Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[guanophore]

I know how you feel; I have issues with some of the same things some times. That is why I am on here. . .to find answers.

Good for you, wed2, and welcome to CAF.

2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

 

[guanophore]

I guess to be more clear; yes, I do get the 1500 yr thing totally. Its just that I don’t see how that denotes “the first Church” to The Roman Catholics. The *First Church" was in existence long before “the 1500 years.” Atleast that’s how I currently understand it.

We understand the definition of “Church” based on the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus told Peter before His crucifixion “you are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my Church”. We understand this as a reference to what Christ had not yet done, but would do shortly in the future.

Later, the Apostles taught that the Church founded by Christ is built upon the foundation of the Apsotles and prophets. These did not exist before Christ, and that is why we believe that Jesus founded and built His church during the Apostolic age, but not before.

 

[guanophore]

There were no Roman Catholics mentioned in the Bible; just as there are no Adventists. A Church is not a church without it’s beliefs. The name of the Church is not the same from one age to the next but the doctrines are.

I agree that a Church is not a church without it’s beliefs. But you are wrong that Roman Catholics are not mentioned in the Bible.

The whole Church is Catholic, as described by St. Luke in Acts 9:31.

Rom 1:7
7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints…

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

The faith of the Roman Catholics was already renouned around the known world, even before they were visited by an Apsotle!

 

[guanophore]

Before the Reformation of Martin Luther, there were reformers the likes of Jan Hus (burned at the stake, John Wickliffe and Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus who was afraid to challenge Rome on reform.

Yes. Reform is not accomplished through power struggles, and disobedience just begats more disobedience.

Martin Luther when he posted the 95 Theses at Wittenberg tried to a debate with the universities about the abuse of indulgences and the corruption that was in the Church at the time.

Yes. I think he had valid complaints. The problem is, the universities are not the forum to take your complaints about your bishop. The universities could not do anything to reform the Church.

For example the Albert of Mainz who was Archbishop, he purchased three bishoprics, he needed these indulgences to pay for these bishoprics.

Yep. Corruption was rampant.

If you read the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, you see that Luther didn’t want to leave the Catholic Church, he was forced out and could have been burned at the stake like Jan Hus.

Yes, I agree. Luther wanted to disobey the authorities appointed by Christ, and wanted to be his own source of authority, yet still be part of the Church. No one “forced” Luther out. He chose to embrace positions that put him outside of the Catholic faith. He was unwilling to relinquish them. He trusted his own judgment more than the Church.

If politics of Rome, the Pope of the time,France and the Holy Roman Empire hadn’t got in the way maybe the break would not have taken place.

I think the break could have been prevented if people had been more holy and Christ minded. I think the problem started way back when the Roman empire fell, and there was no one able to manage the affairs of Rome except the bishop. When he was given secular authority as well as religious, it was all downhill from there. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world, but they tried to make the world into the Kingdom, under the successor of Peter. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I am not anti-Catholic.

Perhaps not, but you have been given quite an anti-Catholic version of history.

 

[seamusmohr]

We understand the definition of “Church” based on the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus told Peter before His crucifixion “you are Cephas, and upon this Cephas I will build my Church”.

According to the Holy Roman Church at the Council of Trent, Scripture ,in this case Matt,16/19, has to be understood through the writings of the Holy Fathers. When we study just what the early fathers thought of this comment of Matthew we find that it was not S.Peter who was considered the Rock, but S.Peter’s faith! This makes a big difference!

 

[seamusmohr]

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.

I don’t disagree with your comments, but surely whilst there are many issues we Anglicans differ from the Romans, the basis of our separation is the Holy Roman Church’s insistence on Papal Jurisdiction and Infallibility, neither of which have any basis in either Scripture or Tradition!

 

[MartinJordan]

According to the Holy Roman Church at the Council of Trent, Scripture ,in this case Matt,16/19, has to be understood through the writings of the Holy Fathers. When we study just what the early fathers thought of this comment of Matthew we find that it was not S.Peter who was considered the Rock, but S.Peter’s faith! This makes a big difference!

But Seasmohr, shouldn’t his name just remain Simon?

I look at it like this: His name was changed because Simon now is Peter (Rock) like Abram’s name changed to Abraham.

MJ

 

[ESMDHokie77]

(…) the basis of our separation is the Holy Roman Church’s insistence on Papal Jurisdiction and Infallibility, neither of which have any basis in either Scripture or Tradition!

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, P101,

It is not my intent to be unjust to anyone. But, let us look more closely at this matter.

While priest being exposed for pedophelia - along with enabling Bishops - has made a lot of press - that is not the issue becasue: child abuse is not a recognized teaching of the Catholic Church.

Contrast this with the US Anglican ordination of a known and practicing homosexuals to the position of bishop (christianpost.com/news/conservative-anglicans-lament-ordination-of-2nd-gay-bishop-45189/ ) This action - in direct confrontation of chruch teaching with the conservative group opposing (noncelebate homosexual ordination) requsting this not take place has lead to the schism dividing this church.

That is what I am saying is a complete change (not a development of doctrine) that has taken place not just in Anglicanism but in other Protestant denominations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality There is no such debate or division over pedophelia - it is universally condemned by all churches. Those who so abuse children are guilty of a grave sin and a violation of the criminal code.

God bless - and, really … I will be here when you get back…

I’ll be gone in a few minutes; but couldn’t help address this. Tom, you are not doing justice to Protestant doctrines and practice. Your comments here would be like me saying “because that priest liked little boys; then all priests must.” I think it goes without saying that such doctrines as gay clergy do not represent Protestant beliefs; historically, developmentally, or otherwise. Such practices, which, yes, are against the Word, are done by classes I would not even view as Protestant… Anyways, see you in a couple days

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I really was not looking at it in the way you mentioned. My guess is, like Ecclesiastes 1:9 tells us, “Nothing is new under the sun…”. So, for example as I consider it, it appears that Arianism (Christ is not God) is still with us today in various forms albeit going by other labels.

The POV of the Reformers is rather unique, in my view. There had been multiple scandals in the Catholic Church prior to the 16th Century - yet no revolt as was witnessed beginning with Luther. The Western Schism (1378 - 1417) was quite devisive and at one time there were three men claiming to be Pope (newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm)

Hus, Luther, Calvin and others could have looked at the actual reforms accomplished by St. Catherine of Siena if they were truly interested in a role model. Unfortunately, they chose to revolt.

Additionally, there is a 1500 year history of:
1.) Apostolic Tradition
2.) Seven Sacraments - all physical and all giving God’s Grace
3.) A recognized hierarchy

For the most part, Protestantism broke for these three items (Anglicanism is a bit different in this regard) and created - brand new - their own way of doing things.

The idea of, “You are not doing it right, and I do not like what you are doing (scandals of selling indulgences, etc.) so, I will take over” is what a political coup is all about. This, too, is novel thinking for a church.

In my opinion, there is enough evidence to say that the main thrust of Protestant belief (Grace Alone, Scripture Alone, Private Interpretation of Scripture, etc.) did not have a long history at all. The 16th Century can be correctly identified as the not only the beginning of the Protestant Revolt but also Protestant thought as they set about developing their own unique traditions of men.

Hopefully, this explaination makes more sense, even though it is in opposition to what you presented.

God bless

I wasn’t trying to suggest that Reformation Protestantism and Catholisism were identical. Only that the idea that the Reformers didn’t suddenly appear out of no where, which is the suggestion when someone says they didn’t have a history before the 1500’s. Or even when it is claimed that they were founded by individuals. THat is not how the Reformers understood it at all. From their POV, they were the Catholic Church - it was the "Catholic Church ™ that was no longer properly part of the Church. THe question of how one can have a Church that only started in the 1500’s doesn’t make any sense from this perspective.

And it really doesn’t matter if you think they were right - to say they had no history doesn’t make sense. Luther was a Catholic, and he became what would become known as Lutheran, but that didn’t somehow mean he wasn’t part of a continuity of thought that went back to the beginning of Christianity. You can read Luther through his whole life and see that he is clearly in a tradition of Christian, and specifically Augustinian thought. You might think they went in a bizarre direction, but they were not something that had sprung up as wholly new. To use a different analogy, you may think the branch diseased, but it still grew from the trunk.

I have never understood why people would try to argue that the Reformers thought they were starting something new. It seems to me it is a matter of mixing up the Reformers and their decedents with some modern branches that are rather further removed.

Your points about doctrines that are questionable and validity of Sacraments seem ill placed, since obviously they neither considered their Sacraments invalid nor their doctrines questionable (and none held to the particular ones you mentioned.) How that relates to the idea that they somehow sprang up from nothing I do not know.

And indeed, there are lines of priests that the Catholic Church considers valid that belong that belong to people with far more questionable doctrines than the Protestant Reformers held, and who did not come out of the Reformation at all.

As someone who is fond of the history of thought, I find this line of reasoning very strange.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

This issue is contentious, certainly.

Let’s pursue this slowly, yet deliberately.

Let me ask you this: how do you define the origin of the Catholic Church?

While you gave a non-answer to my direct question, I can give you the following answer regarding the origin of the Catholic Church.

I define the origin of the Catholic Church as God. Jesus handpicked the Apostles, and they became Bishops and appointed successors to themselves. Jesus re-named Simon to Peter when he made him the leader of the Apostles, or Bishops, and thus the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. These Apostles had Disciples which are similar to modern day Priests, and they minister to the people. The Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and they have the authority on earth to govern the Church by God’s Holy Spirit guiding them, infallibly, until the end of the world. Amen.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ESMEHokie77,

That is really good!

I would have added the Apostles creating the position of Deacon (Acts 6) … a position the Catholic Church still holds today.

It certainly looks like a clear answer to me!

God bless

While you gave a non-answer to my direct question, I can give you the following answer regarding the origin of the Catholic Church.

I define the origin of the Catholic Church as God. Jesus handpicked the Apostles, and they became Bishops and appointed successors to themselves. Jesus re-named Simon to Peter when he made him the leader of the Apostles, or Bishops, and thus the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. These Apostles had Disciples which are similar to modern day Priests, and they minister to the people. The Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and they have the authority on earth to govern the Church by God’s Holy Spirit guiding them, infallibly, until the end of the world. Amen.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seasmusmohr,

And, prior to Henry VIII’s rejected offer by the Vatican, he clearly defended the Sacraments from Luther’s attack and was honored by the Defender of the Faith award. I would have never thought your founder had any trouble with the Primacy of Peter (considering he went there freely for a divorce decree) or any Tradition of the Catholic Church of which he was a member.

From my experience it is so much easier to conform my belief to fit my behavior than the other way around. Maybe Henry had a similar problem?

Really, Seasmusmohr, there are some genuine historic problems with your response.

God bless

I don’t disagree with your comments, but surely whilst there are many issues we Anglicans differ from the Romans, the basis of our separation is the Holy Roman Church’s insistence on Papal Jurisdiction and Infallibility, neither of which have any basis in either Scripture or Tradition!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ESMDHokie77,

Maybe I missed Seamusmohr’s response.

Actually I was going to add John 13:20

“Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

There is an unbroken line from the First Bishop of Rome and the Apostles to Benedict XVI and our current bishops. When it comes to continuity - there is no other Church like the one founded by Christ on Peter.

God bless

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”

 

[PJM]

=Curious Seed;

We see no further than the eyes we are given.

Why then friend does humanity ALONE have a Mind, Intellect and FREEWILL? ALL Spiritual gifts given for a precise purpose.

Catholics are steeped in the indoctrination that their view is the only view that constitutes the Church founded by Christ.

Friend you give too much creidt to Catholics: It’s God and it’s BIBLICAL

I say indoctrination in order to underline the default perspective Catholics adopt when the word Church is presented.

There are OVER 100 NT reference to ONLY One Church. READ Eph. 4:4-8 for example. While there were Temples and Synagogs thre was as there ought to be now; ONLY One Church, and One Faith [set of beliefs]

So, it is not surprising then to hear a Catholic mantra, given a Catholic teaching.

So friend what part of “the matra” would you have us prove to you?

Catholics believe, starting with Peter, history speaks in support of the Catholic Church, as the legitimate Church intended by Christ.

YEA, we agree

But, was the Catholic Church the Church of day one?

Christ and the Bible say it is.

The Catholic Church says yes; but, history says no.

REALLY… like where and what?

Age may be contributory to wisdom or senility; but is not authoritative per se, by either.

And the Keys [ALL ACCESS TO] the Gate of Heaven given to Peter [and Successors] with **UNLIMITED authority *to “bind and loose” and John 20: 19:13 [with the actual POWER OF GOD], and Jn. 14:16-17; and Jn.17:15-19]… you may wish to rethink that claim?

History shows that the Christian Church is expressed in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox denominations.

**Catholic church started around 33A.D

Orthodox Church around [AFTER 33 AD] BUT IN THE FIRST CENTURY BY CATHOLICS!,AND As a PART of the CC. Eastern Schism took Place in EARLY 11th. Century.

Protestant Church [King Henry] arounf 1300 AD, Luter 1600 AD**

If a denomination should prefer to label itself as Church, as Catholics choose, so be it.

In which case they to would be no-more Catholic than all the name-only caholics who claim BUT don’t practice the Faith as God clearly desires.

SORRY to disagree; on your reformation point; dispuites within the Catholic and Eastern[CATHOLIC] churches started around the early 5th. Century and Schism, Early 11th. Century. And Yes there is Apolostolic Succession.

Is every Christian who is not Catholic lost to God?

Friend your opinion is NOT that of the CC.

And if not, then Catholics agree that non-Catholic Christians have access to the Father through Christ.

Access YES! … SAME ACCESS NOT EVEN CLOSE

The contributions of Catholic thought to the Christian Church are ineffably profound – for which, all Christians are grateful – but, history demonstrates God does not want the Keys to rest with Catholics exclusively; regardless, of the Catholic spin on events, attempting to convince others [or themselves], otherwise.

**So God and His Bible and His Church are wrong?:**shrug: Tell us what you seek proof of.

God Bless,
Pat

judgement.

 

[seamusmohr]

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”

Your comment isn’t valid! Certainly on this subject we are told repeatedly that there must be no additions to the Deposit or diminution of the Catholic Faith.+ The fact is that for the first 3, or 4 Centuries, Catholic Tradition was the standard, this is reflected in the writings of S.Vincent of Lerins. It was the particular Church of Rome who made the break with Infallibilty and Jurisdiction. At Trent she compromised herself.

• S.Paul especially stresses this fact many times .

 

[Bluegoat]

Ok. Very good. I misunderstood.

What about the thousands of non-mainline Protestants. Do you believe they have had doctrinal changes?

I think so, but many of them probably wouldn’t.

But some seem to see history as having a kind of continued revelation.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I really was not looking at it in the way you mentioned. My guess is, like Ecclesiastes 1:9 tells us, “Nothing is new under the sun…”. So, for example as I consider it, it appears that Arianism (Christ is not God) is still with us today in various forms albeit going by other labels.

The POV of the Reformers is rather unique, in my view. There had been multiple scandals in the Catholic Church prior to the 16th Century - yet no revolt as was witnessed beginning with Luther. The Western Schism (1378 - 1417) was quite devisive and at one time there were three men claiming to be Pope (newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm)

Hus, Luther, Calvin and others could have looked at the actual reforms accomplished by St. Catherine of Siena if they were truly interested in a role model. Unfortunately, they chose to revolt.

Additionally, there is a 1500 year history of:
1.) Apostolic Tradition
2.) Seven Sacraments - all physical and all giving God’s Grace
3.) A recognized hierarchy

For the most part, Protestantism broke for these three items (Anglicanism is a bit different in this regard) and created - brand new - their own way of doing things.

The idea of, “You are not doing it right, and I do not like what you are doing (scandals of selling indulgences, etc.) so, I will take over” is what a political coup is all about. This, too, is novel thinking for a church.

In my opinion, there is enough evidence to say that the main thrust of Protestant belief (Grace Alone, Scripture Alone, Private Interpretation of Scripture, etc.) did not have a long history at all. The 16th Century can be correctly identified as the not only the beginning of the Protestant Revolt but also Protestant thought as they set about developing their own unique traditions of men.

Hopefully, this explaination makes more sense, even though it is in opposition to what you presented.

God bless

Luther didn’t choose to revolt, he was excommunicated. The Reformers did not believe in Private Interpretation of Scripture. Grace alone is debatable as not being found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and Scripture alone is a praxis based on necessity once the Catholic praxis of the authority of the Church and Tradition had shown itself to be flawed.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Your comment isn’t valid! Certainly on this subject we are told repeatedly that there must be no additions to the Deposit or diminution of the Catholic Faith.+ The fact is that for the first 3, or 4 Centuries, Catholic Tradition was the standard, this is reflected in the writings of S.Vincent of Lerins. It was the particular Church of Rome who made the break with Infallibilty and Jurisdiction. At Trent she compromised herself.

• S.Paul especially stresses this fact many times .

I’m at a loss for trying to comprehend your post. Can you explain? I gave a quote from SCRIPTURE showing that your post about Papal leadership is indeed SCRIPTURAL!

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Seasmusmohr,

And, prior to Henry VIII’s rejected offer by the Vatican, he clearly defended the Sacraments from Luther’s attack and was honored by the Defender of the Faith award. I would have never thought your founder had any trouble with the Primacy of Peter (considering he went there freely for a divorce decree) or any Tradition of the Catholic Church of which he was a member.

From my experience it is so much easier to conform my belief to fit my behavior than the other way around. Maybe Henry had a similar problem?

Really, Seasmusmohr, there are some genuine historic problems with your response.

God bless

When the current situation becomes untenable, you start to question your assumptions. The papacy made it impossible for the monarchs and princes to do their jobs, and so they broke away from the temporal power of the papacy. Unfortunately the papacy insisted that meant spiritual schism as well.