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

[hope]

It might be fine for you but I appreciate JonNC not using it. I am Catholic of the Latin rite. I am not a Roman Catholic. I do try to use what others wish to be referred. I really don’t use protestant as I find it really has no meaning. I prefer individual faith designations.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

The Hail Mary prayer is taken directly from scripture, jsyk. The angel Gabriel greeted Mary by saying “Hail, Full of Grace” and other parts of the prayer are from the book of Luke, as well. You should really try to look at scripture in a Tyndale Bible…the first modern English bible translated directly from the original Greek and Hebrew. Stop reading your modern Protestant copy that’s been revised and changed 1,000,000 times to suit your beliefs. The first reformers used bibles pretty much if not absolutely identical to this, coincidentally, and they also believed Mary should be venerated and believed in the Real Presence etc. your bible you are using right now has jumped the tracks I’m afraid and hardly resembles what was written by the prophets and apostles…

 

[steve-b]

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.”

That is NOT meant to absolutize one’s state of being. People are expected to learn.

In sequence

1964 we havwe
Unitatis Redintegratio

Then 29 yrs later

1993 we have the application
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

Since you give the 1st in your response, please read the 2nd, the application of UR. Then let’s talk

BTW, “ecclesial communities” would be Protestants for example

 

[hope]

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

Proof is the fact but you don’t verify that fact. I am still waiting for the list of unbiased historians or do you wish to retract that unsubstantiated statement.

You agree this is a prayer to Mary yet according to scripture Mary is dead in in her tomb

Chapter and verse? Acts 2:29-34 does not mention Mary. Luke 20:38 Mark 12:27 God is not God of the Dead but the living
Deuteronomy Chapter 34

5 So Moses the servant of Jehovah died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of Jehovah.
Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Is Moses dead?

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?

Nothing was “made up” as was pointed out oral tradition is demonstrate by Scripture and that before Scripture was written down it was an oral Tradition.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Χαῖρε for Hail & κεχαριτωμένη for highly favored or full of grace in Greek doesn’t change what I said. Why wouldn’t Gabriel say these things to Mary? She was to be blessed because God had chosen her as the woman to deliver the Messiah. Gabriel didn’t say Hail Mary the sinless one, you shall deliver the Messiah and ascend to Heaven for you are the Mother of God, Holy, and perfect.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Your theological notions are only 400 years old, at best. The original reformers didn’t share your views and neither does any branch of ancient Christiandom. You should ponder why your branch of Christiandom is so far off from the others. I say this as a former Protestant.

 

[hope]

Neither did he say Mary full of sin. Notice also that he never addresses Mary by name but uses the salutation Hail highly favored or full of grace. Hail was used as respect it wasn’t just a greeting.

 

[JonNC]

“Roman” Catholic is fine. No problem

You don’t speak for all Catholics. Many Catholics disagree.

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.

Yeah, I’m not proposing a branch theory. I propose there is one Church, currently divided due to human sin.
Catholics in communion with the pope are Catholic Christians. Not all Catholic Christians, however, are in communion with the pope.

 

[TULIPed]

People are expected to learn.

We’re talking about beliefs here Steve - not algebra. The whole point of UR is that entire communities have been raised from birth believing something - they, we - believe it to our core. Just like you believe what you believe to your core. I’ll give you an example that I’ve given before:

I went to a men’s Bible study with a good Catholic friend a few years back. I was really excited to go with him and learn about Christ together with him and other Catholic brothers. We got there, had some fellowship, and at the beginning of the Bible study, somebody opened with prayer. He started, “Dear heavenly Mother…” And continued with a very nice intercessory prayer to Mary.

Now I know it was intercessory. I get that he wasn’t praying to Mary as a “god”. I understand that because I’ve learned about it. That didn’t prevent me - and I mean every fiber of my being - from wanting to get up and run as fast as I could out of the building. It was a very visceral reaction, because of what I believe. It doesn’t mean I think you’re necessarily wrong - it just means that no matter how much I “learn” it - I can’t believe it or participate in it. It is entirely foreign to me.

You’ve learned about Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and a whole bunch of other reformer/heretic/schismatics, etc. etc. Would you change your beliefs just because you learned about them? My guess is you would not - ever. You are convicted in your faith. As are they. Which is the whole point of the statement in UR.

So - is your point that the 1993 piece abrogates UR? Just point me to the right spots please. Thx.

 

[steve-b]

Jon,

That idea ignores the massive separation that exists among the separated from the apostolic faith, but as you point out, it is an idea in vogue among the separated… What comes to mind, are the terms indifferentism / relativism / latitudinarianism

JonNC:

No, it doesn’t. It recognizes the existence of one True Church while recognizing the sinful differences between its members-all of them. No triumphalism involved.

and scripture condemns what you say the sinful did, when they went into heresies, schisms, and divisions of all kinds from the One True Church…

JonNC:

No indifferentism because it is **not a statement that claims this is an okay situation, nor dies it claim all views are valid.**

Wait a minute. Do I have this right? Correct me if I’m wrong. You admit you’re not in an ok situation where you are. Nor do you claim your views are valid. So I have to ask. Why do you stay where you are?

 

[ReadTheBible]

The angel is meeting the woman who is to give birth to the Messiah. Nothing about his choice of words is shocking.

Your theological notions are only 400 years old, at best. The original reformers didn’t share your views and neither does any branch of ancient Christiandom. You should ponder why your branch of Christiandom is so far off from the others. I say this as a former Protestant.

I have yet to state something I believe that is in contrast to scripture so my belief goes back to Christ who is the entire basis for my belief.

The 2nd Vatican Council indicates 3 criteria for interpreting scripture.

Note: I will paraphrase as the council gives the criteria than expounds on each one.

1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture
2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith

Point number 2 is what invalidates the Church’s interpretation. It is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matthew 15: 1-6. Point 2 is the exact thing Jesus is talking about. Jesus uses the word of God to show their traditions are in contrast to scripture. You can’t make the word of God fit into man’s traditions. Whatever tradition you hold to it must be in line with scripture.

When Paul went into Berea in Acts 17, I see very clearly oral teaching (tradition) vs scripture.

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Paul preached orally to those in Berea things that hadn’t been recorded as of yet concerning Jesus. They received the oral teachings eagerly or readiness of mind. Then what did the people do? They searched scripture to see if what they were being told matched the Old Testament.

This is a clear case showing the word of God is what any tradition, teaching, or otherwise is to be tested on.

 

[JonNC]

Χαῖρε for Hail & κεχαριτωμένη for highly favored or full of grace in Greek doesn’t change what I said. Why wouldn’t Gabriel say these things to Mary? She was to be blessed because God had chosen her as the woman to deliver the Messiah. Gabriel didn’t say Hail Mary the sinless one, you shall deliver the Messiah and ascend to Heaven for you are the Mother of God, Holy, and perfect.

Here is a “Protestant “ view:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person."

And

he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child… Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God… None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

-Martin Luther

 

[ReadTheBible]

I’m not a Lutheran.

 

[JonNC]

and scripture condemns what you say the sinful did, when they went into heresies, schisms, and divisions of all kinds from the One True Church…

And the Catholic Catechism rightly points out there was blame on both sides.

Wait a minute. Do I have this right? Correct me if I’m wrong. You admit you’re not in an ok situation where you are. Nor do you claim your views are valid. So I have to ask. Why do you stay where you are?

Indeed, I’m not, and neither are you, nor any other Christian. Christ’s call is for us to be one. We are not one. His Church is one - the Church Triumphant, the Church Militant, and if you wish, the Church Suffering.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

People are expected to learn.

We’re talking about beliefs here Steve - not algebra.

I’m using Peter’s points when he said we have to continually add 7 points to our faith without stopping

What is the 2nd item to add? knowledge.

TULIPed:

The whole point of UR is that entire communities have been raised from birth believing something - they, we - believe it to our core. Just like you believe what you believe to your core. I’ll give you an example that I’ve given before:

I went to a men’s Bible study with a good Catholic friend a few years back. I was really excited to go with him and learn about Christ together with him and other Catholic brothers. We got there, had some fellowship, and at the beginning of the Bible study, somebody opened with prayer. He started, “Dear heavenly Mother…” And continued with a very nice intercessory prayer to Mary.

Now I know it was intercessory. I get that he wasn’t praying to Mary as a “god”. I understand that because I’ve learned about it. That didn’t prevent me - and I mean every fiber of my being - from wanting to get up and run as fast as I could out of the building. It was a very visceral reaction, because of what I believe. It doesn’t mean I think you’re necessarily wrong - it just means that no matter how much I “learn” it - I can’t believe it or participate in it. It is entirely foreign to me.

You explain perfectly an example I likewise have posted many times before.

These guys “called disciples” not the 12, were following Jesus… i.e. that’s why they’re called disciples. AND They’ve seen His miracles. …YET

before Jesus gives these guys the bread of life discourse, He knows in advance, they don’t have the faith necessary to believe WHAT HE IS GOING TO TEACH THEM and they would leave Him…

Note: The instruction had a do this or else command to it. Jesus didn’t soften the message knowing His audience was not able to give their whole being over to Jesus. And when they left, He didn’t go after them. He didn’t try to give it any more tries. They made their choice…right?

TULIPed:

You’ve learned about Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and a whole bunch of other reformer/heretic/schismatics, etc. etc. Would you change your beliefs just because you learned about them? My guess is you would not - ever. You are convicted in your faith. As are they. Which is the whole point of the statement in UR.

So - is your point that the 1993 piece abrogates UR? Just point me to the right spots please. Thx.

It’s the application of UR
And
ok, as far as starting point

May I suggest, to start reading in paragraph 9 and following

Then let’s talk

 

[JonNC]

I’m not a Lutheran.

I didn’t say Lutheran. I said “Protestant “.
You keep referring to some of these things as Catholic, but they are Protestant, too

 

[TULIPed]

And when they left, He didn’t go after them. He didn’t try to give it any more tries. They made their choice…right?

That we know of. I seem to remember a parable of the Good Shepherd leaving the 99 for the 1, lost coins, prodigal sons, etc. etc. But I digress.

May I suggest, to start reading in paragraph 9 and following

Ok - I read it - up until about para 19 when it goes into instructions for Catholics on how to express ecumenism. I didn’t see anything that superseded UR. I did see a number of restatements of the key points in UR, and that part of the burden of establishing unity is on Catholics. Having said that, I’m not an expert, and I am probably misinterpreting what I’m reading.

Look - I’m not saying that UR gives we heretics ultimate absolution. I’m pretty sure though that the way I read it, we can know and love Christ too. Can we not?

 

[steve-b]

and scripture condemns what you say the sinful did, when they went into heresies, schisms, and divisions of all kinds from the One True Church…

JonNC:

And the Catholic Catechism rightly points out there was blame on both sides.

Did the CCC say all is forgiven as a result? Nope
Did it say THEY who left are ok? Nope

Wait a minute. Do I have this right? Correct me if I’m wrong. You admit you’re not in an ok situation where you are. Nor do you claim your views are valid. So I have to ask. Why do you stay where you are?

JonNC:

Indeed, I’m not, and neither are you, nor any other Christian. Christ’s call is for us to be one. We are not one. His Church is one - the Church Triumphant, the Church Militant, and if you wish, the Church Suffering.

That’s true. But those outside the Church are NOT the Church.

From LG, Vat II paragraph 14

"14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Whosoever…Refuse to enter it or remain in it …could not be saved.

 

[hope]

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words

In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.

But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it

Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover

Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation

Be attentive to the analogy of faith.

of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

You tend to twist our beliefs in order to promote your anti-Catholicism. It is your misrepresentations that are at fault and in my opinion violates the do not bear false witness commandment

If you believed Jesus you would believe that He gave the keys to Peter. Part of your problem is that you don’t follow the above in reading Scripture. You also fail to understand that the Church did not come out of Scripture but that Scripture came out of the Church. The Church existed before the New Testament was written. It was the Catholic Church that decided the Canon. Scripture was written for and by Catholics. I am still waiting for those historians that have a different history that are non-bias. Are you sure that you just didn’t make a mistake when you wrote that?

 

[TULIPed]

Note the first sentence Steve. You’re a context guy. That paragraph is directed towards the Catholic faithful.