Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[CMatt25]

To my Protestant friends, I wish I had a better understanding of Protestant thought on this so can you help me? As we know the 1st 1500 yrs are often brought up by Catholics. The East-West 1054 Schism aside, they maintain that sure while there may have been heretical beliefs exisiting among groups, there was one universal Church founded by Christ, existing with the beliefs that we know as Catholic beliefs. Even if some of those beliefs took time to develop into definition. And if Catholic teachings needed reformed, they ask, why did it take Christ 1500 yrs? I asked a Protestant friend of mine and she said my question made absolutely no sense to her.

 

[Serap]

I followed your posts in another thread and you proved to be very intelligent and extremely polite to others when they were verbally whipping you around. Good for you!

I’m just going to follow this thread along…

 

[nhylan]

To my Protestant friends, I wish I had a better understanding of Protestant thought on this so can you help me? As we know the 1st 1500 yrs are often brought up by Catholics. The East-West 1054 Schism aside, they maintain that sure while there may have been heretical beliefs exisiting among groups, there was one universal Church founded by Christ, existing with the beliefs that we know as Catholic beliefs. Even if some of those beliefs took time to develop into definition. And if Catholic teachings needed reformed, they ask, why did it take Christ 1500 yrs? I asked a Protestant friend of mine and she said my question made absolutely no sense to her.

I feel like this is kind of two questions. And some Protestant Church’s would answer this different from others so I’ll just give you an Anglican Answer (I should totally buy that domain name).

The Anglican perspective on this is largely similar to an Orthodox perspective. (We disagree with the Orthodox on what constitutes the One Church but that’s a different issue.) The argument isn’t so much about what happened after that first 1500 years but about if direct communion with the Bishop of Rome is the determining factor in what is Catholic. Both Anglican’s and Orthodox would say that communion with Rome is not necessary to be Catholic, Roman Catholics obviously disagree.

The reformers would probably say that the abuses by the leadership of the Roman Church had gotten bad enough that reforms from an exterior position were necessary. Those views aren’t probably held today since Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran theology has sort of matures and cemented itself. An Anglican would say that the physical seperation between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion exists because we disagree on what it is to be Catholic, what is necessary for salvation, and the Roman Catholic Church’s position on Anglican Holy Orders. I honestly believe that if Anglican’s and Roman Catholics came to an agreement and understanding on these issues there would be full communion between the two groups.

 

[CMatt25]

I followed your posts in another thread and you proved to be very intelligent and extremely polite to others when they were verbally whipping you around. Good for you!

I’m just going to follow this thread along…

Well I don’t know about the very intelligent part but I try to be polite during some of the spankings. I’m sure I fail though at doing that sometimes too. But thank you.

As far as this thread I’m just going to follow it for now too. I do hope though to get some answers from actual Protestants. And not only Catholics giving a Catholic version of what Protestants think. Thanks ahead for any replies. Peace.

 

[Radical]

…And if Catholic teachings needed reformed, they ask, why did it take Christ 1500 yrs? I asked a Protestant friend of mine and she said my question made absolutely no sense to her.

I think it is a valid question. One thing that we should acknowledge is that God moves at his own pace…Why, for example, did it take X millennia for Christ to come if the old covenant wasn’t sufficient? A second thing to keep in mind is that the errors were not sufficient so as to render the CC non-Christian…it is simply that errors were introduced. Thirdly, the “1500 years” is simply inaccurate. It is not as if the alleged errors were fully in place by 50AD. Take the Catholic Marian doctrines as an example…Mary is given very little attention by the earliest ECFs…her perpetual virginity is first mentioned in the Protoevangelium of James some time around 170 and that work is hardly credible and was in fact rejected by popes and Jerome. Tertullian denied her perpetaul virginity and included her among Chirst’s non-believing family (when they came to take charge of him). The Marian doctrines seem to have taken centuries to form via accretion. Take the belief in a real somatic presence as another example…I have referenced repeatedly on these threads the opinion of biographers of Augustine that Augustine did not believe in a real somatic presence…Conservative Catholics will, of course, insist that he did hold to a real bodily presence (they have little choice given that Augustine is a Doctor of the CC) but I will go with the opinion of the renowned scholars over theirs…so WRT to the alleged error of a real somatic presence… it did not enjoy official status until sometime after Augustine…so the time period would be closer to a 1100 years. .

 

[Barbkw]

Different protestant denominations say that their church was established as far back as with the Apostles. They believe they are part of the “starter churches” and various groups that Catholics bishops later called heretics.

I heard this discussed on the last program of The Journey Home on EWTN:

youtube.com/user/EWTN#p/u/66/eZUBhZDj0_w

Journey Home - Former Baptist Minister - Marcus Grodi with Michael Matthews - 04-04-2011

 

[ESMDHokie77]

The idea that God had to rely upon man’s invention of the printing press to spread the truth to humanity is funny, I’ve heard protestants argue that it was only after the printing press got invented did true Christianity have a chance to sprout.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To my Protestant friends, I wish I had a better understanding of Protestant thought on this so can you help me? As we know the 1st 1500 yrs are often brought up by Catholics. The East-West 1054 Schism aside, they maintain that sure while there may have been heretical beliefs exisiting among groups, there was one universal Church founded by Christ, existing with the beliefs that we know as Catholic beliefs. Even if some of those beliefs took time to develop into definition. And if Catholic teachings needed reformed, they ask, why did it take Christ 1500 yrs? I asked a Protestant friend of mine and she said my question made absolutely no sense to her.

The Assyrians and the Oriental Orthodox broke away many years before the East-West schism. But again the beliefs is largely the same as Catholic and Orthodox faith. There were many heretics back in the day but most of them were soundly defeated by the Church. Protestanism has been around for 500 years and given this age of information where a lot of the wrong teachings are proliferated and kept in libraries and online, they won’t die down soon. Even the Gnostics were able to hide away some of their heretical writings and found their way to people these days. Although Gnostics and Arianists back in the day did stick around for a couple of hundred years. Then again, Ariansim never really left us. From Islam to today’s Restorationists, Arian’s teaching on the man-only Christ lives on.

 

[Barbkw]

The idea that God had to rely upon man’s invention of the printing press to spread the truth to humanity is funny, I’ve heard protestants argue that it was only after the printing press got invented did true Christianity have a chance to sprout.

Check out this early King James transcript:

au.christiantoday.com/articledir/enlarge.htm?artid=10873&imgid=7193

Wow, my eyes can’t take that.

I wonder if those “mass produced” KJ Bibles contained footnotes.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well maybe you should explain it to Her exactly like this! We know what happened the first 1500 years, what we are still piecing together is the last 500. But I think we have it now!

I’m still waiting to hear where this shining example of the Protestant Faith exists from the last 500 years? I can’t seem to understand how it can viewed as anything but a failure? We have one of two truths happening, either the denominations drift further away in the Dark abyss, or into communion or very close to it. But that little bit of "self " just won’t have one let go to reach the heavens. So lets not come totally across the river. Lets stand on one side looking over and claim to be the true faith

This new Protestant theology has become confusing We seem to have confused the Churchs mission with social activity and religious ideal with material betterment which should also fit into the Modern world.

And geez by all means lets send John Doe $1000, for 1-miracle from God in his mystical time-seed program. And people ask “You mean thats not real?”

First of all its hard to “assume” which one of these so called Christian Denominations you might be referring to, you might want to clarify that. Many are Christain in name “only”. But certainly not in their official stance and beliefs, notably the Unitarian, the Chistian Scientist, and the Morman Church, JWs just off the top of my head.

If to be Christian means professing and maintaining belief in a divine creation of the Universe from nothing. in the efficacy of Christs death as the unique redemption for all mankind from sin and from hell, and further, in belief of the Sacrements, in the Divinity of Jesus, in His resurrection, in life after death, in the existence of the Soul as immortal and really distinct from the body, well then such churchs or sects are not Christian at all.

Further runs the conclusions that most of the major Protestant Churchs incur the same criticism of being non-christian to some degree or another. This is applicable to a large majority of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists. And to a smaller degree Lutherans and Anglicans.

What we can say effectively, these vast numbers of self-styled Christians profess beliefs either at varience with basic Christian beliefs or totally contradictory of basic Christian beliefs.

And being Polite I honestly believe thats about the best we can say. Looking at the broader scope of life on earth and in particular the USA. I would say its time we put the Protestant Pom-Poms away. There’s no victory feast on the horizen. basically its back to the Ancient Church in penance or the idea or perishing becomes more of a reality each year. We are in quite a frenzy of ridiculous and pathetic despair.

While we do have example’s who continue to arrive here at CAF to explain how great their parish and faith is doing, the fact is the general outlook in the USA just doesn’t prove this.

And what do they call themselves now? The Born-Again people? What the excitment is all about you will simply have to fill us in here on CAF? Aside from another declining stage of Protestanism we fail to see the rising stage but with those who somehow realize the Doctine and Catechism of the CC was right all along. Amazing you should agree with us.

God Bless, Gary… Geez keep up the Good Work!

 

[CMatt25]

I feel like this is kind of two questions. And some Protestant Church’s would answer this different from others so I’ll just give you an Anglican Answer (I should totally buy that domain name).

The Anglican perspective on this is largely similar to an Orthodox perspective. (We disagree with the Orthodox on what constitutes the One Church but that’s a different issue.) The argument isn’t so much about what happened after that first 1500 years but about if direct communion with the Bishop of Rome is the determining factor in what is Catholic. Both Anglican’s and Orthodox would say that communion with Rome is not necessary to be Catholic, Roman Catholics obviously disagree.

The reformers would probably say that the abuses by the leadership of the Roman Church had gotten bad enough that reforms from an exterior position were necessary. Those views aren’t probably held today since Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran theology has sort of matures and cemented itself. An Anglican would say that the physical seperation between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion exists because we disagree on what it is to be Catholic, what is necessary for salvation, and the Roman Catholic Church’s position on Anglican Holy Orders. I honestly believe that if Anglican’s and Roman Catholics came to an agreement and understanding on these issues there would be full communion between the two groups.

Nylan, there could have been multiple questions in there. Not that I meant to. So from the time the Bishop of Rome gained his power, you would say Communion with Rome was not necessary even though his position had been elevated yrs before the Reformation? Or am I just totally mistaken on the ecclesial authority found in Rome for the many prior yrs? Which it is entirely possible I am.

What about Transubstantiation and some of the other beliefs in which there might be nuances on between Catholics and Anglicans?

 

[CMatt25]

I think it is a valid question. One thing that we should acknowledge is that God moves at his own pace…Why, for example, did it take X millennia for Christ to come if the old covenant wasn’t sufficient? A second thing to keep in mind is that the errors were not sufficient so as to render the CC non-Christian…it is simply that errors were introduced. Thirdly, the “1500 years” is simply inaccurate. It is not as if the alleged errors were fully in place by 50AD. Take the Catholic Marian doctrines as an example…Mary is given very little attention by the earliest ECFs…her perpetual virginity is first mentioned in the Protoevangelium of James some time around 170 and that work is hardly credible and was in fact rejected by popes and Jerome. Tertullian denied her perpetaul virginity and included her among Chirst’s non-believing family (when they came to take charge of him). The Marian doctrines seem to have taken centuries to form via accretion. Take the belief in a real somatic presence as another example…I have referenced repeatedly on these threads the opinion of biographers of Augustine that Augustine did not believe in a real somatic presence…Conservative Catholics will, of course, insist that he did hold to a real bodily presence (they have little choice given that Augustine is a Doctor of the CC) but I will go with the opinion of the renowned scholars over theirs…so WRT to the alleged error of a real somatic presence… it did not enjoy official status until sometime after Augustine…so the time period would be closer to a 1100 years. .

Radical that is helpful to me in regard to Protestant thinking on the somantic RP issue. I am familiar with the Augustine words you and some other Protestants refer to. So it sounds like you are saying, correct me if I am wrong, that in the earliest Church actually there was not a uniform official belief regarding the RP. In other words some in the Church might have believed in a somantic RP and some did not and still all were part of the Church?

 

[CMatt25]

Different protestant denominations say that their church was established as far back as with the Apostles. They believe they are part of the “starter churches” and various groups that Catholics bishops later called heretics.

I heard this discussed on the last program of The Journey Home on EWTN:

youtube.com/user/EWTN#p/u/66/eZUBhZDj0_w

Journey Home - Former Baptist Minister - Marcus Grodi with Michael Matthews - 04-04-2011

Barb, ok so they say since they weren’t considered heretics in the earliest Church, and not until later, then they were in earliest times and therefore still are part of the Church, the Body of Christ, I take it is what you’re saying. I can see something to that if they were not deemed heretical until later.

 

[CMatt25]

The idea that God had to rely upon man’s invention of the printing press to spread the truth to humanity is funny, I’ve heard protestants argue that it was only after the printing press got invented did true Christianity have a chance to sprout.

I have heard too the argument that Scripture had to be available among the common masses in their language before like the Berians, people could search the Scriptures to see if what they were being told was true.

 

[nhylan]

Nylan, there could have been multiple questions in there. Not that I meant to. So from the time the Bishop of Rome gained his power, you would say Communion with Rome was not necessary even though his position had been elevated yrs before the Reformation? Or am I just totally mistaken on the ecclesial authority found in Rome for the many prior yrs? Which it is entirely possible I am.

What about Transubstantiation and some of the other beliefs in which there might be nuances on between Catholics and Anglicans?

Well I wouldn’t be willing to say your mistaken, id more likely to say that that is part of your historical tradition as part of the One Church but that it is adiaphora, or optional. Getting back to the question of Transubstantiation, I don’t think that’s a major barrier to communion. The Anglican Holy Euchatist allows for belief in tran or sub at the exclusion of neither. We don’t put a whole lot of emphasis on how its done but rather that it is the body and blood.

 

[CMatt25]

First of all its hard to “assume” which one of these so called Christian Denominations you might be referring to, you might want to clarify that.

God Bless, Gary… Geez keep up the Good Work!

I’m just interested in the answers from any of their perspectives Gary. It didn’t seem difficult for others to “assume” without more clarity. Are you patting yourself on the back?

 

[CMatt25]

The Assyrians and the Oriental Orthodox broke away many years before the East-West schism. But again the beliefs is largely the same as Catholic and Orthodox faith. There were many heretics back in the day but most of them were soundly defeated by the Church. Protestanism has been around for 500 years and given this age of information where a lot of the wrong teachings are proliferated and kept in libraries and online, they won’t die down soon. Even the Gnostics were able to hide away some of their heretical writings and found their way to people these days. Although Gnostics and Arianists back in the day did stick around for a couple of hundred years. Then again, Ariansim never really left us. From Islam to today’s Restorationists, Arian’s teaching on the man-only Christ lives on.

I was familiar with the Oriental Orthodox split. I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring yours. But I was already breaking my own rule about me sitting back and not talking and just following this thread along. So going to get back to that for now.

 

[ANNE_2]

I feel like this is kind of two questions. And some Protestant Church’s would answer this different from others so I’ll just give you an Anglican Answer (I should totally buy that domain name).

The Anglican perspective on this is largely similar to an Orthodox perspective. (We disagree with the Orthodox on what constitutes the One Church but that’s a different issue.) The argument isn’t so much about what happened after that first 1500 years but about if direct communion with the Bishop of Rome is the determining factor in what is Catholic. Both Anglican’s and Orthodox would say that communion with Rome is not necessary to be Catholic, Roman Catholics obviously disagree.

The reformers would probably say that the abuses by the leadership of the Roman Church had gotten bad enough that reforms from an exterior position were necessary. Those views aren’t probably held today since Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran theology has sort of matures and cemented itself. An Anglican would say that the physical seperation between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion exists because we disagree on what it is to be Catholic, what is necessary for salvation, and the Roman Catholic Church’s position on Anglican Holy Orders. I honestly believe that if Anglican’s and Roman Catholics came to an agreement and understanding on these issues there would be full communion between the two groups.

Thank you for your response.
Since some Protestant denominations have moved so far away from their belief in Sola Scriptura or the Bible in general, regarding condoning: sodomy (homosexual acts), divorce, and murder (killing of babies/ abortion), there may be much more to discuss than what one may think.
Voting on what is and is not acceptable (sinful or not sinful) behavior is not Sola Scriptura, or Tradition in the Catholic Faith.
The departure from the Bible in recent times is why many Anglicans are turning to the Catholic Church.

Yes during the 1500s reforming was needed. Those who left the Catholic Faith were heretics or schismatics. Those who reformed “within” the Catholic Church are Saints - St. Charles Borromeo, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Philip Neri, and Pope St. Pius V, etc.
We know the saying - do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

When Jesus picked Peter to head His Church, succession started: Mt. 16:18-19.

I am a firm believer that if anyone wants to know exactly what a specific Faith believes, they should get their information directly from the Source, rather than those from other faiths.
I highly recommend the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” (dark green cover);
and “Catholicism for Dummies” by Frs. Trigilio and Brighenti.
Both are available through Amazon books, and many Catholic internet catalogues.

 

[nhylan]

Thank you for your response.
Since some Protestant denominations have moved so far away from their belief in Sola Scriptura or the Bible in general, regarding condoning: sodomy (homosexual acts), divorce, and murder (killing of babies/ abortion), there may be much more to discuss than what one may think.
Voting on what is and is not acceptable (sinful or not sinful) behavior is not Sola Scriptura, or Tradition in the Catholic Faith.
The departure from the Bible in recent times is why many Anglicans are turning to the Catholic Church.

Yes during the 1500s reforming was needed. Those who left the Catholic Faith were heretics or schismatics. Those who reformed “within” the Catholic Church are Saints - St. Charles Borromeo, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Philip Neri, and Pope St. Pius V, etc.
We know the saying - do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

When Jesus picked Peter to head His Church, succession started: Mt. 16:18-19.

I am a firm believer that if anyone wants to know exactly what a specific Faith believes, they should get their information directly from the Source, rather than those from other faiths.
I highly recommend the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” (dark green cover);
and “Catholicism for Dummies” by Frs. Trigilio and Brighenti.
Both are available through Amazon books, and many Catholic internet catalogues.

I am familiar with both of those books. It’s sad that these divisions exsist but I assure you, your tone does not help a whit. Regarding your reference to the Anglican Ordinate, how many Anglicans count as many? The 1000 or so that have moved? The 900 that are moving from the CoE? In England alone I’d be willing to bet more than 900 roman Catholics have moved to Anglicanism. That number is probably a great deal larger than that in the U. S. especially in the northeast. Regardless of all that I’m not even sure why you brought this up

On.another note. Anglicans have never been sola scriptura. Everything that is necessary for salvation is in there. But no Anglican would ever say we are sola Scriptura in the modern sense.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m just interested in the answers from any of their perspectives Gary. It didn’t seem difficult for others to “assume” without more clarity. Are you patting yourself on the back?

No I simply stated facts. Your opening post suggested the “Catholic teachings needed reform,”

If so why leave the CC to do so?

My question is what reform came about in the last 500 years?

It does little good for the Protestant church to somehow assume it continued to be part of the first 1500 years. Its a futile debate. What we do know its the Protest made a radical choice to seperate because it didn’t believe in what the CC was doing. No sense in re-hashing history.

What positive resulted after 500 years? Thats the bottom line question. Are we not in a mess in the West?