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

[ReadTheBible]

Yet another great example of misunderstanding infallibility.

Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer who joined 21 Archbishops and 64 Bishops in voting against papal infallibility gave very sound reasons for doing so.

“Well, venerable brethren, here history raises its voice to assure us that some popes have erred. You may protest against it or deny it, as you please, but I will prove it. Pope Victor (192) first approved of Montanism, and then condemned it. Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolater. He entered into the temple of Vesta, and offered incense to the goddess. You will say that it was an act of weakness; but I answer, a vicar of Jesus Christ dies rather than become an apostate. Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, and made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his see. Honorius (625) adhered to Monothelitism: Father Gratry has proved it to demonstration. Gregory I (590-604) calls any one Antichrist who takes the name of Universal Bishop, and contrariwise Boniface III, (607,8) made the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugenius III (1145-53) authorized dueling; Julius II (1509) and Pius IV (1560) forbade it. Eugenius IV (1431-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia; Pius II (1458) revoked the concession. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII (1800-23) condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-90) published an edition of the Bible, and by a bull recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it. Clement XIV (1769-74) abolished the order of the Jesuits, permitted by Paul III, and Pius VII reestablished it.”

“I do not speak of the schisms which have dishonored the church. In those unfortunate days the See of Rome was occupied by two competitors, and sometimes even by three. Which of these was the true pope? Resuming once more, again I say, if you decree the infallibility of the present bishop of Rome, you must establish the infallibility of all the preceding ones, without excluding any. But can you do that, when history is there establishing with a clearness equal to that of the sun, that the popes have erred in their teaching? Could you do it and maintain that avaricious, incestuous, murdering, simoniacal popes have been vicars of Jesus Christ? Oh, venerable brethren! to maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than Judas. It would be to throw dirt in His face.”

 

[EZweber]

Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolater. He entered into the temple of Vesta, and offered incense to the goddess. You will say that it was an act of weakness; but I answer, a vicar of Jesus Christ dies rather than become an apostate

No infallible statement made; does not contradict infallibility.

Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, and made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his see

The document he signed strongly implied Arianism, but it can be understood in a orthodox sense.

Eugenius IV (1431-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia; Pius II (1458) revoked the concession.

No infallibility involved. Authority to councils can be revoked at any time.

Clement XIV (1769-74) abolished the order of the Jesuits, permitted by Paul III, and Pius VII reestablished it.”

Also no issue of infallibility. As to the others, it has to be demonstrated that they issued infallible statements. The defined grounds of an infallible statement are very limited.

 

[adf417]

Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer who joined 21 Archbishops and 64 Bishops in voting against papal infallibility gave very sound reasons for doing so.

Do you have the number of bishops who voted against Nicaea? I don’t, but I can assure you the percentage of the whole church was much higher.

Peace!!!

 

[ReadTheBible]

You’re kind of skipping over the part where multiple people claimed to be the one true pope at a time, or some popes purchased the seat. History disagrees with what Catholicism claims. There is no unbroken chain from Peter to the current pope and this fact alone breaks any grandiose claim of infallibility.

 

[HopkinsReb]

You’re kind of skipping over the part where multiple people claimed to be the one true pope at a time

Multiple people have claimed to be the Messiah. Does that invalidate Christ’s claims in your eyes?

 

[ReadTheBible]

Not at all but that doesn’t have anything to do with the legitimacy of the line from Peter to the current pope.

Fortunately history records facts and Bishop Strossmayer laid them at the councils feet.

“I go on. The learned Cardinal Baronius, speaking of the papal court, says (give attention, my venerable brethren, to these words), ‘What did the Roman church appear in those days? How infamous! Only all-powerful courtesans governing in Rome! It was they who gave, exchanged, and took bishoprics; and horrible to relate, they got their lovers, the false popes, put on the throne of St. Peter’ (Baronius, A.D. 912). You will answer, These were false popes, not true ones: let it be so; but in that case, if for fifty years the see of Rome was occupied by anti-popes, how will you pick up again the thread of pontifical succession? Has the church been able, at least for a century and a half, to go on without a head, and find itself acephalous?”

 

[HopkinsReb]

Not at all but that doesn’t have anything to do with the legitimacy of the line from Peter to the current pope.

Then why make a claim with the logic of which you disagree?

Fortunately history records facts

A more questionable claim than you might think.

As for the rest…Rome may have been occupied by pretenders for a time, but there has always been a legitimate bishop of Rome. The existence of pretenders in no way invalidates the legitimacy of the rightful holder of the office.

Also, it’s worth mentioning that Strossmayer eventually yielded to the Catholic Church on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Luther confessed Christ as Lord.

so did Arius, Nestorians, and many other heretics… where do we draw the line? Which doctrinal errors are ok and which are not? Is Trinity enough?

You are relying on the argument of consensus, whereas my argument says something is true because it is by nature true.

How do we know it is or is not true? Problem is humans are fallible, and our judgment is not the correct one all the time. We can be wrong and we can be wrong our entire lives, yet Christ required absolute belief from Thomas- makes you think he actually provided us with something that can infallibly interpret infallible things.

Feel free to read our confessions on this matter (Augsburg Confession, Article V). What it doesn’t do is conflate the Church’s role with a claim to infallibility simply because it has an office to execute.

If that office was not protected from doctrinal error, what is role of that office? Prophets were infallible, does that mean God deprived us of similar way to tell the truth in our time? I’ve read Augsburg Confession and I was very happy about it, as it seemed very pro-Catholic to me at time compared to many other denominations, but I do not agree with that definition of Church. I do not believe Church can be disunited, I do not believe Church can be in error hence everybody in full communion with Church confesses same, true, things.

I don’t even know what this means. This is a ridiculous statement on its face, and it is a claim that Rome doesn’t apply to herself making it self-defeating.

Rome does, but Rome has claim of Petrine succession, Luther has no such thing.

If it is not clearly supported by scripture, then we can discuss and I would challenge why you would declare as “doctrine” something that wasn’t proclaimed in the apostolic writings themselves.

Neither was Trinity, yet we all believe in it. It was implied, as many other things were. It did not need to be explicitly stated nor defined. Church defines what She needs to define. If Pope had to discuss every single complaint made by any human on this Earth, this would be a mess- especially since many complaints were addressed by Councils of the Church yet people do not accept them.

If it is contradicted by scripture I will reject it outright because ultimately we are under God’s authority, not in the place of adjudicating what God should have revealed.

If it is in your opinion contradicted by Scripture though. What if you misunderstand Scripture? I’m sure you would agree that Scriptures are not easiest material to read or understand, as is shown by many Sola-Scriptura Christians proclaiming different doctrines. I agree we are under God’s authority, and I will gladly remain under authority he has established in Apostolic Succession of Ordination.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

My main points still are the same:

1. What doctrinal errors are enough of making one not part of Church or part of it, where do we draw the line, if Church is communion of all Christians who tend to disagree with each other and not see themselves as legitimate traditions? Mostly speaking about recognizing first 7 Ecumenical Councils while Church was disunited after first 3 (by your definition, logical leap)
2. Who has ability and authority to interpret Scripture infallibly? If no one, how are we supposed to take into account our fallen nature and complexity of God (one we can not understand) with fact we are supposed to just find out everything, while many people come to different conclusions? How are we supposed to know truth and not just hold opinions?

Apostolic Succession and Church being visible in communion with itself both solve those problems, therefore only Catholic Church would need to accept Ecumenical Council for it to be true and College of Bishops (in union with Pope) guided by Holy Spirit would be enough to proclaim doctrine, as those experts are much more pre-disposed by grace of Holy Spirit than we are (not saying we do not need to or can’t understand conclusions they make, but coming to our own conclusions may result in errors).

 

[ReadTheBible]

Then why make a claim with the logic of which you disagree?

You have created your own strawman argument. I agree there have been people claiming to be the Messiah who were not. You admit, and that really doesn’t matter because history tells us the truth, that indeed there is no such thing as pope succession from Peter.

Jesus told the 12 apostles in Matthew 1928 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Which throne does Peter sit in? Is his throne above the other 11? No.All 12 were equal then as they will be in Heaven. This claim that Peter was a Pope is as ridiculous as the pope’s claim of infallibility.

Please do not take my word for it. Let’s look at what Peter said. What does the so called 1st Pope say about the Church and Body of Christ?

1 Peter 4: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Does Peter say I am the foundation of the Church? No. He repeats what the prophet Isaiah said about Jesus being the cornerstone. Peter says all believers in Christ are lively stones and we all make up the spiritual house which is the true Church of Christ.

In Peter’s own words there is no hierarchy other than Christ being the cornerstone. This is who you claim as the first pope. He is telling us all we are the same. If you argue that fact you must argue with Peter, not me.

 

[HopkinsReb]

You admit, and that really doesn’t matter because history tells us the truth, that indeed there is no such thing as pope succession from Peter.

When did I admit that, exactly? Please show me the quote. I realize that that’s not readingthebible, but while you’re debating with me, please readwhatipost.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Rome may have been occupied by pretenders for a time

There is your quote.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

Rome may have been occupied by pretenders for a time

There is your quote.

That is not the same thing as saying that there was not a legitimate bishop of Rome at the time. Try again.

 

[JonNC]

so did Arius, Nestorians, and many other heretics… where do we draw the line? Which doctrinal errors are ok and which are not? Is Trinity enough?

Modern Catholic theologians do not group Luther in this way. It seems to be a tactic of apologists.

How do we know it is or is not true? Problem is humans are fallible, and our judgment is not the correct one all the time.

As is the Bishop of Rome’s. It is why a council was preferred.

We can be wrong and we can be wrong our entire lives, yet Christ required absolute belief from Thomas- makes you think he actually provided us with something that can infallibly interpret infallible things.

Absolute faith does not equate to infallibility. If it were true, there are billions of people who were not saved because they lacked the knowledge of “developed doctrine “.
I believe. Help my unbelief.

If that office was not protected from doctrinal error, what is role of that office?

To act mutually with other patriarchates in order to teach, knowing we see through a glass dimly. Then, pray for grace.

Rome does, but Rome has claim of Petrine succession, Luther has no such thing.

So does Antioch. Apostolic Succession is more than laying on of hands.

Neither was Trinity, yet we all believe in it. It was implied, as many other things were.

Correct, though more than implied. That’s why it is doctrine.

 

[ReadTheBible]

I understand you will not agree and you are entitled to your opinion but history records very clearly the history of the church and it disagrees with the history that Catholicism teaches.

 

[JimG]

Has Loraine Boettner entered the room? If so, he should be introduced to Karl Keating.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Some claims of Strossmayer’s speech to never have taken place have surfaced over the years but this has been debunked. It’s well known where the attempts to debunk Strossmayer have come from and why.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As is the Bishop of Rome’s. It is why a council was preferred.

Yes, under his approval. After Chalcedon, there was a counter-council from Miaphysites, and there were many Robber Councils. How to determine which one is right?

Modern Catholic theologians do not group Luther in this way. It seems to be a tactic of apologists.

No, what I’m implying does not concern Luther as much as it concerns fact “council accepted by entire Church” is a bad definition if definition of Church is not clear.

Absolute faith does not equate to infallibility. If it were true, there are billions of people who were not saved because they lacked the knowledge of “developed doctrine “.
I believe. Help my unbelief.

I’d call absolute faith a virtue that we should aspire to, not necessarily requirement. I also do not believe people are saved or not saved based on faith alone though (not works alone either, but that is not Catholic position).

To act mutually with other patriarchates in order to teach, knowing we see through a glass dimly. Then, pray for grace.

Patriarchates have been wrong before from all perspectives you can get. Even majority of them.

So does Antioch. Apostolic Succession is more than laying on of hands.

Original line of Antioch is Maronite and they accept primacy of Pope. Apostolic succession is more than laying on hands, but subsists in it.

Correct, though more than implied. That’s why it is doctrine.

You could argue with same argument over many things, it boils down to opinion.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You restating a quote , is NOT properly referencing a quote. Show the source properly referenced.

You sound extremely frustrated that folks aren’t making references to their opinions or stated facts.

Not me.

Episcopalian:

Unfortunately you being the source police doesn’t add much to the conversation and, to be honest, is weary on my eyes and scrolling finger.

he called the pope a liar . I wanted to see the source of that quote he used

Episcopalian:

refuting points (if that’s your goal), and being a witness, would be better accomplished by establishing well sourced counter points of your own.

Can you do that for the group?

I’d be happy to.

Source of the quote: Pope Francis: 'Evolution ... is not inconsistent with the notion of creation' | National Catholic Reporter

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.”

The quote used was
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

That’s NOT where the Pope ended his points. @ReadTheBible when asked, wouldn’t provide the source. Ergo the context. he calls the pope a liar…HERE

The pope goes on

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
Francis said the beginning of the world was not “a work of chaos” but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.
“God is not a demiurge [demigod] or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Evolve…How so?

Peter said this as an interesting analogy about time. Could that analogy of 1 day be equal to a million years? a billion years to God? …Sure. God is outside of time.

I would suggest, this is the area of time analogy, Pope Francis is pointing to with scientists. In 2003, NASA said the universe is 13.7 billion years old +/- 1%. As it turns out that link might go away sometime in the future.

That said,

Re: Genesis, and 6 Days of creation

Could God do creation in Days? Sure. So is Peter’s way we look at the length of " a day" to God, just an analogy to God for describing creation?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything "

Well, it’s the National Catholic Reporter, but there is this:

Pope Francis: 'Evolution ... is not inconsistent with the notion of creation' | National Catholic Reporter

And it’s not something I haven’t heard before. Chesterton said something similar.

I knew that was the source. I wanted @ReadTheBible to tell me where HE got the quote.