How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[JonNC]

JonNC:

steve-b:

You think Luther was just bloviating. In reality He made himself his own majesterium. His polemics dictated his direction.

Source, where he claims this.

I’ve given you multiple sources already in links

You a quote where says this, and he’s not using sarcasm?
I must have overlooked it.

 

[adf417]

Naw. I’m going with my books. Deep into that history. Always to be recommended.

Hey, no take backs!

 

[GKMotley]

I gave it some deep thought.

 

[Hodos]

Great! Now can you PLEASE let all those looking for this truth know which denomination, communion, church, it can be found. There are billions of people looking for this truth Hodos, please don’t hold back for the sake of their souls.

It isn’t found in a denomination. It is found in Christ (“I am the way, the Truth, and the Life.”). And I will be glad to say that no denomination gets it 100% right, which is why we go back to the faith revealed by the apostles in scripture, because it provides the means to correct, reproof, and instruct us. It is also why we are all called to a life of repentance and dependence upon God’s grace. We are under the authority of God’s Word, not over it.

Sadly i have and it was strongly implied above. There is a saying among many of my protestant brothers that comes from a famous preacher im sure you have heard of and it goes something like this:

I would disagree. Typically it is the Roman Catholic apologist making the claim that the scriptures cannot be understood apart from the infallible interpretation of the magisterium of the Church, making the case that language has no meaning apart from special knowledge.

We all agree on 90% of doctrinal issues and the 10% we dont agree on cannot be known.

Since it is not my quote, I am under no obligation to defend it.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

And yet the Catholic Church is currently in Schism, too.

• the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences.

That’s not Catholic definition of Schism at all, so it has same amount of authority for us as steve’s links of Papal Documents do for you.

It did not look weak and confused during the seven great councils of the Church. It is because of Schism that a true council cannot be held to solve our differences.

Did it not? Arianism was widespread, more than Nicene Christianity was. Chalcedon was not recognized by Copts, Ephesus by Nestorians etc. As much as your communion recognizes only 7, there are communions that recognize only 3, or maybe even less. To point at First Seven Ecumenical Councils as a way to go is by no means logical, because there is virtually nothing about them that you could not find in the Western ones (perhaps save support of Byzantine Emperor, but neither Church holds that Byzantium is needed to preserve Christian unity soo…). Filioque is held as true by most Lutherans, so by definition Council of Toledo had as much authority to define doctrine as 7 Ecumenical Councils (in the end, Ecumenical Council in connection with first 7 means “supported by Emperor”, in context of others I’d call it “General Synod”). Vatican I and Vatican II, Florence and Lyons were much more global than first 7 btw.

The councils after number 7 are effectively local councils only applying to the Bishop of Rome and bishops in communion with him.

First 7 were Byzantine Councils that got widespread acceptance, much like post-schism Ecumenical Councils did get acceptance of Catholic world (including, yes, Maronites, original Christians of Antioch ). I’d say if anything, first 7 were pretty local (perhaps save Nicea).

Again, your definition seems to rely upon an organization apart from the right proclamation of the word. That being said, it is the teachings of Peter and the apostles to whom we appeal when discussing our doctrinal differences.

First Christian Churches were about spreading the Word but also about living the Word, communities were established and by the time of Ignatius of Antioch, Church had hierarchy- and that hierarchy was considered important part of it.

 

[Hodos]

First Christian Churches were about spreading the Word but also about living the Word, communities were established and by the time of Ignatius of Antioch, Church had hierarchy- and that hierarchy was considered important part of it.

I agree with everything that you have said in this quote. The living Word was proclaimed within the Church, but even our earliest known Christian writings outside of the NT scriptures demonstrate that this oral word was normed by what was proclaimed in the gospels and Pauline corpus. As examples we can clearly see paraphrasing and reference back to the NT writings in the fragments we possess of Polycarp, the letter of Clement, and Ignatius to whom you are now appealing. If you look at the writings of Ignatius and Clement you can see that their concern was that the Church hierarchy existed to preserve what was handed down, not to provide innovation over and above what was received. So long as this is your understanding, that our hierarchy is informed by scripture as opposed to being the authority above scripture then we are of accord. What I frequently see however, is that the move is frequently made that because a hairarchy existed, this gives license to depart over time, sometimes significantly from what was actually proclaimed by the apostles.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If you look at the writings of Ignatius and Clement you can see that their concern was that the Church hierarchy existed to preserve what was handed down, not to provide innovation over and above what was received.

That’s also Catholic doctrine. Church had hierarchy and had communion, to break away from this communion was to cease being part of Church. Church was not mystical body of believers united in faith while disunited outwards.

So long as this is your understanding, that our hierarchy is informed by scripture as opposed to being the authority above scripture then we are of accord.

Paul wrote Epistles, Apostles wrote Gospels. Apostles met and decided to not demand circumcision from Gentile Converts, contrary to Old Testament- the Word of God. They simply possessed more authority by Holy Spirit that guided the Church. Scriptures were not even clearly defined nor were they available everywhere, but Holy Spirit was. He guided the Church as he guides it now. I believe Church has authority over the Scripture She wrote, not vice-versa (as shown in example I provided above). Apostles left their authority with their disciples and line continues… hence saying “they could do it because they were Apostles” is saying that God deprived His Church guidance of Holy Spirit. Simple as that. Church does not depart, it just follows will of Holy Spirit. Some Jews saw not demanding circumcision as heretical, some Protestants saw not following Sola Scriptura as heretical, there is virtually no difference. Holding to private interpretations makes no sense based on Peter’s words, so there has to be some kind of authority- and that lies with the Church and it’s hierarchy. What is difference between Luther and those who left Church during times of Apostles?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

steve-b:

You think Luther was just bloviating. In reality He made himself his own majesterium. His polemics dictated his direction.

Source, where he claims this.

I’ve given you multiple sources already in links

You a quote where says this, and he’s not using sarcasm?
I must have overlooked it.

sarcasm? really?

 

[HopkinsReb]

I can’t speak to the sarcasm bit, but iyam Luther’s linguistic explanation there is a textbook example of question-begging.

 

[JonNC]

That’s not Catholic definition of Schism at all, so it has same amount of authority for us as steve’s links of Papal Documents do for you.

Agreement on terminology is vital.

Did it not? Arianism was widespread, more than Nicene Christianity was. Chalcedon was not recognized by Copts, Ephesus by Nestorians etc. As much as your communion recognizes only 7, there are communions that recognize only 3, or maybe even less. To point at First Seven Ecumenical Councils as a way to go is by no means logical, because there is virtually nothing about them that you could not find in the Western ones (perhaps save support of Byzantine Emperor, but neither Church holds that Byzantium is needed to preserve Christian unity soo…). Filioque is held as true by most Lutherans, so by definition Council of Toledo had as much authority to define doctrine as 7 Ecumenical Councils (in the end, Ecumenical Council in connection with first 7 means “supported by Emperor”, in context of others I’d call it “General Synod”). Vatican I and Vatican II, Florence and Lyons were much more global than first 7 btw.

It sounds like you’re minimizing the seven ecumenical councils. Perhaps you don’t mean to, but the irony is there that the non-Catholic here seems to be promoting them more.
Vatican 1 is soundly rejected outside of those in communion with the pope, because of papal infallibility ex cathedra.
Vatican 2 enjoys wide acceptance in terms of ecumenism.
But all of them are subject to the existing, underlying divisions and in the Church.

 

[JonNC]

I can’t speak to the sarcasm bit, but iyam Luther’s linguistic explanation there is a textbook example of question-begging.

Maybe, but there are two issues brought up.

1. the claim that Luther considered himself his own boss, his own magisterium, and does his contemptuous remarks in the open letter prove it.
   The answer is no to both.
2. was Luther’s serious explanation reasonable. That can be debated

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Agreement on terminology is vital.

It sounds like you’re minimizing the seven ecumenical councils. Perhaps you don’t mean to, but the irony is there that the non-Catholic here seems to be promoting them more.

No, but putting them far above other Ecumenical Councils is not in line with Catholic teaching either, especially when logically there is no real distinction except Emperor.

Vatican 1 is soundly rejected outside of those in communion with the pope, because of papal infallibility ex cathedra.

And Chalcedon is soundly rejected by Copts, Nicea by Arians etc. Does that prove anything?

Vatican 2 enjoys wide acceptance in terms of ecumenism.
But all of them are subject to the existing, underlying divisions and in the Church.

Councils create divisions, because doctrine creates disagreements and those create divisions. To comply to every single opinion on Earth would not be just, neither right, neither intelligent. How do you propose we identify which opinions are to be complied with and which are not? You keep excluding miaphysite/monophysite Christians from your “followers of Christ” type of Church anyway. How do we know where we draw the line, except by visible magisterium? I’ve already stated that Bible solely is not enough to identify anything without binding interpretation, as interpretations vary.

 

[steve-b]

OrbisNonSufficit:

First Christian Churches were about spreading the Word but also about living the Word, communities were established and by the time of Ignatius of Antioch, Church had hierarchy- and that hierarchy was considered important part of it.

even our earliest known Christian writings outside of the NT scriptures demonstrate that this oral word was normed by what was proclaimed in the gospels and Pauline corpus.

And who judges what counts as scripture? Keep reading

Hodos:

NT writings in the fragments we possess of Polycarp, the letter of Clement, and Ignatius to whom you are now appealing. If you look at the writings of Ignatius and Clement you can see that their concern was that the Church hierarchy existed to preserve what was handed down, not to provide innovation over and above what was received. So long as this is your understanding, that our hierarchy is informed by scripture as opposed to being the authority above scripture then we are of accord.

Re: scripture. May I suggest reading

Muratorian Canon A.D. ~170

Excerpt

it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.
4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church.

For the full context : Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

Ignatius writes the Church of Rome held the presidency note the salutation

Irenaeus said all must agree with Rome. He says that came from Peter and Paul at Rome BK3 CH3 Vs 1-3

AND

Prior to the close of the canon, there were lots of writings claiming authority. We see who made the decisions. Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers . By 382 a.d. , the council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I, closed the canon declaring (73 books by name)

 

[steve-b]

OrbisNonSufficit:

That’s not Catholic definition of Schism at all, so it has same amount of authority for us as steve’s links of Papal Documents do for you.

Agreement on terminology is vital.

Did it not? Arianism was widespread, more than Nicene Christianity was. Chalcedon was not recognized by Copts, Ephesus by Nestorians etc. As much as your communion recognizes only 7, there are communions that recognize only 3, or maybe even less. To point at First Seven Ecumenical Councils as a way to go is by no means logical, because there is virtually nothing about them that you could not find in the Western ones (perhaps save support of Byzantine Emperor, but neither Church holds that Byzantium is needed to preserve Christian unity soo…). Filioque is held as true by most Lutherans, so by definition Council of Toledo had as much authority to define doctrine as 7 Ecumenical Councils (in the end, Ecumenical Council in connection with first 7 means “supported by Emperor”, in context of others I’d call it “General Synod”). Vatican I and Vatican II, Florence and Lyons were much more global than first 7 btw.

It sounds like you’re minimizing the seven ecumenical councils. Perhaps you don’t mean to, but the irony is there that the non-Catholic here seems to be promoting them more.
Vatican 1 is soundly rejected outside of those in communion with the pope, because of papal infallibility ex cathedra.
Vatican 2 enjoys wide acceptance in terms of ecumenism.
But all of them are subject to the existing, underlying divisions and in the Church.

unless the pope approves a council as ecumenical, it is a local council.

AND

Those who are divided from the Catholic Church are outside the Church. therefore, they who are outside aren’t speaking for the Catholic Church anyway.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

unless the pope approves a council as ecumenical, it is a local council.

AND

Those who are divided from the Catholic Church are outside the Church. therefore, they aren’t speaking for the Catholic Church anyway.

I fully agree, however, problem is that to have fruitful discussion, we have to prove our points, not just state them. While this does not change truth, it helps in reasonable and fruitful discussions. While we might not outright convince each other, we can at least enrich each other by points we make. Protestants in this thread will not get convinced based on Papal Document, unlike us, Catholics.

 

[JonNC]

No, but putting them far above other Ecumenical Councils is not in line with Catholic teaching either, especially when logically there is no real distinction except Emperor.

Yes, but it is only those in communion with the pope who put latter councils on a par with them.

Councils create divisions, because doctrine creates disagreements and those create divisions. To comply to every single opinion on Earth would not be just, neither right, neither intelligent. How do you propose we identify which opinions are to be complied with and which are not? You keep excluding miaphysite/monophysite Christians from your “followers of Christ” type of Church anyway. How do we know where we draw the line, except by visible magisterium? I’ve already stated that Bible solely is not enough to identify anything without binding interpretation, as interpretations vary.

I’m not excluding anyone, you continue to make my point, about divisions. They existed in the early Church. I simply believe they are greater today.

 

[JonNC]

unless the pope approves a council as ecumenical, it is a local council.

It takes more than one patriarch to create a truly ecumenical council. If only the Bishop of Rome approves it, it is local.

 

[JonNC]

I fully agree, however, problem is that to have fruitful discussion, we have to prove our points, not just state them. While this does not change truth, it helps in reasonable and fruitful discussions. While we might not outright convince each other, we can at least enrich each other by points we make. Protestants in this thread will not get convinced based on Papal Document, unlike us, Catholics.

I appreciate this.

Steve knows this about me: there is one point of contention for me: universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction.

Solve this issue with the other patriarchates, whereby the CC and EO are again in full communion, and the issue is solved.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes, but it is only those in communion with the pope who put latter councils on a par with them.

OrbisNonSufficit:

and it is only those who were in communion with Chalcedon who put it as Ecumenical Council, only non-Arians put Nicea as Ecumenical Council. Does that prove anything?

I’m not excluding anyone, you continue to make my point, about divisions. They existed in the early Church. I simply believe they are greater today.

They are, but at the same time communion was maintained and obedience to hierarchy was maintained, though dissenters were present, clearly Church had Magisterium that defined doctrine when necessary- but communication during that age proved it very hard to function on centralized level. Not as impossible today, though.

 

[Whitney]

IamBaptist:

Maybe you should ask the RCC why it hunted down and murdered the reformers for printing the Bible so people could read it in their own language.

Though I honestly know little about the history of the Catholic Church post 1200 or so, and very little about the reformation. Looking back at my childhood this IamBaptist person’s summary of what happened is exactly what I was taught in my public school! I haven’t thought about it since, nor did I think much of it as an atheist child. But we were explicitly taught that the Catholic Church murdered people to keep the Bible away from them so they wouldn’t read the truth for themselves. This was our education around 8th-9th grade around the year 2000. I wonder what the Catholic kids in class were thinking .