T
T_More
Guest
Does anyone know where I can find a detailed timeline chart showing the Protestant Reformation starting in 1511 with Luther until the present day? Thanks!
- Status
J
josephback
Guest
No, but I think you mean 1521, or maybe 1517. Depending on one’s reckoning.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Try Rose Publishing- they do all kinds of Biblical and relgious maps. They’re good as awhole but they are no friends to Catholics.
M
Molotov
Guest
Some set the date of the first protestant reformation a bit earlier: AD 1054.
oodegr.com/english/brit_celt_orthodoxy/eikones/orthodox-christian-timeline.jpg
oodegr.com/english/brit_celt_orthodoxy/eikones/orthodox-christian-timeline.jpg
J
josephback
Guest
That’s harsh. The Orthodox have rejected the Pope as chancellor and are in that sense “Protestant”, but they haven’t revised the faith to their liking quite so much as the other Protestants. If they err in anything it is because they are adrift from Peter the rock, but let’s be more charitable toward our Orthodox brethren. Let us hope they (and the western Protestants) will return.
R
rugger4christ
Guest
Orthodox are not considered protestant by the Roman Catholic Church. The great schism and protestant reformation are two completely different separations.
H
Heliotropium
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
Whoah! Slow down. Calling the Orthodox Protestants, can take us very close to heresy, too close for comfort.
The Orthodox are not Protestants in any way, shape or form. They are real Apostolic Churches with valid sacraments and valid Apostolic Succession. They were not founded by heretics. They were founded by the Apostles. The Catholic Church has never denied this, just as they acknowledge that the 23 Catholic Churches are also founded by the Apostles.
The separation between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox was not the product of a rebellion. It was the product of a conflict in understanding and interpretation of certain theological points, including the Office of Peter.
In fact, the Orthodox are not even excommunicated. Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II lifted all the excommunications and anathemas against all of the Orthodox Christians and they lifted the excommunications and anathemas against Catholics. From their point of view, it was the Catholics who walked away from orthodoxy.
The Orthodox do not actually embrace error. Their problem is that there are certain truths that make them very uncomfortable; therefore, they don’t espouse them: purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility.
The disagreement on purgatory seems to be more a semantic one that actually theological. The Immaculate Conception is still an obstacle for them, because the separation took place before it was fully understood and defined. They held on to what they had at the time of the Great Schism. But they certainly have a very strong Marian spirituality.
That leaves papal infallibility. It seems that the issues around the papacy were more political than doctrinal. Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, said that it is possible to express the papacy in a way that it is no longer an obstacle to unity, but actually a bridge to unity.
The relationship between the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches is schismatic, but far from Protestant. Their ancestors and our own were not protesting anything. They were debating and arguing. Even the Protestants don’t acknowledge them, nor do they acknowledge Protestants.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Perhaps what he meant was that the Orthodox consider Catholics to be essentially Protestant.
C
ciero
Guest
For the most part a very good post Br. JR!
Just a few points;
The Orthodox have no problem with the IC it is how Original sin is defined in the RCC that is the problem. The IC just doesn’t make sense when you look at Original sin as they do…Rome has mo problem with their view…it is as most of us Eastern Catholics see it as well.
As far as being schismatic there are those of us that feel that we are all schismatic…that we are all in schism from the true church of a perfectly united Christian church.
Just a few points;
The Orthodox have no problem with the IC it is how Original sin is defined in the RCC that is the problem. The IC just doesn’t make sense when you look at Original sin as they do…Rome has mo problem with their view…it is as most of us Eastern Catholics see it as well.
As far as being schismatic there are those of us that feel that we are all schismatic…that we are all in schism from the true church of a perfectly united Christian church.
Whoah! Slow down. Calling the Orthodox Protestants, can take us very close to heresy, too close for comfort.
The Orthodox are not Protestants in any way, shape or form. They are real Apostolic Churches with valid sacraments and valid Apostolic Succession. They were not founded by heretics. They were founded by the Apostles. The Catholic Church has never denied this, just as they acknowledge that the 23 Catholic Churches are also founded by the Apostles.
The separation between Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox was not the product of a rebellion. It was the product of a conflict in understanding and interpretation of certain theological points, including the Office of Peter.
In fact, the Orthodox are not even excommunicated. Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II lifted all the excommunications and anathemas against all of the Orthodox Christians and they lifted the excommunications and anathemas against Catholics. From their point of view, it was the Catholics who walked away from orthodoxy.
The Orthodox do not actually embrace error. Their problem is that there are certain truths that make them very uncomfortable; therefore, they don’t espouse them: purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility.
The disagreement on purgatory seems to be more a semantic one that actually theological. The Immaculate Conception is still an obstacle for them, because the separation took place before it was fully understood and defined. They held on to what they had at the time of the Great Schism. But they certainly have a very strong Marian spirituality.
That leaves papal infallibility. It seems that the issues around the papacy were more political than doctrinal. Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, said that it is possible to express the papacy in a way that it is no longer an obstacle to unity, but actually a bridge to unity.
The relationship between the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches is schismatic, but far from Protestant. Their ancestors and our own were not protesting anything. They were debating and arguing. Even the Protestants don’t acknowledge them, nor do they acknowledge Protestants.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
dmorgan
Guest
T. More try this site. Very informative timeline of the Church with a synopsis of all the major events in the Church.
ourcatholicfaith.org/churchhistory.html
Pax Christi
ourcatholicfaith.org/churchhistory.html
Pax Christi
D
Derek_Ellery
Guest
It’s always been my understanding that the Orthodox accept Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, but reject the definitions in favor of mystery. Is this correct?
B
bluelake
Guest
Look up Martin Luther.
I just watched a DVD last night. ‘Luther.’ It was interesting, however keep in mind it was a movie.
Luther was against the Churches selling of Indulgencies. The money was to go for the building of the Basilica in Rome.
The Germans at that time did not have a Bible. The peasents could not read , most were uneducated.
Luther translated the Holy Bible from Latin to German.
It is a very entertaining movie. I suggest that you watch it.
God bless,
bluelake
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Not quite.
They don’t use the IC because they do not have a doctrine of Original Sin. Without that, there is really no need for the IC. They do believe Mary is sinless, because she never committed any personal sin. But in their view she was born into the same state as the rest of us.
As far as Purgatory, some believe there is some kind of purification, but not as a kind of penance or debt for temporal effect of sins. They reject that idea and the idea of the Treasury of Merit. They also dislike that the idea of purgatory is required belief.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox use very different language to explain purgatory. Thet term is not one that they would use. However, their theology does have room for a state of transition between this world and heaven.
We tend to define it as a place, though that part is not the dogma. The dogma is that purgatory exsists. Pope Benedict uses a more Eastern way of explaining it. He explains it as a state of being. However, he still uses the word “purgatory”. Many of the Eastern Churches do not use this word. This is not one of those insurmountable obstacles, except for radical Catholics and radical Orthodox. This is to be expected. Extremes are always difficult to reconcile.
As to the Immaculate Conception, as has been posted, the Eastern Churches, Catholilc and Orthodox, have a problem with the way that the Roman Church defines Original Sin. There are some Eastern Christians that believe that Mary was absolved of oriignal sin before birth. This is very much what Aquinas taught. Our Roman idea of the Immaculate Conception came from the Franciscans, who said that Mary’s conception is the human reflection of the uncreated conception of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. That’s a very long theological treatise. Essentially, what it means is that because man is created in God’s image and likeness, and because in the God-head there is an immaculate conception that proceeds from the Father and the Son, it was part of God’s plan that humanity should also conceive without sin, the product of human love, which is another human being. Therefore, it is not against logic that Mary’s conception be the one that fulfills the divine plan for humanity since the time of creation, pure love engenders a sinless human being. The problem is that man cannot love perfectly, because of Original Sin.
The East has a different way of viewing this, including some Eastern Catholic Churches. A productie discussion on this subject requires a lengthy discussion of Systematic Theology. I’m not a systematic theologian.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JRKH
Guest
What does this mean? Were the German Churches without bibles in them???
I think that if you take a look HERE you will see that there were German Translations of the Bible prior to Luther…
Ulfilas (ca. 381)
The earliest Germanic version of the Bible was Ulfilas’ Gothic translation from Latin and Greek. From Ulfilas came much of the Germanic Christian vocabulary that is still in use today.
The Augsburger Bibel of 1350 was a complete New Testament, while the Wenzel Bible (1389) contained the Old Testament in German.
And perhaps the most important -
First Printed Bible in German (1466)
Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.
Peace
James
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
I’d call that a serious case of reading motives and attitudes backwards into the minds of long-dead people who cannot now answer for themselves.
What are we to call “Protestant?” Is it any group that rejects the Catholic hierarchy? If so, they were so active in the time of S. John the Evangelist that he gives them special mention.
Hilaire Belloc points out that Islam and Calvinism have a huge amount in common. One can see what he is getting at.
- Status