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

[MarysLurker]

Well, since I said “some”, it seems clear I didn’t mean all.

But that’s not all you said. You also said

You are in the world of apologists

It sounds to me that you don’t think much of apologetics—like you consider it an obstacle to dialogue, in other words, let’s just ignore this big gap and focus on what we agree on. Am I wrong?

 

[steve-b]

Steve,

I realize this thread is about Protestants, but since you bring up the Orthodox Church, let’s talk. It amazes me that you refuse to give credit to Orthodoxy’s self-understanding, though as a Catholic triumphalist, I probably shouldn’t expect anything different.

Triumphalism belongs to the one Jesus who established His Church on Peter (the Catholic Church) and those in complete union with Peter. I won’t be in any other Church.

Orthodoxy got its start in a similar fashion as Protestantism did. Rejection of the authority Jesus gave to His Church He builds on Peter and those in union with Peter. They separated as a result

Isaac14:

Your own theologians, meeting in the Catholic/Orthodox theological dialogue, meeting in Chieti Italy agreed that Rome never exercised canonical authority over the East.

I don’t see any reference properly referenced.

schisms heresies, etc from the Catholic Church is a big sin (mortal) not a little sin (venial). Speaking of the Orthodox, now the Russians ~60%+ of Orthodoxy are now in schism with the rest of Orthodoxy.

Isaac14:

You continually assert your point about Orthodoxy being in schism from itself, with the actions of Russia. Yet you refuse to understand how we operate. We are indeed ONE Church, comprised of a number of administratively independent churches. All share the same faith. When jurisdictional issues come up between churches, communion may, for a time, be broken, as Russia has now done with Constantinople.

It’s called schism

Isaac14:

Such a break in communion is in response to questions of jurisdiction, not faith.

rebellion against (jurisdiction / authority) was my point. THAT is how Orthodoxy began. Break with Peter 's successor and those in complete union with Peter’s successor. And NOW we see a further rebellion against jurisdiction and authority with then Constantinople now Istanbul.

This break with Constantinople and he ecumenical patriarch of the Orthodox, was already foreseen in 2002.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Zenit, Kasper, 2002 IOW, it’s about authority issues

Isaac14:

No one believes matters of faith are in question.

Yet

When Paul first mentions faith in Romans, he says “obedience of faith”. HERE

Belief requires action. Otherwise it’s just a said faith which is dead faith

(to continue)

 

[steve-b]

(continued)

While regrettable, this is the primary means by which the Orthodox call each other’s attention to a very serious matter. Indeed, many meetings are being had between primates, bishops, theologians, etc. to work through the issues between Russia, Constantinople, and Ukraine. Sure, it’s frustrating in this modern world where everything happens in an instant at our very fingertips, that we are so slow, but I’ll tell you, I don’t want a hasty response either.

Yep, 900+ yrs of schism ain’t hasty. I’ll give you that. And all those souls that died in schism in that time

Isaac14:

If the schism of the Orthodox is a mortal sin, why are we permitted, according to Canon 844.3 to receive communion from a Catholic priest?

Any Catholic in mortal sin is required to go through absolution 1st before receiving the Eucharist. Otherwise they commit sacrilege.

Orthodox don’t get to side step the rules receiving in the Catholic Church.

To make the point of authority even more specific for THEM, the Orthodox can’t even get together in council as individual Churches with each other , over the last 900+ years. The one PAN Orthodox (as in all the Orthodox) getting together, attempted in 2016, couldn’t happen because the Russians and 2 other churches boycotted.

Isaac14:

You’re forgetting about the pan-Orthodox councils in Constantinople (1341-51), Jassy (1642), Jerusalem (1672), and Constantinople (1872).

This is from your own source. Ecumenical Councils - OrthodoxWiki

" As far as some Orthodox are concerned, since the [Seventh Ecumenical Council] there has been no synod or council of the same scope as any of the Ecumenical councils. Local meetings of hierarchs have been called “pan-Orthodox,” but these have invariably been simply meetings of local hierarchs of whatever Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions are party to a specific local matter. From this point of view, there has been no fully “pan-Orthodox” ( Ecumenical ) council since 787.

Orthodoxy got its start rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, put in place by Jesus. And authority issues remain with them to this day even among themselves individually… as with Protestantism of every stripe

Isaac14:

Again, see the statement by Catholic theologians made at Chieti. The authority you claim we rejected, was never in fact in place even when East and West were in communion.

This is a good place to post references properly referenced.

 

[JonNC]

But that’s not all you said. You also said

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) JonNC:

You are in the world of apologists

Well, this isn’t a theologians forum. It is primarily lurkers,folks with questions and apologists.
Listen, I am basically an apologist. I defend a particular position. That’s what apology means, defense.
But that’s my point, defend your communion’s position. That doesn’t include telling others what they believe. It does include being up to date with your communion’s teaching.
As an example, before Lutherans and Catholics discuss Purgatory, they should read recent dialogue discussions about the topic.

Don’t read anymore into my comment than that.

 

[steve-b]

Isaac14:

Your own theologians, meeting in the Catholic/Orthodox theological dialogue, meeting in Chieti Italy agreed that Rome never exercised canonical authority over the East.

Again, see the statement by Catholic theologians made at Chieti. The authority you claim we rejected, was never in fact in place even when East and West were in communion.

You are in the world of apologists, where what theologians say is ignored if the states do not agree with the pre-conceived polemic.

If one reads the document, it begins with the title

emphasis mine

Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

Chieti, 21 September 2016

It’s a DIALOGUE . That’s it. Like hundreds of others. They have no authority.

Anything change as a result of this dialogue?

then Card Ratzinger addressed this (approved by 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]
The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[JonNC]

Pope Francis on triumphalism.

RORATE CÆLI: Pope Francis: Triumphalist Christians "do not believe in the Risen Lord"

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Isaac14:

Your own theologians, meeting in the Catholic/Orthodox theological dialogue, meeting in Chieti Italy agreed that Rome never exercised canonical authority over the East.

Again, see the statement by Catholic theologians made at Chieti. The authority you claim we rejected, was never in fact in place even when East and West were in communion.

You are in the world of apologists, where what theologians say is ignored if the states do not agree with the pre-conceived polemic.

If one reads the document, it begins with the
is title

emphasis mine

Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

Chieti, 21 September 2016

It’s a DIALOGUE . They have no authority.

Anything change as a result of this dialogue?

Oh, they have far far more authority than you do. Who do you think set it up?

 

[MarysLurker]

this isn’t a theologians forum. It is primarily lurkers,folks with questions and apologists.

What’s the difference between a theologian and an apologist, to you? Mandatum from a Catholic Bishop (probably not)? A degree? If so from where? Or what?

 

[steve-b]

Pope Francis on triumphalism. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/francis-triumphalist-christians-do-not.html?m=1

6 yrs later Pope Palm Sunday: Jesus destroys triumphalism by his Passion - Vatican News

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

Isaac14:

Your own theologians, meeting in the Catholic/Orthodox theological dialogue, meeting in Chieti Italy agreed that Rome never exercised canonical authority over the East.

Again, see the statement by Catholic theologians made at Chieti. The authority you claim we rejected, was never in fact in place even when East and West were in communion.

You are in the world of apologists, where what theologians say is ignored if the states do not agree with the pre-conceived polemic.

If one reads the document, it begins with the
is title

emphasis mine

Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

Chieti, 21 September 2016

It’s a DIALOGUE . They have no authority.

Anything change as a result of this dialogue?

Oh, they have far far more authority than you do. Who do you think set it up?

Look the answer is simple.
It (the dialogue) has NOT been ratified by the Holy See, therefore any idea expressed in the dialogue, won’t become the official Catholic position if/until that happens.

AND

They’ve been dialoguing and throwing ideas around the table for over 900 years. Dialoguing is just that. Dialoguing

 

[MarysLurker]

rebellion against (jurisdiction / authority) was my point. THAT is how Orthodoxy began. Break with Peter 's successor and those in complete union with Peter’s successor.

But the Orthodox bishops have historic claim to and apostolic succession from the earliest sees (other than Rome, duh) of the Apostolic Age. That is what makes the Orthodox categorically different from Protestants. Bishops have ordinary jurisdiction in their respective eparchies/jurisdictions and they are able to pass on their orders (validly but illicitly) even if without Rome’s approval.

For that reason there is no comparison between the Orthodox schism and the Protestant reformation.

 

[JonNC]

Look the answer is simple.
It (the dialogue) has NOT been ratified by the Holy See, therefore any idea expressed in the dialogue, won’t become the official Catholic position if/until that happens.

And Steve, they haven’t included you or me in any of them.

 

[Isaac14]

I don’t see any reference properly referenced.

Sorry. In the future, I’ll try to properly references the references I refer to.

Chieti Statement - see here. Although in subsequent posts you dismiss the casually dismiss the work of the Catholic/Orthodox Joint Commission. But I suppose Pontifical Councils, are of no real importance, so we can ignore their work, right?

It’s called schism

You call it schism. As I said, you don’t seem to want to understand the Orthodox on their own terms. A break in communion such as this is to call attention to a serious issue. A good example of a proper Orthodox schism is the Old Believer communities in Russia - they rejected the authority of the canonical church and have continued to do so until this day.

And all those souls that died in schism in that time

What about those souls?

Any Catholic in mortal sin is required to go through absolution 1st before receiving the Eucharist. Otherwise they commit sacrilege.

Orthodox don’t get to side step the rules receiving in the Catholic Church.

Well, then, what is the point of Canon 844? If it is impossible for an Orthodox Christian to actually receive in accordance with 844, why is it part of your Canon Law?

This is from your own source. Ecumenical Councils - OrthodoxWiki

And if you would have continued reading that source, you would have noted where it says:

Although based strongly on the Ecumenical Councils Orthodox doctrine continues to be defined through the church. These include the mind of the church as expressed through Local Councils and letters or statements of faith put out by individual bishops. Those decisions/statements made in the past that bear particular importance today are:

And it goes on to list synods including what I mentioned in my original post. Although not every church participated, all churches accept the results of those councils.

 

[Isaac14]

They’ve been dialoguing and throwing ideas around the table for over 900 years. Dialoguing is just that. Dialoguing

The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has been meeting since 1980. Interesting your own Pontifical Council called us the “Orthodox Church” - its almost as if your hierarchs think we are one church.

Bishops and theologians from our Churches here in the United States have been meeting and discussing since 1965.

Steve - do you see any benefit to these dialogues?

It (the dialogue) has NOT been ratified by the Holy See, therefore any idea expressed in the dialogue, won’t become the official Catholic position if/until that happens.

Do any of your bishops get a say in this besides the Pope?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I came across a book on Amazon that was recently written by a former Catholic titled, “Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller” (I was actually looking for Gary Michuta’s book, “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger,” but I couldn’t remember the name of it! So I typed in the search engine: Old Testament canon, & it popped up on the second page). The title seems to be a play-on-words on Mr. Michuta’s book. I read the free section Amazon offers online, and it seems that he covers a lot of arguments, including early church fathers including Ignatius of Antioch, early church councils, Jerome & the Vulgate, etc. There seems to be a lot of information about church history in it. Does anyone know anything about the book or its author? I went on Catholic.com, and typed in the title, and all that came up was a brief YouTube video by Trent Horn from a couple of years ago. Do you think “this” is where he (the author) came up with the title? Curious. I wonder if it’s worth reading to get a former Catholic’s perspective of early church history?

 

[MarysLurker]

I wonder if it’s worth reading to get a former Catholic’s perspective of early church history?

He’s not going to be able to explain the gap between Biblical times and his church, or how the whole church got the Biblical canon wrong for 1200-1500 years… so, no, I wouldn’t bother.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Protestantism has a lot of internal problems, and Catholicism definitely is more consistent despite some differences between the various Rites (like the Latin Rite not allowing priests to marry, while the Eastern & some other Rites allowing priests to marry). But according to The National Catholic Register, we really need to stop saying there are “33,000 PROTESTANT denominations,” which I hear a lot from our fellow Catholics. I think it does more harm than good when witnessing to Protestants who are aware of this:

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations| National Catholic Register

 

[MarysLurker]

Orthodox don’t get to side step the rules receiving in the Catholic Church.

The USCCB does not seem to agree with that statement.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm

 

[RaisedCatholic]

He’s not going to be able to explain the gap between Biblical times and his church, or how the whole church got the Biblical canon wrong for 1200-1500 years… so, no, I wouldn’t bother.

I don’t know. The free section on the Kindle only goes part-way through Chapter Two (which covers the Septuagint). I only breezed through Chapter One, and he claims Jesus, St. Paul, and the disciples believed in the Protestant Old Testament canon. So, it doesn’t allow you to read the chapters on the church councils, and the early church fathers, without purchasing the book.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So, does a Catholic Rite “technically” count as a denomination within Catholicism, since they don’t have all the same beliefs, such as whether a priest can marry or not? When do denominations get to be “too many”? Just curious. Still, we should stop saying “33,000 Protestant denominations,” since the article from The National Catholic Register mentions most of these “denominations” are not actually Protestant & the number includes the 270+ Catholic Rites.