Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[seamusmohr]

You have noted twice in the above post that the Church teaches things which “contradict” Scripture.

Could you please cite an example of what teaching you believe is contrary to Scripture, Lovesa?

I’m sorry to invade Lovesa’s space, Rome’s errors are many, but the greatest addition to `the Canon of Catholic belief was the Roman attempt to include Papal Infallibilty and Jurisdiction to the Deposit of Faith. They failed luckily!

 

[pablope]

I’m sorry to invade Lovesa’s space, Rome’s errors are many, but the greatest addition to `the Canon of Catholic belief was the Roman attempt to include Papal Infallibilty and Jurisdiction to the Deposit of Faith. They failed luckily!

I would wish that you would refrain from such accusations. If you have trouble or questions about the catholic faith, why don’t you start threads on them and gain the Catholic answers, which I hope, you do not reject off hand. It reflects much on your upbringing.

May the good Lord forgive you in your rudeness, which you may not realize, and grant you the gift of His humility.

 

[PRmerger]

My apologies to all for my delayed response. I don’t do computers on the weekend!

I should also apologize for my flippant response, it was uncalled for. I was trying to respond quickly on my way out the door and perhaps should have just left it alone.

 

[araiceil]

Decree of nullity.

How would you expect an Orthodox (mutuatis mutandis) to answer that?

GKC

GKC,

I am not sure that is a fair comparison, as the Orthodox Churches (at least as far as I can tell) simply feel the pope is one of many authorities (From my understanding, they feel that bishops are all Church authorities, and no one bishop has more or less authority than the other hence no need for a Supreme head of the Church). Anglicans have named a NEW authority. This is not the same thing.

 

[PRmerger]

The issue has come up before, but how is eating meat on Lenten Fridays a sin? I’m aware of it not being “doctrine” exactly, but how does one reconcile that with the above passage? I have no problem with the tradition of abstaining, but the threat of sin for such a thing?

Ah, very good. Now we have a putative practice that contradicts Scripture.

My response: the Church does not teach that eating meat on Lenten Fridays is a sin. The sin lies in disobeying one’s Mother, who has proposed a discipline upon Her children and her children decide that they need not follow that which Mother has deemed best.

Also, the Bible says to keep the Sabbath holy. I understand that. However, what gives the church the authority to declare new sins, such as the “mortal sin” of not attending church on a Holy Day of Obligation?

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Are these new instances of the Sabbath, and, if so, what gives the church the authority to declare such things when this is nowhere in the ten commandments?

Does your church keep holy the Sabbath on Friday evenings at sundown until Saturday evenings at sundown?

I was under the impression that Lutherans celebrated the Lord’s Day on Sundays, which is the day, declared by the Church–the Catholic Church–to celebrate.

 

[PRmerger]

Also is the issue of confession as an obligation, which many protestants find opposed when the bible talks of confessing these things to God.

Is there a verse that says we are not to have confession as an obligation? Otherwise, I am uncertain as to how the* obligatory* nature of confession is contradictory to Scripture…

Now, as for why Catholics confess to a priest rather than confessing directly to God: because this is the ordinary way that God has set up the forgiveness of our sins.
“When Catholics confess our sins to a priest, we are simply following the plan laid down by Jesus Christ. He forgives sins through the priest…it is God’s power, but He exercises that power through the ministry of the priest.” source

Also, see John 20:22.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:22[/BIBLEDRB]

What is the Lutheran interpretation of above? How can a man forgive sins if someone has not confessed them to him?

Finally, see this article: Why do I have to go to a priest for confession instead of going straight to God? After all, the Bible says that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5) for a more in-depth response.

 

[CMatt25]

Is there a verse that says we are not to have confession as an obligation? Otherwise, I am uncertain as to how the* obligatory* nature of confession is contradictory to Scripture…

Now, as for why Catholics confess to a priest rather than confessing directly to God: because this is the ordinary way that God has set up the forgiveness of our sins.

I’m uncertain it is not the idea of it being the only obligatory “ordinary way that God set up” that some may find contradictory.

Do you not pray PRMerger the words our Savior gave us, “Forgive us our trespasses”?

Matt 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

In addition though I know my local priest of TEC will also hear private confessions if one is so inclined. But also as I understand it there are Protestant clergy who give absolution during their services to those present.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m uncertain it is not the idea of it being the only obligatory “ordinary way that God set up” that some may find contradictory.

Could you re-phrase this? Not sure what you’re saying…

Do you not pray PRMerger the words our Savior gave us, “Forgive us our trespasses”?

Matt 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

Yes, I most certainly do!

And were you aware, Matt, that during Mass our venial sins are forgiven, without even having to go to this “obligatory” sublime source of divine grace called Confession?

 

[CMatt25]

Could you re-phrase this? Not sure what you’re saying…

Yes, I most certainly do!

And were you aware, Matt, that during Mass our venial sins are forgiven, without even having to go to this “obligatory” sublime source of divine grace called Confession?

Sure sometimes I know I can get wordy. I was just trying to say that perhaps some find contradictory the idea of the obligatory “ordinary way that God set up” as being the only means for the forgiveness of sins. Taken in light of other ways we can confess in light of Matt 6 and James 5:16.

 

[Bluegoat]

araiceil:
Note, “inveterate”.

 

[Bluegoat]

I do find it frustrating that there have been over 200 comments since my original question, and it has yet to be answered… In fact, mostly it has been deflected… So, I put it forth again:

As an Anglican, how do you reconcile that your Church was part of the Roman rite until your king wanted a divorce?

Because the divorce was really just a small issue that a whole lot of other bigger forces piggy-backed on. If it hadn’t have been that, it would have been something else. The desire for church reform was huge, and the political issue of papal control was a serious problem. They were going to be addressed one way or another.

 

[GKC]

Because the divorce was really just a small issue that a whole lot of other bigger forces piggy-backed on. If it hadn’t have been that, it would have been something else. The desire for church reform was huge, and the political issue of papal control was a serious problem. They were going to be addressed one way or another.

Decree of nullity.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I am not sure that is a fair comparison, as the Orthodox Churches (at least as far as I can tell) simply feel the pope is one of many authorities (From my understanding, they feel that bishops are all Church authorities, and no one bishop has more or less authority than the other hence no need for a Supreme head of the Church). Anglicans have named a NEW authority. This is not the same thing.

They named a new authority that was roughly the equivalent of an Archbishop, not one with universal ordinary authority. The attitude of the Orthodox is similar.

GKC

 

[Lovesa]

Is there a verse that says we are not to have confession as an obligation? Otherwise, I am uncertain as to how the* obligatory* nature of confession is contradictory to Scripture…

Simple; God says we can confess directly to him. While confessing a sin against another person is advised in scripture, to whom does one confess sins where there is noone harmed but the sinner? The idea that it has to be to a priest seems contrary to Scripture.

Now, as for why Catholics confess to a priest rather than confessing directly to God: because this is the ordinary way that God has set up the forgiveness of our sins.
“When Catholics confess our sins to a priest, we are simply following the plan laid down by Jesus Christ. He forgives sins through the priest…it is God’s power, but He exercises that power through the ministry of the priest.” source

Also, see John 20:22.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:22[/BIBLEDRB]

What is the Lutheran interpretation of above? How can a man forgive sins if someone has not confessed them to him?

Easy; the man does not need to forgive those sins because they have been confessed directly to God. However, the sins confessed have to do with sins against others, and these others must forgive.

Finally, see this article: Why do I have to go to a priest for confession instead of going straight to God? After all, the Bible says that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5) for a more in-depth response.

Yes; I have read the article, and I appreciate what it says. However, I still fail to grasp confession as mandatory. Good, advisable? Yes. Mandatory? Um…

 

[Lovesa]

Ah, very good. Now we have a putative practice that contradicts Scripture.

My response: the Church does not teach that eating meat on Lenten Fridays is a sin. The sin lies in disobeying one’s Mother, who has proposed a discipline upon Her children and her children decide that they need not follow that which Mother has deemed best.

Query: Where in the bible is the church our mother, and how does the below passage relate to that?

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

So, the church is one’s mother, and, therefore, must be obeyed? And, since the church has the authority described in the above passage, they are allowed to promote disciplines that contradict what the Bible says we can do? The discipline, then, is the thing that must be obeyed.
OK, that all sounds really jumbled. I guess I’ll have to read more into that or something.

Anyway, Lutherans tend to take that to mean that if they reject the gospel, they reject Jesus. Not arbitrary laws.

Does your church keep holy the Sabbath on Friday evenings at sundown until Saturday evenings at sundown?

I was under the impression that Lutherans celebrated the Lord’s Day on Sundays, which is the day, declared by the Church–the Catholic Church–to celebrate.

No; we don’t keep it Friday-Saturday. We do, however, celebrate one day a week, in the spirit of the tradition. The idea of days of obligation–say, on Wednesday or Thursday–seems wrong.

Sure sometimes I know I can get wordy. I was just trying to say that perhaps some find contradictory the idea of the obligatory “ordinary way that God set up” as being the only means for the forgiveness of sins. Taken in light of other ways we can confess in light of Matt 6 and James 5:16.

This. ^

 

[Lovesa]

In addition though I know my local priest of TEC will also hear private confessions if one is so inclined. But also as I understand it there are Protestant clergy who give absolution during their services to those present.

There are indeed protestant clergy who give absolution to those present. Actually, I think they all do, if you mean the collective confession in the liturgy “I confess that I am by nature sinful, and that I have…” At my church, we can even ask the pastor for private confession, that is, like in the Catholic church, if we feel really plagued by something. It’s just the pastor at my church doesn’t like doing it so he’ll act like you’re being a major pain if you ask.

 

[fred_conty]

SyCarl, Hi,
question:
Over time this situation of tolerance changed and more things were defined as being necessary for belief with the result that those who disagreed were excluded from the Catholic Church. These departures were more of a branching of the original church than the creation of entirely new churches independent of the shared history.The Reformation was one of the most significant times when that happened.​

There were articles of faith in the early church that had different intrepretations by individuals and groups. For instance,humanity and divinity of Christ. There were at first all sorts of opinions and it became confusing and people wanted to know what exactly was the truth. Case in question is the Arian controversy. So then the Church had a council of bishops to discuss and decide what was true and what wasn’t. Then they met, clearified the faith, and then passed this on to the entire church, and said that the other interpretations were not acceptable any longer. Those who did not accept the definition given by the bishops, were considered heretics and not to be listened to.

Paul in one of his letters also gave the same warning where he mentioned someone by name and that they were not to be listened to because they were teaching false doctrine. So this type of correction actually happened from the beginning.

So an article of the faith is usually never defined by a council until it is first challanged.

Whether these departures were branches of the old vine, or completely new vines, is not a option in view of the effects. They are considered new manmade churches because truth is one, not multiple versions of one. The church may not say in every individual situation that this or that church is no longer connected and constitutes a different church. In other words the trigger isn’t always pulled right away, but some time may be given for deliberation. For example: The church did not respond right away to Martin Luther because they thought it would all go away if the situation were given time.

In the Arian dispute and some others, there were real bishops involved who otherwise upheld the teachings. In the Reformation, there were real bishops involved but not leading, and they were departing from a number of important teachings.

 

[fred_conty]

continued
question:
Many Protestant teachings can be found in the writings of the early church fathers without giving rise to a charge that those writers were heretical. The teachings may not have predominated but neither were they condemned. I have yet to find many situations where Protestant teachings had actually been condemned prior to the Council of Trent.​

Yes, because the truth about some teachings had not been defined yet and there was a certain amount of freedom as to what to believe about those. So some scholars may have given incorrect versions of a certain truth BEFORE it was defined by the church. One example: St Thomas Aquinas believed that eventually everyone in hell would be released because of God’s limitless mercy. But later in Trent it was defined as eternal and forever. Sometimes we may find things like this in the church where a specific truth was not exactly defined until later.​

The divine revealed truth is like a flower. At first, a small bud, then a larger bud, then a flower bud, then the open flower.
The developement of truth and liturgy in the church is like the flower bud. In the early church it is sometimes difficult to see because it is in the initial stage of developement. But the Holy Spirit teaching us all things, it grows into something
more beautiful. The liturgy of Communion is like this, which has everything from the beginning, but gets more enhanced.

 

[SyCarl]

There were articles of faith in the early church that had different intrepretations by individuals and groups. For instance,humanity and divinity of Christ. There were at first all sorts of opinions and it became confusing and people wanted to know what exactly was the truth. Case in question is the Arian controversy. So then the Church had a council of bishops to discuss and decide what was true and what wasn’t. Then they met, clearified the faith, and then passed this on to the entire church, and said that the other interpretations were not acceptable any longer. Those who did not accept the definition given by the bishops, were considered heretics and not to be listened to.

Paul in one of his letters also gave the same warning where he mentioned someone by name and that they were not to be listened to because they were teaching false doctrine. So this type of correction actually happened from the beginning.

So an article of the faith is usually never defined by a council until it is first challanged.

Whether these departures were branches of the old vine, or completely new vines, is not a option in view of the effects. They are considered new manmade churches because truth is one, not multiple versions of one. The church may not say in every individual situation that this or that church is no longer connected and constitutes a different church. In other words the trigger isn’t always pulled right away, but some time may be given for deliberation. For example: The church did not respond right away to Martin Luther because they thought it would all go away if the situation were given time.

In the Arian dispute and some others, there were real bishops involved who otherwise upheld the teachings. In the Reformation, there were real bishops involved but not leading, and they were departing from a number of important teachings.

What do you think Pope Leo X would have done if Cyprian had lived in his day and had the same conflict over baptism by heretics as he did with Pope Stephen? Would he have just acquiesced as Cyprian called local councils to support his opinion versus the Pope’s.

If Augustine was alive today and wrote that as Jesus was God He had no mother that he would still be considered a doctor of the Church?

Similarly, if John Chrysostom wrote now that Mary was guilty of the sin of pride(superfluous vanity), would he still be called a doctor of the Church?

Or what about John of Damascus rejecting most of the deutercanonical books and saying Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation so that she could carry Jesus?

Then there is Justin Martyr and his belief in premillenniumism?

These are just some examples of ideas that didn’t result in the author’s condemnation at the time but would be viewed as heretical today.

 

[SyCarl]

continued
question:
Many Protestant teachings can be found in the writings of the early church fathers without giving rise to a charge that those writers were heretical. The teachings may not have predominated but neither were they condemned. I have yet to find many situations where Protestant teachings had actually been condemned prior to the Council of Trent.​

Yes, because the truth about some teachings had not been defined yet and there was a certain amount of freedom as to what to believe about those. So some scholars may have given incorrect versions of a certain truth BEFORE it was defined by the church. One example: St Thomas Aquinas believed that eventually everyone in hell would be released because of God’s limitless mercy. But later in Trent it was defined as eternal and forever. Sometimes we may find things like this in the church where a specific truth was not exactly defined until later.​

The divine revealed truth is like a flower. At first, a small bud, then a larger bud, then a flower bud, then the open flower.
The developement of truth and liturgy in the church is like the flower bud. In the early church it is sometimes difficult to see because it is in the initial stage of developement. But the Holy Spirit teaching us all things, it grows into something
more beautiful. The liturgy of Communion is like this, which has everything from the beginning, but gets more enhanced.

Were such definitions really necessary? Why did it become necessary to believe something that had not been necessary before? Did God change what truth was necessary because the Church defined something. If the Apostles were lead into all truth, why are necessary truths still being defined 1900 years later?

My view is that pride became more prevalent and men could not countenance someone having different views from them so those in power defined their beliefs as necessary and the others were excluded.