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

[adf417]

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.

No one gets it 100% right? Do you preach this to unbelievers searching for truth? Do you profess Jesus is part of the way, some of the truth, and kind of the life? No you don’t. You. Profess the truth and if you don’t get it 100% correct then the part you think is correct must be subjective. If you would boldly pick a percentage that you feel comfortable with i would like to hear it. The next question i will have for you will be - of the remaining percentage that “you cannot know”, how can you be sure that it doesn’t include a piece of the knowledge puzzle that refutes a piece you think you do know? You cant say you have the truth unless you are willing to say you have the whole truth. Otherwise your partial truth is quickly dismissed.

Peace!!!

 

[HopkinsReb]

There is a difference between saying that nobody has it 100% right and saying that there is no 100% right answer.

 

[adf417]

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

Shocking! Not all protestants not on same page with truth.

But if you cant get 100% correct this quote may not be too far off, correct?

Peace!!!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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

That’s a whole different topic, one I’d gladly discuss but probably would hijack thread. Catholic Church recognizes that universal jurisdiction was not immediate all the time, it was mostly limited by technology etc, but Pope Gregory the Great (Servant of Servants of God, as he called himself) did advocate his supreme power over Ecumenical Councils, and no Eastern Patriarch seemed to dispute that at the time. Is there anything you disagree on with magisterium beside this? Relativism, indifferentism, anything?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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.

If that is true, Holy Spirit has been doing terrible job keeping us in line. Scripture, as I said, was not as normative even for Apostles during their Councils, and Church did not end with them. Church is not a museum if ancient things, it is garden full of life- of God’s children. Continuity happens, garden may bloom with different flowers in each time, but it’s continuous.

 

[Hodos]

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.

Yes, and no. So if “catholic” doctrine that cannot be objectively tied to apostolic teaching is declared, r worse if “catholic” doctrine is declared that is in contradiction with apostolic teaching as described in their writings, is it “catholic”? That was the crux of the Reformation that started in the 1300’s and eventually resulted in a full break in communion in 1520.

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.

Not quite. When you read Mark, you can see Mark using quotes from Christ himself to justify the declaration of all foods as being clean. In Acts, you actually had a manifestation of the Holy Spirit actually declaring (in accordance with Christ’s previous word) that the Gentiles and Jews are one body confirmed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius’ household. In the Pauline corpus, Paul actually refers to Genesis to defend his position on justification. Paul’s teaching was examined by the other apostles and confirmed to be a correct exposition of scripture. In this case the Church was not determining the doctrine, but receiving it (again based on Christ’s prior word). This is very different than the development of some other doctrines that were eventually declared as dogma at the penalty of anathema from the Church (transubstantiation, a few of the Marian dogmas come to mind).

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?

This is precisely my point. Private interpretations, not supported by scripture, became accepted as dogma in some cases. When these dogmas were challenged on the basis of their validity and apostolic origin, the reformers were told they were to shut up or be separated from the Church.

What is difference between Luther and those who left Church during times of Apostles?

The difference between Luther and those who left the Church during the times of the Apostles is the presence of the Apostles. Luther was told to accept doctrine that violated what they passed on in their writings for our benefit, and he said he could not do so in good conscience. See my example of Paul’s explanation above.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes, and no. So if “catholic” doctrine that cannot be objectively tied to apostolic teaching is declared, r worse if “catholic” doctrine is declared that is in contradiction with apostolic teaching as described in their writings, is it “catholic”? That was the crux of the Reformation that started in the 1300’s and eventually resulted in a full break in communion in 1520.

Dissenters actually were dissenters before too, and if you think Holy Spirit failed to maintain Church in Her right direction, that’s fine but in the end Protestant Churches hold no real ground on why are they the ones who can interpret faith better than Catholics. It all comes down to who has the authority to proclaim which interpretation of faith is the right one and which one is not- and if you don’t want Joseph Smith kinda stuff, successor of Peter is pretty safe way to go.

Not quite. When you read Mark, you can see Mark using quotes from Christ himself to justify the declaration of all foods as being clean. In Acts, you actually had a manifestation of the Holy Spirit actually declaring (in accordance with Christ’s previous word) that the Gentiles and Jews are one body confirmed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius’ household

Yes, while those things happened, they were not in Scripture at the time. Gospels were written after that, so you can’t say they used Bible, can you? Same revelation can happen today, and after all Church mostly uses Bible to solidify Ecumenical Councils and their decisions- it’s just that we don’t care about not living true to someone’s private interpretation. Church never determines doctrine, she just receives it or affirms it. It’s that simple.

When these dogmas were challenged on the basis of their validity and apostolic origin, the reformers were told they were to shut up or be separated from the Church.

I believe reformers were ones with private incorrect interpretation. Besides, how do you know interpretation of Apostolic teachings by reformers was the correct one? Why was not Arius right, why are Arians wrong? Why are Miaphysites wrong? Why are Catholics wrong? Why are Baptists wrong? Anglicans? Lutherans? Really, it’s a mess until you actually realize Jesus left us with Peter’s successor to solve these things, and Holy Spirit to guide us- phew, that was close.

The difference between Luther and those who left the Church during the times of the Apostles is the presence of the Apostles.

Right. What about leaving year after Apostles died, is that justified? Apostles left behind their successors. Church did not end with Apostles, neither did Authority, neither did Holy Spirit. If you think after Apostles we are no more able to receive any truths from God, then what is Holy Spirit’s role?

Most my points can be summed up to “where do you draw the line?”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

That is your opinion as a non Catholic. The patriarchal / pentarchy system or 1st among equals was never accepted by the pope. The patriarchal system was initiated by the East to equalize the patriarchs with the papacy.

then Card Ratzinger addressed this issue (approved by then Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000. )

"The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.
In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]

For full context : http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Eastern Orthodoxy beginning Eastern Orthodoxy | Catholic Answers

AND this explanation

(all emphasis mine)
being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”
(source: » Are we Orthodox united with Rome?)

 

[steve-b]

OrbisNonSufficit:

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.

You’ve got the answer already. You don’t accept it.

AND Besides

The Orthodox aren’t even able to have peace with each other. 60% + of Orthodoxy (the Russians) are now in schism with the rest of Orthodoxy. If you want the links just say so

 

[ReadTheBible]

I’m stating my opinion and please correct me if I’m mistaken. The question in the title comes off as saying all Christians were Roman Catholic from the time of Christ until the Reformation.

The Dark Ages have that term for a reason. It certainly wasn’t the Protestants running around burning people for owning bibles. Does every person who belongs to Catholicism believe that every single person killed and tortured during the Inquisitions was done so justly, or went to Hell because they were guilty of something in the Roman Catholic Church’s eyes?

The Roman Catholic Church likes to decree they are the succession of Peter but it simply doesn’t hold true. You certainly have the Church coming at Pentecost but not the Roman Catholic Church.

You have Churches at Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Antioch. Was the Roman Catholic Church in these places? The answer is no it never was.

 

[JonNC]

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,

Sola scriptura and Private interpretation are different things. Sola scriptura is all about preventing private interpretation.

In the Epitome of the Formula of Concord:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

SS is a hermeneutical principle that holds dogma, doctrine, teachings accountable to scripture as the final norm. Dogma and doctrine are determined by the Church, not by individuals.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Sola Scriptura itself is not stated anywhere, therefore its inclusion without will of Magisterium is private interpretation. After all Ecumenical Councils are actually inspired upon Bible anyway. Church determines doctrine based upon Sacred Tradition too. Basically remove authentic Magisterium and you have private interpretations or unclear definition of which interpretation is private or not.

 

[Hodos]

Dissenters actually were dissenters before too, and if you think Holy Spirit failed to maintain Church in Her right direction, that’s fine but in the end Protestant Churches hold no real ground on why are they the ones who can interpret faith better than Catholics. It all comes down to who has the authority to proclaim which interpretation of faith is the right one and which one is not- and if you don’t want Joseph Smith kinda stuff, successor of Peter is pretty safe way to go.

I think the faith was already proclaimed. The apostles didn’t come to preach a new faith, but to preach what was taught to them. The good news is that WE HAVE WHAT THEY TAUGHT AT OUR FINGERTIPS!

It all comes down to who has the authority to proclaim which interpretation of faith is the right one and which one is not- and if you don’t want Joseph Smith kinda stuff, successor of Peter is pretty safe way to go.

That is if you assume prima facie that the successor of Peter has always been faithful in the transmission of all the traditions that have been passed on. Protestants would argue that there are places where tradition has not always been faithfully transmitted and would discuss through exegesis of the text handed down to us where there have been innovations (at least those that adhere to Sola Scriptura would-not all do). This would be very different than what Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith basically stated that the scriptures were not faithfully transmitted, and he felt free because he accused the Church of not transmitting scripture faithfully to innovate as he saw fit. My point being, the leap between the reformers and Joseph Smith is not intellectually honest.

Yes, while those things happened, they were not in Scripture at the time. Gospels were written after that, so you can’t say they used Bible, can you?

No one said they did. What I said is that we had the apostles who based their teaching on what Christ taught and on the scriptures they already had. Their teaching was recorded and transmitted to us in the form of the scriptures, and when you read the early theologians you will see that it was the scriptures that they used (or at least attempted to) the scriptures to norm what they proclaimed the gospel to be.

 

[Hodos]

I believe reformers were ones with private incorrect interpretation.

First, the whole private interpretation is a red herring. Nothing Luther said was locked up in a vault, nor was Calvin, Zwingli, etc. Their writings were published and are widely available and can be read in light of the scriptures that are available to us today.

Besides, how do you know interpretation of Apostolic teachings by reformers was the correct one?

Because language has meaning, and I can read the writings of the reformers and compare it to what was handed down in scripture.

Why was not Arius right, why are Arians wrong?

Arius wasn’t right because he denied that Christ was eternally pre-existent which contradicts John’s gospel and Hebrews, and in a round about way confessed more than one God which contradicts Exodus and Deuteronomy. Coincidentally, Alexander and Athanasius refuted Arius using the scriptures.

Jesus left us with Peter’s successor to solve these things, and Holy Spirit to guide us- phew, that was close.

And again, I can point to history such as the sale of indulgences, which were sold under the Pope’s authority and backing, and say that Peter’s successor has not always been faithful and must be corrected as we all are by the proclamation of God’s word.

Right. What about leaving year after Apostles died, is that justified? Apostles left behind their successors.

I completely agree, God gave us the Church, and as part of that Church we created the offices of pastor/priest/bishop/deacon for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel and administering the sacraments. Just because an office was created with a responsibility tied to it does not mean must be faithfully executed. The priests of Israel, as well as kings of Judah and Israel are excellent examples of this. They had responsibilities, and frequently failed in them. And God sent prophets to declare his word to reprove them when necessary. But again, the prophets weren’t declaring anything new, they were proclaiming Israel’s failure to obey the covenant already received.

 

[JonNC]

Sola Scriptura itself is not stated anywhere, therefore its inclusion without will of Magisterium is private interpretation.

So, find and identity a source for your definition. I provided one.
For non-Catholic communions the inclusion or exclusion of the magisterium is irrelevant.

After all Ecumenical Councils are actually inspired upon Bible anyway. Church determines doctrine based upon Sacred Tradition too.

Well, the second and third part says:

Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Sola scriptura here identifies the importance of Tradition within the Church.

Basically remove authentic Magisterium and you have private interpretations or unclear definition of which interpretation is private or not.

I would say the magisterium of today is incomplete due to the Schism. Fix that and their authority is restored.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I’m stating my opinion and please correct me if I’m mistaken. The question in the title comes off as saying all Christians were Roman Catholic from the time of Christ until the Reformation.

The Dark Ages have that term for a reason. It certainly wasn’t the Protestants running around burning people for owning bibles. Does every person who belongs to Catholicism believe that every single person killed and tortured during the Inquisitions was done so justly, or went to Hell because they were guilty of something in the Roman Catholic Church’s eyes?

The Roman Catholic Church likes to decree they are the succession of Peter but it simply doesn’t hold true. You certainly have the Church coming at Pentecost but not the Roman Catholic Church.

You have Churches at Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Antioch. Was the Roman Catholic Church in these places? The answer is no it never was.

Read a history book.

 

[GKMotley]

On the Inquisitions, Peters/INQUISITION is highly recommended. It is somewhat daunting for a neophyte, though.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Somehow I think your recommendation will go unheeded by the fellow whose name encourages reading.

For some folks, Sola Scriptura means literally nothing else should ever be read…

 

[GKMotley]

Maybe TRAIL OF BLOOD.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I think the faith was already proclaimed. The apostles didn’t come to preach a new faith, but to preach what was taught to them. The good news is that WE HAVE WHAT THEY TAUGHT AT OUR FINGERTIPS!

Yes, but how was it preserved? Arius had different opinion on what Scriptures taught, so did Calvin, Luther, etc. Who determines who was right? And if you say you can determine yourself- sure, but that’s practically joining their ranks and not solving the question. Pretty much, what authority do you have to proclaim what is implied or is not implied by Scripture? Is there any authority Arius lacked that you have?

Protestants would argue that there are places where tradition has not always been faithfully transmitted and would discuss through exegesis of the text handed down to us where there have been innovations (at least those that adhere to Sola Scriptura would-not all do). This would be very different than what Joseph Smith did.

Alright then, Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind next. They hold to same Scripture, yet they came to different conclusions. If faith is merely matter of opinion of individual, either relativism wins or faith is not based on truth.

What I said is that we had the apostles who based their teaching on what Christ taught and on the scriptures they already had. Their teaching was recorded and transmitted to us in the form of the scriptures, and when you read the early theologians you will see that it was the scriptures that they used (or at least attempted to) the scriptures to norm what they proclaimed the gospel to be.

Yes, but not infallibly. Early Christians were not any more infallible than we are anyway. Gnostics claimed to be Christians too, did they not? Early Christians were closer to Apostolic times but Holy Spirit helps us same way it helped them, and Apostles did not transmit teachings just by Scripture, but also by words and teachings outside written materials. Apostles also passed authority onto their successors- ones who passed it on etc. If you break from that line, you are essentially breaking from Apostolic Tradition, simply because you want to determine only based on certain recorded source. Men are fallible and hence we need to determine how to interpret Scripture and who to trust- not just hold to our opinions because we are fallible too

Just because an office was created with a responsibility tied to it does not mean must be faithfully executed. The priests of Israel, as well as kings of Judah and Israel are excellent examples of this.

I do not think God told them He would guide them through Paraclete and preserve them way He preserved Church. After all, Israelites were guided by Prophets, we are guided by Magisterium- and both are continuous, unlike written Scripture.