Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

No a better reply would be that since most Christians fall off at the 7th ecumenical council, then there is 14 that they have totally missed:shrug:

Good one!

I find it interesting that somehow the Holy Spirit has ceased to guide the Church after the 7th. That would certainly be a church whose growth and development has been arrested.

 

[GKC]

And that is all that needs to be said.

Henry was not right.

Whatever explanations may be given for what happened Henry was not right.

So therefore the Anglican Church is illegally constituted and thus cannot claim to be the English branch of the Catholic Church.

This is all I am getting at.

And since this is so, then what I would like to know is how Anglicans justify to themselves remaining Anglican.

Since Henry was not right, then really Anglicans, if they want to be in union with the Church that Christ founded should start making their way back to the Catholic Church.

Blessed Henry Newman will I am sure, be an excellent guide .

Once again, you seem to have this strange notion that I’m defending Henry. Or that the idea relates to legality. It doesn’t; it relates to history and why what happened did happen. One might just as well argue the legality of the Great Schism. Not something I’m interested in.

As I said, we are talking past one another.

No one knows where the Church came, in an organized form, to England. History. My point.

I really need to keep my resolution to gurney.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Guanophore, you are not reading my post thoroughly enough–rather, you are trying to shoot down everything I say without paying attention

I haven’t read your conversation with Guano but I’ve known Guano a few years now and “not reading post thoroughly” is not something that (I think) would apply. He/She is very thorough.

 

[benedictus2]

Once again, you seem to have this strange notion that I’m defending Henry. Or that the idea relates to legality. It doesn’t; it relates to history and why what happened did happen. One might just as well argue the legality of the Great Schism. Not something I’m interested in.

As I said, we are talking past one another.

I know you’re not defending Henry. You said that before and I believe you.

No one knows where the Church came, in an organized form, to England. History. My point.

Whether organized or not, the Church in England from the fledgling Church in the 4th century to the full blown organized one in 16th was united to Rome. After all, one of the Popes was English. My point.

 

[benedictus2]

Could be. They were at the Council.

GKC

And that was all I was getting at.

I think the problem with this discussion is I was trying to keep to the points raised by Bluegoat and Seamus but because of others responses to my comments, it has gone this way and that.

 

[GKC]

I know you’re not defending Henry. You said that before and I believe you.

Whether organized or not, the Church in England from the fledgling Church in the 4th century to the full blown organized one in 16th was united to Rome. After all, one of the Popes was English. My point.

Of course. But if you follow the Glastonbury, or the Celtic Church lines, you get a whole lot of argument.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And that was all I was getting at.

I think the problem with this discussion is I was trying to keep to the points raised by Bluegoat and Seamus but because of others responses to my comments, it has gone this way and that.

One can find points I agree with both of them on.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

No, that wasn’t the claim. If you read back, the original claim I responded to was that Christianity in Britain came from missionaries sent from Rome. There is no evidence that is the case, and that is what I said, that is wht GKC said, and that is what your source said.

I made no claims about their ultimate communion or unity with Rome.

Sorry. My apologies if I misread your post.

What then was the point of this assertion that Christianity in Britain did not come from Rome?

My position is that the Roman patriarch eventually took a left turn and put himself into schism with the Church,

The Pope put himself in Schism with the Church?

Considering that the Pope always had primacy even when the Alexandrian and Antiochan patriarchates were still sort of viable, how can the Pope put himself in schism with the Church?

That, ultimately, is what caused the Reformation.

That is a load of rubbish. What caused the revolt were the abuses of the heirarchy back in 16th century (and even before that).

For one thing, if all that is about your so called ‘schism of the pope’ then why did they not just join the Eastern Orhthodox Churches? After all, that was supposed to be the “orthodox” Church.

As I said before, Luther et al, were right to protest against the practices but not right to make their own doctrines.

If Luther et al, had confined themselves to protesting the abuses, then there would not be this ever splintering protestantism that we see today.

So although the Reformation has many unfortunate aspects, it was justified in the sense that a patriarch who has put himself outside of orthodox Christianity doesn’t have any authority, and ought not to be followed.

And pray tell who decides that the authority has been revoked? Did Christ?

From what I can glean from Scripture, Christ said that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide His church into truth. So how can the successor to Peter (to whom the keys have been given) be in error when it comes to doctrine?

As a matter of fact, it is the patriarchs of the East who fell - in one way or another- to heresy. As corrupt in behaviour as the Popes were, they never taught error.

You I imagine would maintain it is impossible for the Papacy to be in error in that way, which is fine, but I don’t think it is a hand’s down argument by any means.

Oh but it is a hand’s down argument. If the Pope erred in any way in matters of faith and moral then Christ lied because if there is one thing that He promised, is that the Holy Spirit will guide His Church into truth.

Now, the eastern Patriarch have fallen into heresy so straight away there you see that they can’t have been guided into truth.

As a matter of fact, some converts have given this is a reason for choosing the Catholic Church over Eastern Orthodox.

But here’s one more thing to consider. All the early Patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople) are now all under Islamic rule with the Christian population a small minority. Their interests are confined to the national churches - hardly the centre of the universal faith.

 

[benedictus2]

Of course. But if you follow the Glastonbury, or the Celtic Church lines, you get a whole lot of argument.

GKC

And where did the Glastonbury and Celtic Church come from? Were they founded from the Eastern Church?

Furthermore, back in the 3rd century, even though there were three patriarchates, Rome always had primacy. It was not as if this patriarchates were somehow separate churches.

 

[jnpl1185]

Hi Guanophore, you are not reading my post thoroughly enough–rather, you are trying to shoot down everything I say without paying attention to the fact that I clearly stated that the reforms were not against the ancient teachings or those of Christ, but rather the practices of the Church at the time. I will have to come back when I have time for an in depth response, but a more sympathetic reading I think is in order, especially given that I am attempting to answer the original question from the Lutheran perspective.Just a few points:

Never once did I say that Catholic doctrine was responsible for the oppression of the Peasants in Germany. Please read more carefully.

The doctrine of infallibility and much marian doctrine actually did come into church canon only in the past two hundred years. Look up the dogmas. It may have been taught de facto, but it was not canon. This is why the CC and Lutherans and Anglicans are still separated concerning doctrine.

Concerning the JDJ–this is not historically true. Doctrine was foggy, but traditional teaching was clear: that works merit grace in some form. Please Read Erasmus’ De libero arbitrio. If this were not true (again, in practice, not in doctrine), there would not have been a split in the first place.

About Luther not needing to stand up to the Church, well, it was unfortunate that there was a split, but should Luther have simply recanted and said that indulgencies were really spiffy? He didn’t just leave the church. He was excommunicated and very likely would have suffered the fate of Jan Hus (execution) if he had not been kidnapped and swept away to the Wartburg. He was justified in not recanting–the practice of indulgences is not a minor thing. But remember: he was excommunicated before he “left” the RCC.

This idea of infallible preservation of the teachings of Jesus looks really pretty and clean from the outside, but when you get to the actual practice of historical catholic church leaders, it is clear whence the reformation comes.

Tqualey–I said very clearly that the selling of indulgences was not doctrine. But it was declared at the council of clermont and later Pope Leo X used indulgences to fund the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. This is in the historical record.

Also, his views on Mary changed throughout his lifetime and that no longer represents what modern Lutherans believe. Or the early Lutheran reformers such as Bugenhagen, etc.

As for the sacraments, Luthereventually pitched them because they could not be supported by the authority of scripture. Of course a Catholic will argue this…

more when I have time.

but the original point of the article was to get “protestant” perspectives. Not for Roman Catholics to come in and try to disprove the protestants that actually try to answer the questions. This is called baiting. And I bit.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wish you’d elaborate on this benedictus. Are you implying that God would only show his favor to a Church that is not persecuted? Surely you’re not saying that Constantinople and Antioch and Alexandria are not universal because they were persecuted and surrounded by Islam, right? To this day Constantinople is the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has great respect in Orthodoxy, as it should? And how is it different than the national churches that Rome has? In the Philippines there is the national Church that is the Catholic presence there. There is a national American Church in Catholicism, they all have their own politics, their own problems, their own limitations and their own scandals or strengths. This seems to be getting at some sort of ethnic element, a common argument against Orthodoxy that is hardly compelling. Are you saying that the universal Church must be an international body headed by one bishop? Eucharistic ecclesiology is the faith of Orthodoxy and each diocese is completely the Church universal. It isn’t a measure of how many nations it occupies or how much real estate it owns.

But here’s one more thing to consider. All the early Patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople) are now all under Islamic rule with the Christian population a small minority. Their interests are confined to the national churches - hardly the centre of the universal faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Primacy of honor, yes. The “Coryphaeus” the Orthodox called Peter, the big brother so to speak. Antioch also had a Petrine origin, also respected highly as a patriarchate, but due to the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and that Rome was the imperial capital, was wealthy, large, powerful, and Petrine, it gained a primacy of honor and respect. Did it maintain a primacy of universal supremacy over all Christendom? Not by a longshot historically…post 1054 we start to see those machinations ensue…

And where did the Glastonbury and Celtic Church come from? Were they founded from the Eastern Church?

Furthermore, back in the 3rd century, even though there were three patriarchates, Rome always had primacy. It was not as if this patriarchates were somehow separate churches.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t understand this argument or the constant question harkening to whether or not the Celtic Church or early English church was Eastern or not? Of course it was not. But the universal supremacy and infallibility of the pope was hardly believed at the time these early Briton churches were founded so I can’t understand the point?

And where did the Glastonbury and Celtic Church come from? Were they founded from the Eastern Church?

Furthermore, back in the 3rd century, even though there were three patriarchates, Rome always had primacy. It was not as if this patriarchates were somehow separate churches.

 

[benedictus2]

I can only speak for Lutheran belief, which traditionally holds that the “Reformation” was actually more of an attempt at “Restoration” of earlier catholic teachings.

What earlier Catholic teachings? Up to which council?

If they agree with all the councils that the Eastern Orthodox consider valid, then why did they not become Eastern Orthodox?

People forget that Luther was a genuine believing Augustinian monk before becoming the “reformer.”

But we don’t forget that. We know he was an Augustinians monk so one wonders where he got all his erroneous beliefs from?

As for “reformer” can one really apply that term considering that what followed was deformation not reformation? Would one call the every growing number of Protestant Denominations a reformation? Would one call it a restoration? Was that the state of Christianity before so we

needed to go back to that?
And it was because of this and Augustine’s teachings on grace (see “On Free Will and Grace” and “On the Freedom of the Will”) that Martin Luther saw the need to stand up to the Church. His original intentions were not to change church teachings, but to refute those new teachings which were incompatible with the Bible and the traditional teachings of the Fathers.

What new teaching was incompatible with the Bible and the traditional teachings of the Church Fathers?

Also, Lutherans still believe that they are part of the apostolic and universal Church–the traditional view is that they are simply another rite within that church just as you have the Latin rite (which is what Roman Catholics refered to themselves until more recent times), the Anglican rite, and the various Orthodox rites.

Who was he kidding, all the rites within the Church were all approved by the Magisterium. He didn’t have that.

So even the name of this thread is difficult since Lutherans and Anglicans and Episcopalians have been lumped into protestantism and most educated Lutherans and Anglicans do not identify themselves as such.

Whether they identify themselves differently does not make it so. They all sprung around about the same time and they were all born of a protest against the Church.

That said, after Vatican II and the Joint Declaration of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican, there is relatively little separating traditional Lutherans and Roman Catholics.

Then why are we still separated. If it is so minor, then how you come you are not Catholic? How come by yourself, you cannot cross that “very little” divide?

It just took the Church 500 years to make the changes.

No it didn’t. The true reformation happened around a few years after Luther’s time and it happened through Saints like St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis de Sales.

It is however a continuing renewal because that is what the Church is about, continuing renewal.

Contrast that with the Protestant Churches who instead of becoming renewed, became even worse, admitting and permitting things such as contraception, abortion, active homosexuality, priestesses, etc, etc. So when will the Protestant churches start the renewal from this downhill trend?

The doctrinal changes that remain have much to do with the doctrines that have come into existence after the Reformation (declaration of Papal Infallibility, Marian doctrines, etc.) as well as theological distinctions having to do with justification (at least among some groups).

At the bottom of the problem is authority, i.e. infallibility. Once one realizes that that is a true doctrine arrived at through the guidance of the Holy Spirit then everything else follows. Because if that is true, then it follows all other doctrines are true.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t understand this argument or the constant question harkening to whether or not the Celtic Church or early English church was Eastern or not? Of course it was not. But the universal supremacy and infallibility of the pope was hardly believed at the time these early Briton churches were founded so I can’t understand the point?

So you are saying that Rome did not have primacy among these Patriarchates during this time?

 

[benedictus2]

I wish you’d elaborate on this benedictus. Are you implying that God would only show his favor to a Church that is not persecuted?

I am saying that the Church is supposed to flourish and draw people to Christ. The apostles were tasked with a mission to bring the gospel to the world.

Surely you’re not saying that Constantinople and Antioch and Alexandria are not universal because they were persecuted and surrounded by Islam, right?

No. What I am getting at is that this shows that they can’t be considered THE prime patriarchate.

In the beginning, there was only one Church with 3 patriarchates the prime being Rome. To this day we still see the same thing, the primacy of Rome.

To this day Constantinople is the Ecumenical Patriarchate and has great respect in Orthodoxy, as it should?

No doubt. But Constantinople was not even one of the first Patriarchates. It was only established as such because Constantine moved his seat to Istanbul.

And how is it different than the national churches that Rome has? In the Philippines there is the national Church that is the Catholic presence there.

Wrong. The Philippine Independent Church is not part of the Catholic Church. That is a separate Church started by a disgruntled priest. The Catholic Church is is just that, the Catholic Church in the Philippines, headed by a bishop in communion with Rome. It is not a national Church.

There is a national American Church in Catholicism, they all have their own politics, their own problems, their own limitations and their own scandals or strengths.

The American National Catholic Church is not a Catholic Church. They call themselves that but they are not Catholic. That was started only in 2009.

This seems to be getting at some sort of ethnic element, a common argument against Orthodoxy that is hardly compelling.

The Catholic Church in the different countries are not national Churches. Rather they are the Catholic Church IN these countries. The particular ethnic expression does not make it a national church.

Are you saying that the universal Church must be an international body headed by one bishop?

I am saying that the universal Church must be that, universal under one prime bishop, headed by each countries bishop. This expresses cleanly Christ’s will as we see in His and His Father’s choice of Peter.

Eucharistic ecclesiology is the faith of Orthodoxy and each diocese is completely the Church universal. It isn’t a measure of how many nations it occupies or how much real estate it owns.

That is true, but neither is it supposed to be a Church particular to a specific country. It must encompass the world because that is what Christ wills.

 

[seamusmohr]

So you are saying that Rome did not have primacy among these Patriarchates during this time?

You should define what you mean as Primacy?

The only primacy Rome had was over the Italian Catholics a few kilometers around Rome, the Suburbicarian Church of Rome! Then you have to look at what primacy stands for?
Later Rome and Constantinople were given primacy over West and Eastern Christendom , respectively, but these ridiculous claims were not even thought of except by Rome in his wildest dream!
There was no acceptance of modern Roman additions except by Rome till Trent.

When The Bishop of Rome tried to pressure the African’s in to accepting a Bishop, they had sacked for wrong doing, they told him in no uncertain terms to clear off! This was before Arles! They did this twice ,Cyprian was involved the first time and was chairman of the Council that rejected the popes uncalled for interference and the second attempt in, I think, the fourth century Augustine was there. Get it through your mind that in the early days, up to S.Leo, or just before him, there were no Roman Claims accepted except those given by the Councils. It is the Councils that are the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[seamusmohr]

Once again, you seem to have this strange notion that I’m defending Henry. Or that the idea relates to legality. It doesn’t; it relates to history and why what happened did happen. One might just as well argue the legality of the Great Schism. Not something I’m interested in.

As I said, we are talking past one another.

No one knows where the Church came, in an organized form, to England. History. My point.

I really need to keep my resolution to gurney.

GKC

If he doesn’t attack henry and the Church in England what else have they to do? There’s nothing in Revelation, in Scripture or in the Seven Councils to support their claims. They are I’m afraid bankrupt. They are afraid to follow the leads given , because it would show that all their lives they have pursued false trails, they will end up totally disillusioned.
As for the Church in England, we know that it was there in the first century, items were found in Manchester excavation, that’s enough, we know it was active in the Councils, we know it was catholic , because it supported Athanasious in his struggles against heresie.

 

[seamusmohr]

And where did the Glastonbury and Celtic Church come from? Were they founded from the Eastern Church?

Furthermore, back in the 3rd century, even though there were three patriarchates, Rome always had primacy. It was not as if this patriarchates were somehow separate churches.

Again define what you mean by primacy, what does this word mean? Where was this primacy held and what over? You tumble words out as though you were emptying a bean sack.

Rome got his authority from being a bishop,and later a metropolitan and very much later a patriarch. He didn’t at any time have any thing to do with Britain, but he was the Emperors Parish priest. the Church at Rome was used as a dept of state and the bishop of rome was used as a ciil servant! very early on he was given by the Emperor the use of the Roman Polis to pursue his own ends and by this means he enforced his views on all his surrounding bishops and congregations, Read the previous posts on the subject.
Regarding Glastonbury and the Celts. No one knows where they came from, in that we’ve got no polis reports or newspaper cuttings. But at least nine sources amongst the early
fathers report that they were here. If you could produce nine early fathers to back any of your claims, you would be estatic. You and your colleague are like ferrets in a bag twisting, snarling and crying, face it friends, you need proof!

 

[seamusmohr]

We say He is Vicar of Christ - someone who stands in for Christ. And this claim is scripturally based - John 21 “Feed MY lamb, tend MY sheep”. The Christian (Christ’s sheep) is therefore tended by Peter and Peter’s successor.
S.Peter was a member of the apostolic college, first in line? Perhaps! But scripture had and still has by Catholics to be read through the lens of the early fathers and not to put too fine a point forward, none of us ere are in that category!

Nothing to do with religion? It was Christ who appointed Peter so how can that be nothing to do with religion? And if you go down the track again about that office not being passed on to his successor, well sorry but you will be arguing against yourself because you believe that bishops are the rightful successors of the apostles.