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.
MarysLurker said:
in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together.
Click to expand...
I read that they said certain prayers of the Liturgy together but not the Eucharistic prayers. Please give a citation from the Orthodox (not a Roman Catholic) which says that they concelebrated the Eucharistic prayers together.
 
I don’t espouse to double predestination. But even though people are responsible for rejecting God and going to Hell, it still begs the question, why would God create human beings who He knows would choose to reject Him, knowing they are going to end up in Hell? Isn’t that just as troubling as embracing the school that God only predestined “some” to salvation, knowing that He created human beings knowing the ones He did not predestine are going to Hell? Either way, God created human beings knowing from eternity past that many will end up in Hell. Even if it is their responsibility, God knew they were going to reject Him, but He created them anyways. Just trying to reconcile this in my mind.
 
Last edited:
  1. First problem: it is agenda driven. Read 2 Peter 3:16.
  2. Next, what is the authority of the one who purports to know the mind of Saint Paul?
  3. From whence did his authority come?
  4. From whence did his ability to know the mind of Saint Paul come?
  5. Nowhere in scripture is “scripture” defined.
  6. Nowhere in scripture is the “Divine Table of Contents” specified.
  7. Nowhere did Christ specify scripture as the means for perpetuating the faith.
I know that so-called bible Christianity does not hang on a single verse - but neither can it hang on the totality of scripture.
 
Last edited:
One might look to the 12th century Cathars and their teachings to help answer this; the Church branded them as heretics- but in the same breath said they said the Cathars weren’t Christian at all! Nevertheless, some of the ideas and teachings of the Cathars were later absorbed into the Church as well as adopted by many of the Protestant sects during the Reformation. Fascinating reading- and a bit of a detective story trying to piece it all together. All sorts of thoughts and agendas were in play over the centuries- some good and some … not so good.
 
Last edited:
I believe you’re in error here. For example, the Dominicans were not based on Cathars. Transubstantiation was not a Cathar belief which ‘became’ a Catholic one. Celibacy was not something that Catholics ‘took from’ Cathars.

Etc. etc.
 
No, the Dominicans were not a copy of the Cathars, but the Order was created to provide a Church alternative to Catharism. St Dominic saw first-hand the strengths of Cathar belief and practice and used their example in the formation of the Dominican Order, based largely on the more ascetic practices of Cathars. The first Dominican house (founded in 1206) was a convent for converted Cathar and wavering Albigensian women, making the Sisters an older branch than the Brothers.

As for transubstantiation, that was NEVER a practice of the Cathars- in fact they ridiculed the Church for believing in such a thing.

Celibacy was not a thing for the rank-and-file Cathar (they were all about all forms of recreational sex), but it was usually adopted by the Parfaits (the ‘Perfects’) who took the highest and strictest order of vows.

Catholic Inheritance from the Cathars

Mind, none of this intended to be a ‘they were right and the Church is wrong’ argument but it does illustrate that, despite the claims of heresy against the Cathars, they still had a substantial- and positive- influence on Church history.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top