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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m stating my opinion and please correct me if I’m mistaken.

Okay.

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

No, it was in Rome. Other Churches were in communion with Rome though. Peter died in Rome and left behind his successor Linus, and Catholic Church remains in communion with Linus, Peter and all other Popes If you read history, you will find that Church was much more organized than your standard American non-denominational Church and it was not centered only upon Scriptures (if it were, Scriptures would have been codified before) but also upon Tradition.

 

[Hodos]

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.

I would submit to you that the problem wasn’t solved in 325, or 481, or 1054, or 1546 for that matter since the Church is still not unified.

Is there any authority Arius lacked that you have?

Yes. He rejected those scriptures that did not support his theology, which was demonstrated when he was asked to explain his teaching at the Council of Nicaea.

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.

No they don’t. They reject scripture even to the degree where they have created a translation that ignores the rules of grammar and eliminates text to support their theology.

Yes, but not infallibly. Early Christians were not any more infallible than we are anyway.

Then why are you claiming the successor of Peter 2000 years removed somehow has a closer corner on the truth than the apostles did?

I do not think God told them He would guide them through Paraclete and preserve them way He preserved Church.

Are you arguing from a dispensationalist viewpoint?

 

[Episcopalian]

I always took it that the Christian Church was the Way and the Truth, however it took steps in logic and administration that were wrong, which pulled people away from the Truth, which called for a Reformation.

Catholics seem to forget that it’s not like the Catholic structure, heirarchy, and dogma as they know it, were in place in the Christian Church, year 1.

For instance, transubstantiation didn’t become a concept until the 11th century, and wasn’t fleshed out until the 12th.

 

[Episcopalian]

What I’m trying to say is that the Christian Church (per my own personal opinion) was going down a path, which needed to be re-routed via the Reformation.

 

[steve-b]

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.

For clarification,
Yes All Christians in the beginning were “CATHOLIC”. “Roman” is a rite within the Catholic Church. Jesus established ONE Church, His Church the [ kataholos ekklesia]

From: Acts 9:31

the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία = Strong's Greek: 1577. ἐκκλησία (ekklésia) -- an assembly, a (religious) congregation , ekklesia= church
καθ’ = http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm , kata=according to
ὅλης = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm , holos= whole, universal
τῆς = http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm , ho = the
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Jesus, speaking in the singular tense for “YOU” Simon/ Peter, said to Peter (Simon’s new name, ), that He builds His Church on Peter whose name means rock?

For clarification,

ALL rites within the Catholic Church are 100% CATHOLIC. It so happens Rome was Peter’s last see before he was crucified upside down on Vatican Hill, under emperor Nero. And Roman Catholics make up about (~) 98% of Catholicism. The other ~ 2% making up the remaining rites are 100% Catholic.

ReadTheBible:

The Dark Ages have that term for a reason. It certainly wasn’t the Protestants running around burning people for owning bibles.

steve-b:

The “Dark Ages” seems to have different periods that it includes. What part of that history (by dates) are you referring to?

Keep in mind, until the prnting press, there were no bibles being circulated as you might be thinking. They were hand written so it took a long time to write one. AND as you might think, extremely expensive. Way out of the range of the person in the pews. Who for the most part was probably not able to read.

ReadTheBible:

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?

Here’s some reading. Way before Protestantism
Extermination of heretics

Re: Exterminate “the Lateran Council in 1215, pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, Internet History Sourcebooks Project canon 3, (exterminate) comes from the Latin exterminare, William Whitaker's Words which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). In Latin it does not mean to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory.
Also, The Church has no power over secular governments

ReadTheBible:

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.

another post coming

 

[lanman87]

Alright then, Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind next. They hold to same Scripture, yet they came to different conclusions.

Hate to jump in but this is technically not true. Jehovah’s Witnesses have altered some of the text to fit their theology. If you pick up the Bible the JW use John 1:1 says 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.

Instead of 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That little a they have added contains huge theological considerations, especially concerning the Trinity, which they deny.

So I would challenge the statement that they hold to the same Scripture as Catholics and Protestants/Evangelicals.

 

[ReadTheBible]

No, it was in Rome. Other Churches were in communion with Rome though. Peter died in Rome and left behind his successor Linus, and Catholic Church remains in communion with Linus, Peter and all other Popes If you read history, you will find that Church was much more organized than your standard American non-denominational Church and it was not centered only upon Scriptures (if it were, Scriptures would have been codified before) but also upon Tradition.

I’m quite aware that Catholicism believes there is a line of unending Pope’s from the current back to Peter. If you study the early records of the Nicene and post Nicene fathers you will find a great many men writing letters calling each other Papa or Pope. The Papa of Alexandria might write to the Papa of Hippo etc… I’m not sure how Catholicism explains this.

At the council of Nicea there were over 300 bishops from all over, many of whom referred to one another as Papa. The bishop of Rome was not in attendance. It wasn’t until the 6th century that political power was centered in Rome when Gregory the Great came into power that the Roman Catholic Church as an organized body came into existence.

Catholicism claims its own history but unbiased historians have written the truths

From the Catholic Encyclopedia “Traditional truth was confided in the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it, without adding to it or taking anything away”

Catholicism claims to have always maintained their same teachings but it’s simply not factually accurate. The truth is Catholicism has added to and taken away traditions for centuries.

Prayers to the dead and making the sign of the cross were instituted in 330AD
In 600 AD they confirmed Latin as the language of worship
In 610 AD they instituted the homage of kissing the Pope’s feet
In 965 AD the blessing of the bells
In 998 AD the abstinence of meat on Friday
In 1220 AD blessing of holy water
In 1079 AD forbidding priests to marry
In 1215 AD transubstantiation was pronounced
In 1216 AD auricular confession of sins to a priest was decreed
In 1414 AD the cup of wine was forbidden at Communion
In 1438 AD Purgatory officially announced
In 1546 AD Council of Trent established tradition as equal to the Bible
In 1546 AD Council of Trent added back to the Bible the apocryphal books which were rejected by the Jews even before Jesus was born. The Jewish council of Joppa in the 1st century also declared them non-canonical.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

When Jesus says the Holy Ghost will teach you all things wouldn’t this include traditions? We (protestants) are not lead by shifting Papal dogmatism. We are lead by the authority of scripture.

 

[HopkinsReb]

In 600 AD they confirmed Latin as the language of worship

The Catholic Church allows, and has always allowed, worship in languages other than Latin. Never has it been the case that only Latin was allowed in the Catholic Church.

In 610 AD they instituted the homage of kissing the Pope’s feet

In 965 AD the blessing of the bells

In 998 AD the abstinence of meat on Friday

In 1079 AD forbidding priests to marry

In 1216 AD auricular confession of sins to a priest was decreed

In 1414 AD the cup of wine was forbidden at Communion

Not teachings on doctrine or morals, so not infallible and don’t apply to the question of whether Tradition has changed. Discipline != teaching.

As for the rest, they are things that were ancient beliefs in the Church which were only formally declared in response to movements to eliminate them. The Deuterocanon had been widely accepted in the Catholic Church since the early councils and were only formally declared as Scripture in response to Luther’s decision to toss them out.

Don’t mistake the Church’s first formal declaration of something with that something’s origin.

 

[ReadTheBible]

How many traditions in Catholicism must one obey to remain a Catholic?

 

[HopkinsReb]

How many traditions in Catholicism must one obey to remain a Catholic?

I’m not sure I understand the question. Do you mean “how many disciplines?”

 

[ReadTheBible]

If you want to be a Catholic can you forgo the Precepts of Catholicism? ie: attend mass every Sunday, confess sins to a priest, receive the Eucharist, fasting and abstinence, financially support the church

 

[HopkinsReb]

The short answer is yes, though the answer to the question of whether one can be a faithful Catholic without doing those things is more complicated. Let’s go in turn:

Attending mass every Sunday is a requirement, and that seems pretty sensible to me. Every Christian denomination thinks you should attend church regularly. I’m sure you agree with that.

A faithful Catholic could, hypothetically, never need to confess his sins to a priest if he is able to avoid mortal sin his entire life. So one does not necessarily need to do so.

As far as I know, there’s no actual requirement to receive the Eucharist.

Fasting and abstinence are matters of discipline that are subject to the jurisdiction of the many Catholic churches (Eastern and Western Catholics have pretty different practices in these areas) and of the local churches. Take eating meat on Fridays, for example. It is not a teaching of any Catholic Church that eating meat on Fridays is an inherently sinful act. Rather, avoiding it is considered a good act in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. But the Roman Catholic Church could abolish the practice tomorrow if it wanted to, because it’s a matter of discipline, not of doctrine.

Financial support is similar to the above. I’m sure you agree that a Christian should financially support his church.

 

[adf417]

OrbisNonSufficit:

Alright then, Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind next. They hold to same Scripture, yet they came to different conclusions.

Hate to jump in but this is technically not true. Jehovah’s Witnesses have altered some of the text to fit their theology. If you pick up the Bible the JW use John 1:1 says 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.

Instead of 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That little a they have added contains huge theological considerations, especially concerning the Trinity, which they deny.

So I would challenge the statement that they hold to the same Scripture as Catholics and Protestants/Evangelicals.

Believe it to be a true statement. Before the JWs had their own distorted version (the NWT) they did use the KJV and translated it with a different conclusion as OrbisNonSufficit explains.

Peace!!!

 

[ReadTheBible]

We’re getting away from traditions a little bit.

My main point was/is how many traditions that the Roman Catholic Church esteems to must one obey in order to remain a Catholic? The reason I ask is Catholicism claims a soul cannot reach Heaven without the Church correct? (unless completely ignorant of said Church).

Let’s say you believe with all your heart every possible Catholic rite true except this one.

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained the body and blood, the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, calling it a sign, let him be anathema.

Let’s say no matter what you’ve been told etc. that you believe it’s just a wafer and wine. You could no longer be a Catholic correct? You would be anathema. According to the church your soul would be in peril correct? This is my broader point to traditions of the church vs scripture.

Before you bring back up the scripture of John 6 as I’m sure this is where the Church is drawing this from, I’ll remind you that the apostles thought to themselves Jesus was being literal and he went out of his way as to leave no doubt that he was speaking about his words. His own words to leave no doubt “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”

Romans 8:11 Also speaks to the spirit that quickens our own spirt

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

We are saved because Jesus shed his blood and became the sacrifice of all human kind. That is the significance of his blood. We are not to have ceremonies where we think we are literally drinking his blood and I can only say this because Jesus himself said so.

So, long winded way of saying in the above example Catholicism would deem the soul lost but I do not fear Catholicism. My fear lies only at the feet of God and it is to him whom I must surrender.

 

[HopkinsReb]

My main point was/is how many traditions that the Roman Catholic Church esteems to must one obey in order to remain a Catholic? The reason I ask is Catholicism claims a soul cannot reach Heaven without the Church correct? (unless completely ignorant of said Church).

A better way of putting it is that the Catholic Church teaches that every soul in heaven is Catholic, not that every soul got there by being Catholic.

Let’s say no matter what you’ve been told etc. that you believe it’s just a wafer and wine. You could no longer be a Catholic correct? You would be anathema. According to the church your soul would be in peril correct? This is my broader point to traditions of the church vs scripture.

It’s more complex than this. There are issues of how educated one was on the topic, and there are questions of whether the individual submits to the teaching even if he can’t grok it. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not say whether any particular person is in Hell.

I’ll remind you that the apostles thought to themselves Jesus was being literal and he went out of his way as to leave no doubt that he was speaking about his words. His own words to leave no doubt “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”

He had loads of disciples at the time, and they thought he was being literal and they left. Then, and this is the key bit, he let them leave. Only the few who were willing to accept what he had just said – “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood there is no life in you” – as being true remained. He let the rest go.

We are saved because Jesus shed his blood and became the sacrifice of all human kind.

Agreed.

We are not to have ceremonies where we think we are literally drinking his blood and I can only say this because Jesus himself said so.

He literally told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He told us, “this is my flesh.” Paul tells us that if one receives without discerning the body, one eats damnation. Those are not words describing a simple memorial.

So, long winded way of saying in the above example Catholicism would deem the soul lost

It is clear that you simply don’t understand much about Catholicism. Do you actually want to, or are you just here to do Catholics-r-bad schtick?

 

[JonNC]

The Deuterocanon had been widely accepted in the Catholic Church since the early councils and were only formally declared as Scripture in response to Luther’s decision to toss them out.

Not accurate, but will wait for another thread.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

The Deuterocanon had been widely accepted in the Catholic Church since the early councils and were only formally declared as Scripture in response to Luther’s decision to toss them out.

Not accurate, but will wait for another thread.

Won’t even accept the squishy “widely,” which is not the same as “universally?”

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

HopkinsReb:

The Deuterocanon had been widely accepted in the Catholic Church since the early councils and were only formally declared as Scripture in response to Luther’s decision to toss them out.

Not accurate, but will wait for another thread.

Won’t even accept the squishy “widely,” which is not the same as “universally?”

In the western Church, widely, even mostly.
That’s not my complaint.

 

[GKMotley]

Boettner usually is cited as listing the first two in 300 AD, kissing the Pope’s foot in 709, baptism of bells in 965, fasting on Fridays and during Lent in 998, auricular confession in 1215, Purgatory in 1439, tradition equal to Bible in 1545. And then all the others not listed. And Boetnner doesn’t refer to Joppa in the list, likely for good reason; where did you get the name? (Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia). He doesn’t refer to Jamnia, either.

But perhaps things change. OTOH, citation of source is also the usual form.

Been a while since Boettner made an appearance here.

 

[TULIPed]

Alright then, Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind next.

(Perhaps pick a denomination that is trinitarian in its theology (and thus whose baptism is recognized as valid by the Catholic Church)).