Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[GaryTaylor]

Since you are the one who is contesting the point, then let me put this slowly and deliberately.

How do you define Christ’s Church such that you think the Catholic Church is not historically Christ’s Church?

There it is And we are simply hanging on the edge of our chairs waiting for this wisdom.

God Bless You, GT

 

[wed2catholic]

Hail,

As a student, these were questions which often plagued my mind. As a student, we’re obliged to ask why. So I did. The answer played a major factor into bringing me into the CC. It has been a bit bothersome, at times, since I’m still somewhat influenced by Protestant teachings.

I worry that if my cup is full of bad water, would that water contaminate the good water? I’ve been mostly trying to throw away that bad water, so there is none of its foulness left. But it’s hard, because the water sticks to the cup and brings with it doubt and insecurity. How can I join Catholicism like this?

It’s not good. Not good at all.

-MontChevalier

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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

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

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

I wonder what liturgical tradition your church follows, CS?

Does it sound like that which Justin Martyr described here:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” -St. Justin

This was written in the 2nd century.

Would you acknowledge that the above writing has a uniformity and consistency with how Catholics celebrate the divine liturgy today?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wonder what liturgical tradition your church follows, CS?

Does it sound like that which Justin Martyr described here:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” -St. Justin

This was written in the 2nd century.

Would you acknowledge that the above writing has a uniformity and consistency with how Catholics celebrate the divine liturgy today?

PRmerger; Its a blessing to see you engaged again my sister, you point of vew and overall context of charily and eduction has been missed.

God Bless You, Gary

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger; Its a blessing to see you engaged again my sister, you point of vew and overall context of charily and eduction has been missed.

God Bless You, Gary

shaw:

 

[JonNC]

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.

CMatt,
I quickly reviewed the thread, and just wanted to make this note, which may or may not be helpful or interesting; In the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession, the writers remark, *“Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.” *

It seems obvious that the Lutheran reformers knew from the roots of the Church - in Rome and in the East.

Jon

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

CMatt,
I quickly reviewed the thread, and just wanted to make this note, which may or may not be helpful or interesting; In the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession, the writers remark, "Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches."

It seems obvious that the Lutheran reformers knew from the roots of the Church - in Rome and in the East.

Jon

Jon,

Always a pleasure to read your posts. I appreciate how you are clear and charitable.

Thanks!

 

[steve_b]

Doubt is often a motivation to learning. If you doubt something you are thinking about it. If you want to find the answers from what someonelse claims are fact, then ask SAY’S WHO. Pray and read, the Holy Spirit is promised to guide you. Searching has never offended God.

Are you referring to the quote “to doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity”?

I think Padre Pio (in that quote) is saying, doubt cannot coexist either with faith or knowledge in regard to any given subject; faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, and knowledge which is limited by a doubt, becomes, in regard to the subject or part of a subject that the doubt applies, is no longer knowledge but opinion.

for example

here’s the definition of faith (emphasis mine)

faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Heb 11:1]

Can you insert “doubt” for any of the underlined words in that definition of faith and make any sense out of it?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Are you referring to the quote “to doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity”?

I think Padre Pio (in that quote) is saying, doubt cannot coexist either with faith or knowledge in regard to any given subject; faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, and knowledge which is limited by a doubt, becomes, in regard to the subject or part of a subject that the doubt applies, is no longer knowledge but opinion.

for example

This thinking is common thread in Bible, and what Pio is referring to is no different than St John of the Cross. Or in Bible Jeremiah, King David, Jonah, Job, Isaiah. But most notable it could read in the words or King David and Jeremiah.

In other words in the prurifcation of the Soul it like looking directly at God which the Soul cannot handle. So just like the Sun Blinds the eyes. Go does God and leaves it in Darkeness, nonetheless He its still there. And although these Souls are touched and are on the path, the doubt comes in the sense that they also realize what an insigificant human being trapped in flesh they are. So the constant though is not matter how much the consecrate theri Souls to God they also know its never enough. And in this sense this where the doubt comes into play.

Of couse the higher up jacabs ladder one rise’s this also cease’s but it very rare. If you read Danial God states to Daniel to remain on “this step” thats the ninth step with complete communication through total consecration to God. God encourages Danial to reamain here, so Ha could constantly isntruct in interceed for Him. Which He does throughout.

God Bless, Gary

God Bless, Gary

here’s the definition of faith (emphasis mine)

faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Heb 11:1]

Can you insert “doubt” for any of the underlined words in that definition of faith and make any sense out of it?

Oops sorry I posted above you Qoute ending. Nonethe less I’m sure you understand my seperation from yours. Peace! What I am saying is there is a “few” way to look at this.

 

[MontChevalier]

Have you ever read the catholic teaching on it? Such as this.

newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

When you read where you find error?

God Bless, Gary

I’ve looked up information on Purgatory and, to be honest, it scares the heck out of me.
Temporal punishment? Fire? Sounds kinda like Hell.

And when I look at the history, the words on Purgatory weren’t issued up until the 1160’s and 1170’s. But rather, prayer for the dead seems to be there, although, it’s not exactly mentioning Purgatory. And even then, it’s also not saying how long a person is supposed to be in Purgatory.

-MontChevalier

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve looked up information on Purgatory and, to be honest, it scares the heck out of me.
Temporal punishment? Fire? Sounds kinda like Hell.

And when I look at the history, the words on Purgatory weren’t issued up until the 1160’s and 1170’s. But rather, prayer for the dead seems to be there, although, it’s not exactly mentioning Purgatory. And even then, it’s also not saying how long a person is supposed to be in Purgatory.

-MontChevalier

I think the doctrine on purgatory will make sense once we adjust our view on salvation.
I wrote 3 posts on the thread below (post 45, 46, 47) and this shows why purgatory is essential to a proper understanding of salvation.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=525545&highlight=theosis&page=4

**Also, this thread might help as well
**
The Hope of Eternal Life Lutheran / Catholic dialogue On Purgatory
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548929

As for the length of stay in purgatory, we don’t know. We trust in God’s Mercy and God’s justice and know that our stay will not be one moment longer or one moment shorter than is necessary to transform us into the Image of His Son.

We will not be sent to purgatory. We will choose it.

And if that does not seem reasonable, we can draw analogies from our everyday life. Think of the things that one puts oneself through to look trim, taught and terrific.

People do hard work at the gym, eat unappetizing food, go through surgery just to look great. We will choose the pain because we will want to be made perfect.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt,
I quickly reviewed the thread, and just wanted to make this note, which may or may not be helpful or interesting; In the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession, the writers remark, "Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches."

It seems obvious that the Lutheran reformers knew from the roots of the Church - in Rome and in the East.

Jon

Jon, any replies from Protestants about their thinking on this are helpful and interesting to me. I confess though I am not overly knowledgable on every Lutheran doctrine and how or if any part of Lutheran doctrine departs from doctrine which might have been in place for yrs before the Reformation. We don’t need to make this a course on Lutheranism per se. And I know there is ELCA, and the more conservative LCMS and Wisconson synod. But where Lutheran doctrine may differ with doctrine prior to the Reformation, why do Lutherans think it took so long to correct? Peace.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, any replies from Protestants about their thinking on this are helpful and interesting to me. I confess though I am not overly knowledgable on every Lutheran doctrine and how or if any part of Lutheran doctrine departs from doctrine which might have been in place for yrs before the Reformation. We don’t need to make this a course on Lutheranism per se. And I know there is ELCA, and the more conservative LCMS and Wisconson synod. But where Lutheran doctrine may differ with doctrine prior to the Reformation, why do Lutherans think it took so long to correct? Peace.

I think Lutheran theologians of the time felt that Augsburg was a restatement of the teachings of the early Church, and that their “corrections” were of what they saw as innovations. Catholics may describe it as development of doctrine. In short.

Jon

 

[CMatt25]

I think Lutheran theologians of the time felt that Augsburg was a restatement of the teachings of the early Church, and that their “corrections” were of what they saw as innovations. Catholics may describe it as development of doctrine. In short.

Jon

Jon, if you’re basically saying Lutherans and Protestants in general feel the Reformation was keeping in line with the earliest Church and just part of the ongoing development and defining of doctrine, then that is helpful, yes. Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, if you’re basically saying Lutherans and Protestants in general feel the Reformation was keeping in line with the earliest Church and just part of the ongoing development and defining of doctrine, then that is helpful, yes. Thank you.

Not sure I’m saying that, and I’m certainly not speaking for protestants. What I was saying is that the criticism of the Church by the Lutherans was, in part, that it’s development of doctrine in some areas (papal primacy come to mind) was leading away from early Church teachings. Of course, Catholics could make the same criticism against Lutheranism (sola scriptura comes to mind). So, maybe you have a point.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

I think Lutheran theologians of the time felt that Augsburg was a restatement of the teachings of the early Church, and that their “corrections” were of what they saw as innovations. Catholics may describe it as development of doctrine. In short.

Jon

It seems not though considering the sacraments went down from 7 to 2.

The problem was their failure to distinguish practice from doctrine. The doctrine was sound, the practice not so.

There is also the arrogance (though they would not have thought this as such) in the thinking that doctrinally, they knew better than the church. Pitting oneself against 1500 years of tradition and the wisdom of the Church is really a bad move and that is why we ended up where we are now.

What makes them think that their “restatement” of the early Church is really the “early Church”? And should we remain at that early Church stage without developing? This means they have an idea of church that remained an acorn and so therefore any developments must be eschewed to reclaim the acorn.

In this regard, Blessed John Henry Newmann’s contribution has indeed shed tremendous light on this faulty understanding of Church and doctrine.

I also think this is truly a failure in philosophy. The reformation was guided by Ockham’s Nominalism and this same philosophy is the foundation of relativism and the deconstructionism so we can see that the root from the beginning was anything but good.

 

[benedictus2]

Not sure I’m saying that, and I’m certainly not speaking for protestants. What I was saying is that the criticism of the Church by the Lutherans was, in part, that it’s development of doctrine in some areas (papal primacy come to mind) was leading away from early Church teachings. Of course, Catholics could make the same criticism against Lutheranism (sola scriptura comes to mind). So, maybe you have a point.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I have not seen any convincing case proposed by any protestant that Papal Primacy was a “leading away from early Church teachings”.

What is your main argument for this?

Peace!

Cory

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;7828705]It seems not though considering the sacraments went down from 7 to 2.
And of course, the Orthodox don’t necessarily number them at 7. That said, it seems to me you make a point, that being redefining sacrament (though acknowedging the others as Holy Rites) is perhaps a “development”.

The problem was their failure to distinguish practice from doctrine. The doctrine was sound, the practice not so.

On another thread, I mentioned that it may have been difficult, in that time and place, to distinguish, considering who was doing the practicing. Perhaps not an excuse on our side, however.

There is also the arrogance (though they would not have thought this as such) in the thinking that doctrinally, they knew better than the church. Pitting oneself against 1500 years of tradition and the wisdom of the Church is really a bad move and that is why we ended up where we are now.

And again, how well was the Church acting on its 1500 years of wisdom? But I agree this is the reasonwe are where we are.

What makes them think that their “restatement” of the early Church is really the “early Church”? And should we remain at that early Church stage without developing? This means they have an idea of church that remained an acorn and so therefore any developments must be eschewed to reclaim the acorn.

Depends on the development, and from whence the original doctrines start.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I have not seen any convincing case proposed by any protestant that Papal Primacy was a “leading away from early Church teachings”.

What is your main argument for this?

Peace!

Cory

Hi again, Cory,
Linked is the “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”.

Ignoring the polemics, it states better than I could what the Lutheran reformers thought.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Peace also with you,
Jon

 

[araiceil]

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 sharing your perspective. I am not at all trying to be flippant here, so I hope I don’t come across that way. I am trying to find the best way to pose this question, so here goes:

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

Again, I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but from an historic perspective, this is true. English Catholics thought it necessary to follow the Pope for over 1500 years. Many did so even after the schism, and died for it. How does it reconcile that a fallible womanizer and his successors had/have more authority than the successor of Peter?