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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And maybe then I could stop having to explain where the number probably came from.

Been doing it for years.

The group that issues, and regularly updates these figures, uses, for their own obscure reasons,a markedly idiosyncratic definition of “denomination”:

“Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a 'denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.”

This was current as of some years back.

I’ll probably be doing this some years in the future.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
MarysLurker said:
But all of them, including the Lord Himself, extensively quoted, cited and referenced the deuterocanon.
Click to expand...
So, since Jesus quoted from books not found in the deuterocanon, nor in the “Protestant Old Testament,” should books like 1 Enoch belong in the Bible, since St. Jude quoted it & referred to it as a “prophecy”? Is simply quoting, citing, & referencing a particular writing qualify is as being part of the Old Testament? Just asking. 😀
 
RaisedCatholic said:
Is simply quoting, citing, & referencing a particular writing qualify is as being part of the Old Testament
Click to expand...
Yes, according to the Protestant argument that Scripture alone is sufficient rule of faith. Then you have to prove what is Scripture from Scripture alone. As you can see, that doesn’t work. The canon of the Bible comes from Sacred Tradition.
 
Yeah, I read somewhere that the late St. Pope John Paul II and the Patriarch of Constantinople recited the Nicene Creed together years ago, but they both omitted the filioque. Why would PPJ2 agree to that, since that was one of the main points of the schism?

So, why would they change it to begin with? Wasn’t St. Peter & the other disciples married? Just curious.

Didn’t the two churches excommunicate each other, in similar fashion when the Pope excommunicated Martin Luther? If so, why do refer to them as “brothers” (ie: Eastern Orthodox) & not heretics, like Luther?
 
MarysLurker said:
Yes, according to the Protestant argument that Scripture alone is sufficient rule of faith. Then you have to prove what is Scripture from Scripture alone. As you can see, that doesn’t work. The canon of the Bible comes from Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
What sacred tradition decided what books belonged in the Old Testament canon? Didn’t Jesus hold the Jews accountable for knowing what they were? Did the Jews believe the deuterocanon was inspired, like they did with the books that virtually all Christian groups agree on? Just wondering.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
Why would PPJ2 agree to that, since that was one of the main points of the schism?
Click to expand...
He didn’t say “From the Father only.”

The Schism was basically 99% political (stuff like the Holy Roman Empire and Crusader States being established and the Venetians going rogue and betraying the Byzantines in the Fourth Crusade). The order of procession within the Trinity wasn’t the real issue, but rather, the authority of the Pope to insert the Filoque into the Nicene Creed.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
What sacred tradition decided what books belonged in the Old Testament canon?
Click to expand...
Same as the New.

Did you know that Protestants from the start of the Reformation use the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (and its canon)… which wasn’t completed until 700 AD at the earliest?

Yes, I said 700 ANNO DOMINI.
 
MarysLurker said:
The order of procession within the Trinity wasn’t the real issue, but rather, the authority of the Pope to insert the Filoque into the Nicene Creed.
Click to expand...
I’m familiar with Papal Infallibility that was “officially” recognized in the late 1800’s. So, does this mean when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he can decide for himself if the Filioque can be included or not in the Nicene Creed, like PPJ2 excluded it in the Pallium Mass & when the Pope you talked about “inserted” it, when it wasn’t originally in the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople? Is this the reason for the schism between the East & the West? The fact that the Pope who “inserted” it sort-of “overridden” an ecumenical council? Sorry, my Patristics & church history is a little rusty. 🧐
 
Last edited:
MarysLurker said:
Did you know that Protestants from the start of the Reformation use the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (and its canon)… which wasn’t completed until 700 AD at the earliest?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m aware of that. But did the Jews in Jesus’ day believe the deuterocanon was part of the Old Testament canon? Did any Jew believe it? If not, maybe that’s why Protestants removed them?
 
Thanks for the explanation. But didn’t Vatican II change Protestants from “heretics” (particularly those who are Lutherans, & others who espouse to sola scriptura) to “separated brethren”? Just out of curiosity, how does one go from a heretic to a separated brethren whose beliefs don’t change?
 
Last edited:
I know King Henry “the womanizer” 😂 was originally given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope. But later, didn’t the Pope excommunicate him? Wouldn’t this make him a heretic like Luther, who was also brought up in the Catholic Church? Didn’t Luther earn his doctorate before espousing to sola scriptura & getting excommunicated as a heretic? Doesn’t excommunication make them both heretics?
 
So, would a material heretic fall under invincible ignorance? So, they aren’t really a heretic then. As far as most Protestants, from what I’ve seen, they might be indoctrinated, but many of them are well aware of Catholic beliefs, especially those who convert from Catholicism to Protestantism. Since most seem to be formal heretics, why are Protestants - as a whole - referred to as “separated brethren” since Vatican II?
 
So, there’s a difference between a heretic & an apostate? Can you elaborate on this? From what I’ve read in the Bible, “brethren” are fellow believers in Christ & the Church. The term “separated brethren” almost sounds like an oxymoron. LOL!
 
Last edited:
Just so I get all the terminology straight:

An apostate is someone who defects to a false religion, like Islam.

A formal heretic is someone who willfully defects to a different Christian “denomination” (for lack of a better term), like Lutheranism.

A material heretic is someone who is either brought up in different Christian denomination but doesn’t know any better, or left Catholicism for another denomination without really understanding the fundamentals of Catholicism.

A separated brethren can fall under the umbrella of both formal & material heretics.

So, based on all this terminology (which can get confusing!), an apostate is not a heretic because they defaulted to another religion, and therefore cannot be saved if they die in unbelief. A material heretic is a separated brethren who “can” be saved due to their invincible ignorance. Likewise, a formal heretic is also a separated brethren, but “can’t” be saved because their “separation” was willingly.

Let me know if I got this straight. Still having trouble with applying the whole “separated brethren” Vatican II thing to those who willingly leave for a different denomination. I would think they would still be heretics.
 
So, then should we not evangelize to those from different religions who never heard about Christ (or, say, an aborigines who would never have a chance of rejecting the gospel if they were never approached)? Wouldn’t that ruin their invincible ignorance of getting saved, if they heard the gospel & rejected it after hearing it?
 
I was referring more to people who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith - meaning, they never even heard of Christ, like someone in a remote jungle village or island. If we sent missionaries there & they rejected Christ, they just lost their salvation, because they are no longer invincibly ignorant. Didn’t we just do them a great disservice?
 
But in order to repent, doesn’t one have to be aware of what they need to repent about? Didn’t St. Paul say that the reason he knew about his sin was “because” of the Law? Also, didn’t St. Paul state that knowledge of the natural law is what condemns one to death? I don’t think he’s saying that knowledge of the natural law can save a person, but rather it condemns them. So, how can anyone be invincibly ignorant & be saved, if the natural law condemns him?
 
I’m confused. Doesn’t Canon Law (or maybe it’s the Catechism) teach once a person dies, their eternal fate is sealed? If a person dies in unbelief, they are condemned to Hell, while a dead believer first goes to Purgatory, then later Heaven. That seems to conflict with St. John the Baptist dying & “witnessing” to those in Sheol & “possibly” some of them repenting. From what I remember from my catechism, once a person dies their eternal fate is sealed.

And all those who died before Christ were looking for the Messiah, just like those who died after the cross. That seems to be St. Paul’s meaning of Abraham being “credited righteousness.” Abraham didn’t even have the Law, let alone personally saw Christ. So, I don’t think it was a matter of St. John the Baptist witnessing to him in Sheol. It seems Abraham’s faith was credited to him, based on his faith?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top