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

[RaisedCatholic]

Most, if not all, Calvinists I’ve talked to would completely reject this as well. Scripture does say that God receives glory from condemnation, just as He does from salvation. But that is not the same thing as God gets some sort of “thrill” out of it. It simply means based on God’s eternal sovereign will, He predestined His elect to salvation, despite even them being deserving of Hell. Those who are not His elect (ie: the wicked) simply go to where they deserve for rejecting Him. I don’t know if fallible human beings like us will ever be able to reconcile God’s eternal sovereign will with human responsibility.

Again, a genuine Calvinist would never espouse to that either. No such thing as “double predestination.” It’s a misuse of the term.

But the natural law would still convict him & condemn him, because it gives evidence of God’s existence despite God & religion being “erased” from Orwellian civilization. No conviction is possible for the unborn infant, because the natural law cannot convict a mind that is incapable of perceiving.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Since there isn’t a specific age range of “accountability” in the Bible (such as “8” = “everyone” is accountable after this), God would hold the child accountable based on whatever age that is when the individual child reaches it. For some, it might be six, for another, maybe not be til 10 or older. This would be true regardless of the religion of their parents. Why would an unborn baby who dies in the womb whose parents are Hindu risk ending up in Hell (or Limbo), while an unborn baby who dies go to Heaven whose parents are Christian? If we can’t ride into Heaven on our parents’ shirt-tales as teenagers or adults, why would it be any different in the womb?

I was always under the understanding that when a child reaches the age of 12 they are accountable, which is why we have our Confirmation. Perhaps I am mistaken. It’s been quite a “few years” since then.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Again, the natural world he observes testifies there IS a God. So, he would still be responsible for accepting or rejecting God, unless he was severely mentally impaired, like someone who has the mind of a very small child, like someone who is severely or profoundly mentally retarded. They would be no different than an infant, or even a toddler.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Just to clarify, by “Limbo” I’m referring specifically to “infant limbo,” not what some Catholics in antiquity sometimes referred to as “adult limbo” where the Old Testament saints went when they died, which was simply Sheol/Hades which is just he place of the dead. So, infant limbo, not adult limbo of Virgil is what I’m referring to.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I understand the conundrum. It basically falls on the premise that it’s somehow “unfair” that God would create human beings knowing they are unable to accept God, because the gospel was never shared with them. But just because someone is shared the gospel, that doesn’t mean they will accept it, regardless if you give them an exhaustive amount of evidence from apologetics, science, archaeology, logic, etc. There are still people who are going to reject the gospel, because it’s an “evidence issue,” it’s a spiritual issue. So, an Orwellian would still reject the gospel given these evidences, because they are not part of God’s elect - whether they lived in an Orwellian society or ours. Remember, Jesus said the gate is NARROW (not wide) that leads to Heaven (Matthew 7:13-14), and it’s not because of a lack of evidence. This is, basically, what Calvinists believe.

The “unfairness” still has to consider that God creates people who He knows is going to end up in Hell. It’s not that it’s “unfair,” since ALL sinners deserve Hell. It’s that it’s part of God’s eternal sovereign will, which we simply can’t comprehend God’s infinite mind with our finite minds. I am happy to concede that God can resolve dilemmas like that that I can’t.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Here is the problem with Infant Limbo played out:

If baptism is necessary for salvation, and there is no Limbo, ALL unbaptized babies (even in the womb) who die end up in Hell.

If baptism is necessary for salvation, and there IS a Limbo, then NO unbaptized babies (even in the womb) who die end up in Limbo, even though Jesus said there are only TWO eternal destinies (Matthew 7:13-14), not THREE.

Maybe this is why Limbo is just a “theory.” But even if just a theory, it allows for the real possibility that ALL babies who die end up in Hell, “if” Limbo doesn’t exist.

 

[William_Scott]

[Continued from posts above–Augustinian Tradition]

The following is not intended as an explicit “double predestination” passage, but provides an interesting breakdown of God’s eternal two-fold decree of election/reprobation.

Peter Lombard:

‘Predestination is the preparation of grace, or that divine election by which God has chosen those whom He willed before the foundation of the world, as saith the Apostle. Reprobation e converse is the foreknowledge of wickedness and preparation of its punishment. And as the effect of Predestination is grace, so the effect of reprobation is obduration; produced, as Augustine saith, not by the imparting of wickedness, but by the non-imparting of grace. For God must not, as Augustine proceeds to say, be understood to harden in the sense of compelling to sin, but only in the sense of not extending the mercy of justification to certain persons. And He withholds His mercy from those from whom He does withhold it, according to a certain occult justice, infinitely removed from all human cognizance, which the Apostle admires, but reveals not, when he says, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God f” &c. Of that obduration indeed which is the effect of Eternal reprobation, there is desert; but of that Eternal reprobation itself there is not desert. Predestination and grace are not according to desert; and that reprobation, whereby God from all eternity foresaw the future wicked and heirs of damnation, is without desert. Jacob was elected and Esau reprobated, neither on account of any deserts which they then had, because they had none, inasmuch as they were not yet born; nor on account of any future ones which were foreseen. God hath elected those whom He willed, according to his free mercy, and He hath reprobated those whom He willed, not on account of any future merits foreseen by Him, but according to a most absolute truth, removed from our cognizance. Not, however, that we are to suppose that reprobation is the cause of evil in the same sense in which predestination is the cause of good.’
(Lombard. Libri Seutentiarum, i. Distinct, xl. xli)

There are numerous examples of the two-fold predestination (election/reprobation) taught by saints and theologians of the Pre-Reformation Church (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Anselm, Gregory of Rimini, Thomas Bradwardine, etc.), but I’ll have to stop here for the moment. Last but not least, a quick post-reformation example of the Augustinian Tradition’s teaching of election/reprobation – The Calvinist Westminster Confession (Chp. 3)

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto…

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

I’m out of here for a while. As always, have a great week (or month) everyone.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It is primarily lurkers,folks with questions and apologists.

I’m in the wrong place.

Sorry. I failed to mention learned, well read contributors.

 

[MarysLurker]

That is not what the 1054 Vatican bull of excommunication said.

I was giving you the Orthodox perspective.

 

[MarysLurker]

No. God established the Sacraments but is not bound by them. He can give justification and sanctifying grace to whoever He wants.

 

[MarysLurker]

But you still have to face the reality that God does create people knowing the vast majority of them WILL end up in Hell (Matthew 7:13-14). Even if you wish to espouse to the school that only those who are responsible for their “choice” to reject God end up in Hell, God still created them knowing that they would spend eternity burning in Hell, while “He throws on the CD track of Throw Another Log On The fire.”

That is not God’s fault unless you’re saying God made them that way (which would make you a double-predestination + no free will Calvinist, not a Catholic)

 

[MarysLurker]

I guess I’m trying to reconcile St. Paul’s assertion that “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” & St. Peter’s “there is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which you may be saved” with the idea that there are people who “can” be saved even if they never hear the gospel.

You can be saved by Jesus without knowing it. All the Old Testament saints were. To require someone to hear the Gospel and make a personal decision to follow Jesus as an abslute condition for salvation is Pelagianism.

 

[GKMotley]

King Henry “the womanizer” was originally given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope.

A little more history involved in the motivation for Henry’s quest for a decree of nullity. And more history on the Defensor Fidei title. The DF story is more fun. The story of Henry, women, dynastic issues, and such like takes much longer.

 

[GKMotley]

I got the book(s). Henry and the Tudors is a long time hobby of mine. Discussing him and them has been like a long time job on here, for 15 years, more or less.

Henry didn’t have gout. His leg problems were from a horse fall, in 1536. Lifelong suppurating ulcers developed. Starkey, who wrote the BBC series, and a good book on the subject (the king, as subject-HA!), covers it in his SIX WIVES, pp. 614-615. A good book, but Starisbrick’s HENRY VIII is better.

Books are always better for learning history than films/etc.I’ve not seen Six Wives, or The Tudors.

 

[steve-b]

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.

MarysLurker:

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.

I would say

Let them or anyone else, show where Jesus even suggested the apostles or anyone they brought into the faith, were allowed by Jesus, to separate from Peter or those in union with Peter.

That would make nonsense of Jesus prayer which He made crystal clear.

Emphasis mine

John 17:20-23​

20 “I do not pray for these only, (I.E. the apostles with Peter as the leader) but also for those who believe in me through their word, ( I.E. all of us in His Church) 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

That’s not a squishy oneness. THAT strains credibility. perfectly one is the plan He established, on Peter and those who are in communion with Peter

Historically, The apostles already had an argument over who is greatest among THEM. Jesus settled their argument

ἡγούμενος the one who leads/rules, Lk 22:26 look at the definition of that Greek word.

Jesus is talking about Peter. From a previous post on Lk 22

AND

Who got them in the argument in the first place? Jesus said it was SATAN

 

[steve-b]

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?

excerpt

From:Who May Receive Communion—and Why | Catholic Answers

Canon 844

"Section 3 deals mainly with Eastern Orthodox who want to receive sacraments at a Catholic parish. It says that Catholic ministers may give penance, anointing of the sick, or the Eucharist “to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.” (“Oriental churches” is the term used to signify the Eastern Orthodox churches. The term “Eastern Orthodox” is not used in canon law, though we use it in everyday parlance.)

The provisions of section 3 apply to other churches that the Vatican may determine to have valid sacraments—perhaps one of the offshoots of the nineteenth-century Old Catholic movement, for instance, though many of those churches seem to have jettisoned apostolic succession, some of them even having become New Age churches that may retain the word sacrament but none of its real meaning.

Non-Catholics who qualify under section 3 must “ask on their own for the sacraments”—this means there can be no general invitation to them—and they must be “properly disposed,” which means in the state of grace. "

(proper disposition (state of grace), as in, not in mortal sin) which is what I meant by Orthodox need to follow the rules just as Catholics do.

 

[MarysLurker]

That would make nonsense of Jesus prayer which He made crystal clear.

I think the inability of the Orthodox to substantially unite since the Schism speaks for itself, but let’s not pretend that the Catholic side was without fault. There was a lot of corruption in the West, largely caused by the Italian city states who were profiting at the expense of the Byzantine Empire. Venice was so corrupt that they betrayed the Pope and the Byzantines and sacked Constantinople. Florence basically owned the Papacy. I could go on and on.

Pope Francis is definitely right about triumphalism being useless. But with that said, I used to be you. When I became a Catholic I felt the same way about the Church as you do. Then I saw the lived reality of the Church. Unless you’re the Panagia, you’re a sinner. I know I am. The Lord said what he said about unity but also about throwing stones.

 

[steve-b]

That would make nonsense of Jesus prayer which He made crystal clear.

MarysLurker:

I think the inability of the Orthodox to substantially unite since the Schism speaks for itself, but let’s not pretend that the Catholic side was without fault. There was a lot of corruption in the West, largely caused by the Italian city states who were profiting at the expense of the Byzantine Empire. Venice was so corrupt that they betrayed the Pope and the Byzantines and sacked Constantinople. Florence basically owned the Papacy. I could go on and on.

For some history

22 yrs before the sacking of Constantinople , this massacre occurred in Constantinople http://archive.li/81CV

in extension,

it is estimated that up to 60,000 Latins lived in Constantinople.[1] in 1182
Footnote 1: The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages: 950-1250. Cambridge University Press. 1986. pp. 506–508.

I mention this because The numbers mentioned then, in the article I posted, were not bogus or exaggerations .

The Byzantines never talk about THAT event which was in death count 10 times bigger than what happened in 1204 . Instead the Orthodox want to talk about the smaller event, the sacking of Constantinople which didn’t compare Re: death count…

And why was Constantinople sacked? A quid pro quo agreement went sour.

Alexius , the deposed Emperor, struck a deal with the crusaders who were passing Constantinople on their way to Jerusalem to free the city from the Muslims. He offered to pay the crusaders if they returned him to power. Why put a good army to waste… right? So the crusaders in 1204 returned Alexius to power but Alexius didn’t pay them. So they took their pay by sacking Constantinople. BTW, when the pope heard of the event he excommunicated the crusaders.

MarysLurker:

Pope Francis is definitely right about triumphalism being useless.

Triumphalism was directed towards individuals.

 

[steve-b]

As just one example

I think it’s a way to give parents of mentally challenged children, peace of mind that their children who just aren’t understanding simple concepts of faith, and can’t understand because of their intellectual deficit, maybe innocent of their sins they commit…

 

[Isaac14]

Non-Catholics who qualify under section 3 must “ask on their own for the sacraments”—this means there can be no general invitation to them—and they must be “properly disposed,” which means in the state of grace. "

(proper disposition (state of grace), as in, not in mortal sin) which is what I meant by Orthodox need to follow the rules just as Catholics do.

Clarify for me then, this question:
Is it possible for an Orthodox Christian to be properly disposed to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church without having repented of the mortal sin of schism from the Catholic Church? Or is it that we must be properly disposed according to the norms and rules of our own church?