attempted to extract a set of doctrines from the book. They were instructed by Christ, and empowered by Him to lead his fledgling Church.

“whole identity of doctrine” Whom are you referring to here?

Remnant theology is based upon a handful of apocalyptic verses that exclude the remainder of the NT evidence of what constitutes “church”.

It certainly isn’t me because if you will recall this thread used to be about “How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap”

I think you have explained it by saying that the true Church was in the wilderness, did you not?

which is what I was trying to do and not trying to convince you or anyone else that this was in any way my “whole identity of doctrine”

Then I guess that was just an unexpected perk!

I embrace all of God’s revelation, but thank you for the blessing anyhow.

rags

Yes, I am sure you are sincere in your embracing of all that you believe that God has revealed to you.

 

[estesbob]

What exactly do you reject about this interpretation?

So, you are saying that Christ’s church is not “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” But it is where there is a gathering of people with a priest in the midst of them. I don’t know I just find that a little convoluted.

rags

How you resolve it when these group disagree with each other.All using the same book.All worshipping the same God but often coming to opposed positions on how one is saved.and other matters of theology. For example you and I Disagree on the interpretation of John:6 How do we resolve that?Is God the author of confusion?

 

[ragsbinwashed]

Jesus was speaking to His Apostles. It is to them he gave authority. They consitituted the visible authority of hte Church on earth… Church was defined by those who were in unity and obedience to them.

I would appreciate some biblical president for this. So, you don’t think that this

Matt18
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

would constitute a church?

These are not people who picked up a New Testament 2000 years later and attempted to extract a set of doctrines from the book. They were instructed by Christ, and empowered by Him to lead his fledgling Church.

So, you don’t think that we should take our doctrines from the bible?

Remnant theology is based upon a handful of apocalyptic verses that exclude the remainder of the NT evidence of what constitutes “church”.

Then you don’t think that this
Rev.12
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

is talking about God’s church?

What do you think that it is talking about?

I think you have explained it by saying that the true Church was in the wilderness, did you not?

Yes, just like it says in scripture. Rev12
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Then I guess that was just an unexpected perk!

So, you’re convinced that this is my whole identity of doctrine? A little delusional, but if you wish.

Yes, I am sure you are sincere in your embracing of all that you believe that God has revealed to you.

Yes, God has given me the bible and I embrace it all.

rags

 

[ragsbinwashed]

How you resolve it when these group disagree with each other.

See bob that’s just it they don’t disagree with one another, because they come together in the name of Christ.

All using the same book.All worshipping the same God but often coming to opposed positions on how one is saved.and other matters of theology. For example you and I Disagree on the interpretation of John:6 How do we resolve that?Is God the author of confusion?

So, what are you saying bob, that we discount what it says in Matt. 18 and if we do that what do you propose that we replace it with?

rags

 

[guanophore]

I would appreciate some biblical president for this. So, you don't think that this

Can we agree that the blblical evidence indicates that the Apostles were all in unity with each other?

Can we agree that the Apostles appointed successors?

Can we agree that the successors of the Apostles were Bishops?

Matt18
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

would constitute a church?

Not by itself, no, but prayer meetings are certainly part of what it is to be “church”.

So, you don’t think that we should take our doctrines from the bible?

You are certainly free to extract any doctrines you like from any text you feel is relevant. This is what it means to have freedom of religion. You can recieve a holy book from an angel, and extract doctrine from that too, if you want.

Then you don't think that this

Rev.12
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

is talking about God’s church?

Yes, I do. I just don’t see that it is the only passage that does so.

What do you think that it is talking about?

The successors of the Apostles and those in unity with them.

Yes, just like it says in scripture. Rev12
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

So, you’re convinced that this is my whole identity of doctrine? A little delusional, but if you wish.

All I can go on is what I have read in your posts. So far, it is centered around remnant theology that is rooted in these apocalyptic verses.

Yes, God has given me the bible and I embrace it all.

rags

Indeed He has. He inspired Catholics to write infallibly, so that the product would be in inerrant and inspired collection of texts. It was copied, protected, promulgated and eventually canonized by Catholics. It was never meant to be separated from the Catholic faith that produced it. Once it is separated, the many aspects of the meaning of what is writen is lost.

 

[guanophore]

   See bob that's just it they don't disagree with one another, because they come together in the name of Christ.

Does that mean you don’t recognize as Christian those who disagree with how you interpret the Bible?

So, what are you saying bob, that we discount what it says in Matt. 18 and if we do that what do you propose that we replace it with?

rags

An accurate interpretation of Scripture will be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures.

Anaccurate interpretation will be consistent with what the successors of the Apostles understood it to mean.