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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Baptism makes one a Christian

meaning

Judas was a “Christian” as ALL heretics and schismatics, etc are “Christian” , by definition.

So you do disagree with your communion.

The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through Baptism, have been constituted as the people of God; for this reason, since they have become sharers in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal office in their own manner, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each one."385
872 "In virtue of their rebirth in Christ there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality with regard to dignity and the activity whereby all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ in accord with each one’s own condition and function."386

**However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."**272

Baptism does NOT mean one is to remain a child.

And

Re: ignorance of the baptized, it is NOT considered automatically Innocent or Permanent for a person

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Heresy and schism come from post baptismal activity.

 

[JonNC]

Baptism does NOT mean one is to remain a child.

I never said it did.

 

[JonNC]

Heresy and schism come from post baptismal activity.

Am I a heretic?

 

[hope]

No

Please clarify something for me. Do you believe that Luther did or did not try to remove James among others?

 

[JonNC]

No

Please clarify something for me. Do you believe that Luther did or did not try to remove James among others?

All the evidence is he did not. He included it in every update of his translation from 1522 at Wartburg until his death.
Luther’s opinion of books never caused him remove any of them from his translation. He included 74 books.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

steve-b:

Point being, this is the father of Protestantism. THEN came all the following candidates of offshoots to the rebellion, that continues to this day.

Source. Zwingli, as well as the Anabaptists were contemporaries of Luther, and NEVER followers. Calvin was 25 years younger, but again, was NEVER a follower of Luther or in communion with him.
Virtually all of the later groups have their theological if not historical roots in these, not in Lutheranism.
Your presentation takes a correlative and inaccurately turns it into a causative. None of those who followed followed Luther. If they had, there would have been no Anabaptists, no Calvinists. They weren’t lemmings.

Maybe you didn’t see this addition I made to a previous post.

Newman at the time was still an Anglican, also states

From http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/lecture12.html

Lecture 12, Ecclesiastical history, Section 4

Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its Via Media, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism.

So, you are referring to Anglicans as Protestant?

Is my name on the document? No

Newman wrote that as an Anglican priest before his departure from Anglicanism .

However, condensing the answer, the Catholic Church does refer to Anglicanism as Protestant. For a full explanation Anglicanism | Catholic Answers .

Excerpt

“Although the policy of Henry VIII, after the breach with Rome, was ostensibly conservative, and his ideal seemed to be the maintenance of a Catholic Church in England, minus the Pope, it is incontestable that in other ways his action was in fatal contradiction to his professions. By raising to power, and by maintaining in positions of unique influence, his three great agents, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, and Edward Seymour, all of whom were always, and as openly as they dared, in sympathy with the Reformation, Henry VIII, whether by intention or by the indifference of his latter days, undoubtedly prepared the way and opened the gates to the Protestantism which came in under Edward and Elizabeth.”

 

[hope]

Sorry my question was not clear enough. Do you believe that he wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation? Why do you suppose he put these last?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Heresy and schism come from post baptismal activity.

Am I a heretic?

Look at the definition…which BTW as you can see, is NOT my definition.

Here’s the operative statement ( said in different ways ) that we see over and over when applying the phrase you quoted.

That’s why we evangelize. We answer questions etc

Therefor

“Once someone becomes knowledgeable of the truth”…

Note: It doesn’t say one can disagree or deny the truth and escape consequences. Our faith doesn’t require a genius I.Q. to believe. Yet There are People who LOVE LOVE LOVE to automatically use the invincible ignorance argument. And they misapply it

 

[JonNC]

Newman wrote that as an Anglican priest before his departure from Anglicanism .

However, condensing the answer, the Catholic Church does refer to Anglicanism as Protestant. For a full explanation

It seems to me charity demands that people respect what others say about themselves. Many Anglicans would deny they are Protestant, which makes sense since they were not part of the formal protest at Speyer.
Many Catholics do not like the term, “Roman Catholic “, so I choose not to use it, out of respect.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry my question was not clear enough. Do you believe that he wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation? Why do you suppose he put these last?

No, I don’t. If he had, he would have. And Catholic apologists who often describe him as arrogant and prideful would have to agree.
He explains his reservations about these books in his commentaries. He talks about authorship, and the opinions of the Fathers.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Please list them.

You equate practices with teaching they are not the same.

According to 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 will always use this scripture in backing up the use of tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle

Please list the traditions Paul was specifically talking about and we’ll compare. We all know it’s impossible because Paul didn’t list them, anywhere. Catholicism wants to use this one passage as free reign to add, remove, or modify a litany of traditions for centuries.

This is one place Catholicism has contradicted itself too many times to count. It states it won’t add or take anything away concerning traditions and yet there simply is no arguing against the fact that it has indeed.

By Paul’s statement alone we have to conclude that whatever traditions he orally spoke of were not in contrast to God’s will or Christ’s doctrine correct? But, that’s not the final word on tradition. Jesus clearly spoke on tradition too right?

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Paul also spoke about traditions in Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

By the testimony of Jesus and Paul we know some traditions can be bad correct? Which ones? Obviously traditions that contradict Christ correct? Can we at least agree on that one single point? If a tradition contradicts Jesus’s own message, we are to not partake right?

Christians in the 1st century didn’t call anyone their spiritual “Father”. This didn’t happen until 100’s of years after Paul died.

I’m aware Catholicism says there’s a t and T in traditions. It’s all semantics.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Did Jesus teach against vain repetition when praying? Clearly he did. Did the 1st century Christians pray the rosary? No. Again, it was 100’s of years after the death of Paul this tradition started.

The traditional teaching that Mary was sinless. Did the 1st century Christians think Mary was sinless, or Holy, or ascended to Heaven? The answer is no. These are things Catholicism introduced 100’s and some almost 1800 years after Paul died.

What did Mary herself say concerning all this?

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

If Mary was born sinless, lived a sinless life, and ascended to Heaven, she would need no Savior. Mary was blessed because she was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus. Blessed is a whole different platform from Holy.

What did Paul say concerning man and sin?

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

Why didn’t Paul say, all have sinned except Mary or nobody is righteous besides Mary? The answer is Paul understood the truth that Jesus himself was the only person who ever lived a sinless life. That’s the end of the story. To claim that Mary, or anyone else, was sinless is blasphemy.

Does Catholicism claim that she alone received the traditional truth and wouldn’t add or take away from it? Yes. Did she do so? Yes.

You can argue semantics, t, T, belief, practice, if you want. The fact is all of the above is part of Catholicism. It is taught and followed.

 

[TULIPed]

So why did they go to the trouble of publishing UR? Come to think of it - using your formulation - do these sentences actually apply to anybody at all?

“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.”

 

[steve-b]

Newman wrote that as an Anglican priest before his departure from Anglicanism .

However, condensing the answer, the Catholic Church does refer to Anglicanism as Protestant. For a full explanation

JonNC:

It seems to me charity demands that people respect what others say about themselves. Many Anglicans would deny they are Protestant, which makes sense since they were not part of the formal protest at Speyer.
Many Catholics do not like the term, “Roman Catholic “, so I choose not to use it, out of respect.

“Roman” Catholic is fine. No problem

The problem enters, when Protestants try and separate Roman Catholic from Catholic, OR they try and sell the “branch theory” as if the Church has 3 branches, Catholic, Orthodox and Anglicanism.

That argument as Newman stated in his famous quote, falls apart when one goes deep in history. They find ONE Church. The Catholic Church.

 

[hope]

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

I didn’t see a list of historians who are unbiased that contradict Catholic Historians. If you are honest, you will admit that there is not such thing as unbiased. Everyone has some bias and that is probably the reason you do not list them.

According to 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

Taken out of context of a very long article. Tradition and Living Magisterium

http://newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

no wonder you didn’t have a link to it.

There is a formula current in Christian teaching (and the formula is borrowed from St. Paul himself) that traditional truth was confided to 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. This formula expresses very well one of the aspects of tradition and one of the principal rôles of the living magisterium. But this idea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments…

Please list the traditions Paul was specifically talking about and we’ll compare. We all know it’s impossible because Paul didn’t list them, anywhere. Catholicism wants to use this one passage as free reign to add, remove, or modify a litany of traditions for centuries.

So your questions is really rhetorical?
These tract correct your misinformation

Oral Tradition and the New Testement

Call No Man Father

Vain Repetition

 

[Gingersnaps4]

You have swallowed every bit of anti-catholic tripe out there! The rosary isn’t vain repitition, you meditate on the mysteries of Christ’s life while praying.

As for oral tradition and St. Paul…the point of an oral tradition is that it is NOT written. So of course you won’t find writings on the oral traditions lol. …did you happen to know that Levetical Judaism had oral tradition as well, and during Jesus’s time? Since God the Father found oral tradition acceptable then of course The Apostles wouldn’t blink twice at the notion of maintaining an oral tradition. Actually all Abrahamic religions with ancient roots- Judaism, Christianity (Catholicism/Orthodox) and Islam- have oral tradition. Protestantism is the only branch of any ancient religion thats truncated itself by cutting itself off from this.

 

[hope]

The traditional teaching that Mary was sinless. Did the 1st century Christians think Mary was sinless, or Holy, or ascended to Heaven? The answer is no. These are things Catholicism introduced 100’s and some almost 1800 years after Paul died.If Mary was born sinless, lived a sinless life, and ascended to Heaven, she would need no Savior. Mary was blessed because she was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus. Blessed is a whole different platform from Holy.

Please document where the 1st century Christians denied that Mary was sinless, or Holy, or ascended to Heaven.

What is your definiton of Holy?

HOLINESS

Definition

In the Old Testament the Hebrew Kadosch (holy) meant being separated from the secular or profane, or dedication to God’s service, as Israel was said to be holy because it was the people of God. The holiness of God identified his separation from all evil. And among creatures they are holy by their relation to him. Holiness in creatures is either subjective or objective or both. It is subjective essentially by the possession of divine grace and morally by the practice of virtue. Objective holiness in creatures denotes their exclusive consecration to the service of God: priests by their ordination, religious by their vows, sacred places, vessels, and vestments by the blessing they receive and the sacred purpose for which they are reserved.

When you are saying Mary was not Holy you go against what Scripture says of her. A simpler definition is belonging to God. Mary did the will of God. She faced death to say yes to God. She belonged to God.

 

[hope]

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one Why didn’t Paul say, all have sinned except Mary or nobody is righteous besides Mary? The answer is Paul understood the truth that Jesus himself was the only person who ever lived a sinless life. That’s the end of the story. To claim that Mary, or anyone else, was sinless is blasphemy

Why didn’t he mention Jesus as an exception or babies or mentally handicapped? So clearly he didn’t mean all have sinned literally. There are exceptions as noted in this sermon.

the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? “then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts – some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile … C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

I’m aware Catholicism says there’s a t and T in traditions. It’s all semantics.

You are aware but do you know the difference? Obviously it doesn’t matter to you to tell the truth. We all have traditions. When we celebrate the birth of Jesus, that Mary rode on a donkey, that Veronica wiped the face of Jesus, when we stand for the bride, when Amen is said for something for which we agree. Stating that when we say Sacred Tradition it mean the same as these traditions amd others is offensive and dismissive and a false statement.

 

[hope]

The Bible itself shows oral tradition.

He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”

Also
Paul quotes Jesus as saying that it is better to give than Receive.

 

[ReadTheBible]

From your source:

" Catholics need not be shy about this issue. The Protestant reformers taught that sola scriptura — Scripture alone — is our authority in matters of faith and morals. But this doctrine is unbiblical. The Catholic Church teaches that Christian doctrine is sola Verbum Dei — from the Word of God alone — and this is what the Bible actually says about itself. The teaching of the Bible and of the Church is that God’s Word comes to us both through the writings of the prophets and apostles and through the oral Traditions that they handed on, and these are preserved by the Church through the leading of the Holy Spirit. The burden of proof is on any Christian who believes otherwise."

Proof is the fact Catholicism has added to, modified, or removed traditions for 100’s and 100’s of years.

Taken out of context of a very long article. Tradition and Living Magisterium

I didn’t take anything out of context and if you would like a link provided every single time a source is sited I can oblige.

Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee.

Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death
Amen.

You agree this is a prayer to Mary yet according to scripture Mary is dead in in her tomb the same as David and all others. See Acts 2:29-34. Peter is saying this. David, the only man in recorded history that it was said was after God’s own heart is still in his grave. When you pray to Mary your prayers are to someone dead who by all accounts believed on Jesus but considered herself a handmaiden, not Mother of God as the title has been bestowed.

Of course the Jews had many traditions to which Jesus chastised them for. They followed all of their traditions in vain and believed not on Jesus.

When you are saying Mary was not Holy you go against what Scripture says of her

There are actually two types of Holiness described in the Bible. One holiness is a person in the Old Testament who did God’s will and followed the laws of Moses. That same type of holiness is applied to any true Christian as described in the New Testament. The 2nd type of Holy described in the Bible is reserved for God himself. This is indeed the Holy that is given to Mary in titles because Catholicism claims she was as Jesus himself, sinless.

Stating that when we say Sacred Tradition it mean the same as these traditions amd others is offensive and dismissive and a false statement.

I agree we all have traditions but I stated they are fine so long as they do not contradict scripture.

As for oral tradition and St. Paul…the point of an oral tradition is that it is NOT written. So of course you won’t find writings on the oral traditions lol.

Don’t you find this awfully convenient for the church since they can claim any tradition they make up 100s’ or a 1000 years after the fact, and say it was simply oral from the beginning and never written down?