Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[araiceil]

Please believe me; I mean absolutely no disrespect here; but I have been studying, in depth, Roman Law In European History, and it seems to me that most people then in England were scared to not follow the Pope. The climate and mix of church and state at the time brought about this state of affairs. Based on this idea, and some other related ones; I would say that historically Popes have used various political means to help enforce/promulgate Roman Catholic beliefs. There are examples, right where I live today of this. I think that in many cases, and especially in Roman Catholic dominant countries; people still feel somewhat like this, so I would question whether or not people truly “follow the Pope.” I think that a lot of people just class themselves as following Jesus, and the Pope; well, reactions are very mixed - even within the Roman Catholic Church.

That’s a very interesting perspective, but you used it to deflect my question.
I will address yours when you address mine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PJM,

Sounds like you have covered all the bases!

You know, with 30,000+ groups out there all claiming and competing to be ‘right’ and all denying one teaching of Christ after another. It is a comfort to know that they all agree that the Catholic Chruch is wrong!

Oh - what about this King Henry in 1300? The only Henry I can think of (Henry VIII) was a contemporary of Luther in the 16th Century.

God bless

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

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

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

YEA, we agree

Christ and the Bible say it is.

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?

**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**

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.

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

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

God Bless,
Pat

judgement.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

So, as Mel Brooks said in “Blazing Sadles”, “Affairs of State must make way for affairs of state…!”

Forgive me, but I just never had thought of philandering around in various bedrooms as part of the job description of these kings and princes. Yes, having an actual objective standard for morality can limit the roamings of many a monarch! Thanks for pointing this out - I really did miss that one!

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.

 

[araiceil]

Hi, P101,

Oooooooooh, I don’t know the books you have been reading … but, they seem to have quite a real bias! Let me explain …

“…most were scared to follow the Pope…?” Please support this comment with an objective reference.

Actually, 'pre-divorce Henry was quite upset with Luther and Calivn - they created a lot of disruption in the running of Germany and France - and he wanted a stable England. As you recall, he is credited with writing a defense of Sacraments against Martin Luther for which the Pope awarded him the title of Defender of the Faith (britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/155661/defender-of-the-faith).

In 1509 when Henry VIII took over as king, England like any feudal country entering the Renaissance, had major areas of poverty that were being addressed by the Catholic Church through its monestaries and convents. When Henry VIII decided that his adventures in serial adultery needed another matrimonial touch he decided that he knew best. One of Herny’s responses was a need for a lot of money - so he took over the lands of the Catholic Church - confiscated all valuables, displaced the priests and religious and sold what remained to those favored in Court. This was the Dissolution of the Monestaries (and, here’s a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries).

Please bear in mind that 16th Century was not a time for the displays of individual opinion. Everyone was expected to know their place, and Henry as truly an autocratic ruler, enforced his opinion whenever he thought it necessary. I am really not aware of the Pope doing this in England - so, that is why the reference(s) would be helpful.

Back when princes ruled their lands, and the Pope was the ruler of the Papal States, there was a lot of jockying for positon on who held what. The medieval, feudal and renaissance time periods were ones of on-going battles for land, treasure and power - and, the Popes engaged in this activity, too. But, please bear in mind - in its 2000 year history, there has never been an error in ANY official teaching involving Faith or Morals. You may have reason to wonder about the behavior of certain individuals, but their official teachings were never in doubt.

Maybe it would help to look at the Pope in the context of Matt 16:18…

God bless

Thank you, Tom! I couldn’t have said it better!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Your timing is off on Luther. Start you clock on 1517 when he posted his 95 Thesis on the chuch door. There is no record to my knowledge of Luther trying to work with the Church on the errors he found. Luther was prideful and opinionated and refused all efforts at working with the Vatican. Finally the excommuniction was given in 1520.

Feel free to dismiss everything between the two dates I have given you - but the dates can NOT be dismissed. and you are incorrect in your initial statement: Luther revolted and then was excommunicated. Now, if truth be known, Luther really excommunicated himself prior to the official announcement from Pope Leo X, but that is really another matter.

Considering the belief of those who lead the Protestant Revolt (they ‘reformed’ nothing - they broke off relations and went their own way) by their dismissing the Magesterium, they had no option but to open the gates to everyone who wanted to claim he was lead by the Spirit to interpret as he will. Actually, they were criticized by other discontents that they wanted to be a pope themselves. Ah, the unkindest cut of all - ingratitude - sharper than a serpant’s tooth to quote Shakespear!

The true irony is the hatred that Luther and Calvin had for those who actually followed their principles - but, had the audacity to come up with still another religion. Imagine! The Thirty Years War is a good example of the hatred between these waring religions - and, just so you know I am as even-handed as i can be, the French Secretary of State - and also Catholic Cardinal Richelieu was perhaps the worst of the lot! There are more than enough scoundrals to go around - but, you do violence to the Early Chruch Fathers (and, that would be Catholic Church) in the way you dismiss Sacred Tradition.

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.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

So, as Mel Brooks said in “Blazing Sadles”, “Affairs of State must make way for affairs of state…!”

Forgive me, but I just never had thought of philandering around in various bedrooms as part of the job description of these kings and princes. Yes, having an actual objective standard for morality can limit the roamings of many a monarch! Thanks for pointing this out - I really did miss that one!

God bless

Unfortunately the popular media tends to let on that Henry was an inveterate philanderer, which wasn’t really the case.

But that isn’t really the point except in so far as it colours the way people think. In a form of government that depends on inheritance, having a secure heir is very important. This was recognized throughout the period in question, including by the papacy. A woman was not a secure heir - the experience in England had made it clear to them that was not a good road to go down, with the potential of civil war being very real to them.

The normal recourse in cases where there was no heir was annulment, and granting one was an every day occurrence, not just among monarchs, but the nobility in general.

Henry did not look for an annulment until Catherine was past child bearing, and he was fully confident he would get one. He was denied, but not for moral or spiritual reasons.

he was denied because the Pope was under the direct power of the Emperor of Spain, the enemy of England.

So in effect, the papacy was enabaling Spain, England’s enemy, to determine her national security. No monarch could carry on under those circumstances.

This kind of a thing was a problem throughout Europe, and is why many of the European princes welcomed the Reformation. The arrangement by which the papacy held both temporal and spiritual power had become untenable in very direct ways.

 

[GKC]

Unfortunately the popular media tends to let on that Henry was an inveterate philanderer, which wasn’t really the case.

But that isn’t really the point except in so far as it colours the way people think. In a form of government that depends on inheritance, having a secure heir is very important. This was recognized throughout the period in question, including by the papacy. A woman was not a secure heir - the experience in England had made it clear to them that was not a good road to go down, with the potential of civil war being very real to them.

The normal recourse in cases where there was no heir was annulment, and granting one was an every day occurrence, not just among monarchs, but the nobility in general.

Henry did not look for an annulment until Catherine was past child bearing, and he was fully confident he would get one. He was denied, but not for moral or spiritual reasons.

he was denied because the Pope was under the direct power of the Emperor of Spain, the enemy of England.

So in effect, the papacy was enabaling Spain, England’s enemy, to determine her national security. No monarch could carry on under those circumstances.

This kind of a thing was a problem throughout Europe, and is why many of the European princes welcomed the Reformation. The arrangement by which the papacy held both temporal and spiritual power had become untenable in very direct ways.

More less, historically accurate.Henry’s* causa*, a claim that the dispensation granted by Julius was ultra vires, in light of the Levetical prohibition, was as good as was normally granted a decree of nullity in those days, given the requirements of state. And he actually had a better case, of an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty. He had a better case than his sister Margaret, to be sure. And she received her decree.

History is complicated.

And I seem to be backsliding. Oh, dear.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

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

This is interesting. I am familiar with the Mormon concept of continued revelation, but did not know any Christians proclaimed this.

Do you have a source for this, Bluegoat?

 

[Bluegoat]

More less, historically accurate.Henry’s* causa*, a claim that the dispensation granted by Julius was ultra vires, in light of the Levetical prohibition, was as good as was normally granted a decree of nullity in those days, given the requirements of state. And he actually had a better case, of an undispensed impediment of the justice of public honesty. He had a better case than his sister Margaret, to be sure. And she received her decree.

History is complicated.

And I seem to be backsliding. Oh, dear.

GKC

What it comes down to I think is that you can’t claim spiritual authority and exercise it for purely temporal ends, and then expect anyone to take that spiritual authority seriously. And I don’t mean the spiritual authority of individual priests, bishops, or popes, but of the church, sacraments, and Tradition.

The lack of Christian unity is a scandal and a shame, but the CC brought the Reformation on itself. The undermined their own authority at every level.

We all backslide at times GKC. Read through the Articles a few times and consider yourself even.

 

[Bluegoat]

This is interesting. I am familiar with the Mormon concept of continued revelation, but did not know any Christians proclaimed this.

Do you have a source for this, Bluegoat?

No - I don’t know if any group says it officially. But I have met individuals who seem to believe this - either that the Holy Spirit reveals the way individuals should understand Scripture in a particular time and place, or the more educated version which says as we become more and more intellectually sophisticated and aware, we understand Christianity better.

So I wasn’t thinking of another official textual kind of revelation - that’s not the impression I meant to give.

 

[GKC]

What it comes down to I think is that you can’t claim spiritual authority and exercise it for purely temporal ends, and then expect anyone to take that spiritual authority seriously. And I don’t mean the spiritual authority of individual priests, bishops, or popes, but of the church, sacraments, and Tradition.

The lack of Christian unity is a scandal and a shame, but the CC brought the Reformation on itself. The undermined their own authority at every level.

We all backslide at times GKC. Read through the Articles a few times and consider yourself even.

The Articles, and a treatise on them, were my Lenten reading last year. Once a year is more than enough.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

or the more educated version which says as we become more and more intellectually sophisticated and aware, we understand Christianity better.

Heh. This is, well, development of doctrine, and quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Your timing is off on Luther. Start you clock on 1517 when he posted his 95 Thesis on the chuch door. There is no record to my knowledge of Luther trying to work with the Church on the errors he found. Luther was prideful and opinionated and refused all efforts at working with the Vatican. Finally the excommuniction was given in 1520.

Feel free to dismiss everything between the two dates I have given you - but the dates can NOT be dismissed. and you are incorrect in your initial statement: Luther revolted and then was excommunicated. Now, if truth be known, Luther really excommunicated himself prior to the official announcement from Pope Leo X, but that is really another matter.

Considering the belief of those who lead the Protestant Revolt (they ‘reformed’ nothing - they broke off relations and went their own way) by their dismissing the Magesterium, they had no option but to open the gates to everyone who wanted to claim he was lead by the Spirit to interpret as he will. Actually, they were criticized by other discontents that they wanted to be a pope themselves. Ah, the unkindest cut of all - ingratitude - sharper than a serpant’s tooth to quote Shakespear!

The true irony is the hatred that Luther and Calvin had for those who actually followed their principles - but, had the audacity to come up with still another religion. Imagine! The Thirty Years War is a good example of the hatred between these waring religions - and, just so you know I am as even-handed as i can be, the French Secretary of State - and also Catholic Cardinal Richelieu was perhaps the worst of the lot! There are more than enough scoundrals to go around - but, you do violence to the Early Chruch Fathers (and, that would be Catholic Church) in the way you dismiss Sacred Tradition.

God bless

I’d of said the opposite - the Holy See refused all offers to talk with Luther and made it very clear that they had no intention of changing anything.

And while it is the case that there came people who believed in individual interpretation of Scripture, it isn’t necessarily accurate to say that they came from Luther. There were really several parallel reformations in that period. If you want to ask what mistake Luther made that resulted in these other types of thinkers, you might as well ask what mistake the Catholic Church made that resulted in so many reformers and governments rebelling.

What makes you think I dismiss Tradition?

Let me give you another thought. Maybe it wasn’t the Reformers breaking away that made people think that anyone was able to lead with the inspiration of the HS. Maybe the problem was the idea that a single leader could make decisions for the whole church - the leadership model that distinguishes Catholicism from the early church - that ultimately lead to the Reformation, and the unfortunate splintering of the Christian world that followed.

 

[Bluegoat]

Heh. This is, well, development of doctrine, and quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

I hope not. It’s rather Hegelian.

 

[PRmerger]

I hope not. It’s rather Hegelian.

How so?

 

[tqualey]

Why, I think you’ve got it, Bluegoat!

It is obviously too tedious to identify any document to substantiate your theory that Luther was excommunicated before he rebelled - so just saying so, makes it so! Good job! Luther and Calvin had a perfect role model in real reform of a Catholic Chruch that had seriously run amuck in the person of St. Catherine of Siena. They, however, chose a different voice to listen to - and we see where that voice is leading those who continue to listen.

You know the root cause is Christ - you will recall He picked 12 … not the entire nation of Israel. While I would think that He had a reason for this - and, for making such statements about explaining the secrets of the Kingdom to the Apostles and not to everyone … maybe you are right! Yep - it would have been much better had Christ chosen everyone to be guided by the Spirit … and, according to you He did - it just is not written down!

Oh, and in answer to your question, I think you dismissed SacredTradition because it flies in the face of Sola Scriptura. The Traditions spoken of by Paul as he told the Church at Thessolinika to “…hold fast…” to were not written down! An obvious Pauline oversight. Then there are the Early Church Fathers who upheld things like Baptism of infants, the Real Presence, the Immanculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the necessity of confession, etc., standard things now denied by contemporary Protestants. Yes, I really would say you have dismissed quite a lot.

And the rejection of the ‘Single Leader’ hypothesis as the cause for the Protestant Revolt. I guess Christ should have had eleven other sets of keys made! But, you know, it is His Church and He really did call the shots on setting up everything. But, for the 1,500 years prior to the Protestant Revolt the belief in Christ’s Church fonded on Peter withstood the murderous persecution of the Roman Empire, the Word of God was written, protected and established in the Canon of Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church you are criticizing - for not following SS and orthodoxy was established through the Church Councils, heterodoxy identified and we continue to worship Christ through the Church He established. It has been a busy time.

During the last 500 years, we have seen further splintering of those claiming to follow Christ, heterodoxy replace the Word of God (e.g., endorsement of homosexual behavior by church organizations) and some chruch groups actually returning to the Catholic Church. This has been a busy time, too.

I honestly do not know what to say beyond this. I have attempted to give you documented and reasoned responses and you are content to ignore them and spin fanciful tales of what you would like to see, relieved of the burden of documenting anything.

God bless

I’d of said the opposite - the Holy See refused all offers to talk with Luther and made it very clear that they had no intention of changing anything.

And while it is the case that there came people who believed in individual interpretation of Scripture, it isn’t necessarily accurate to say that they came from Luther. There were really several parallel reformations in that period. If you want to ask what mistake Luther made that resulted in these other types of thinkers, you might as well ask what mistake the Catholic Church made that resulted in so many reformers and governments rebelling.

What makes you think I dismiss Tradition?

Let me give you another thought. Maybe it wasn’t the Reformers breaking away that made people think that anyone was able to lead with the inspiration of the HS. Maybe the problem was the idea that a single leader could make decisions for the whole church - the leadership model that distinguishes Catholicism from the early church - that ultimately lead to the Reformation, and the unfortunate splintering of the Christian world that followed.

 

[CMatt25]

Heh. This is, well, development of doctrine, and quite consonant with Catholic teaching.

Perhaps it is in harmony with some Protestants too. As I recall the United Church of Christ for instance, stating “God is still speaking”.

 

[guanophore]

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!

Actually, there is not. And there is no false dichotomy of “this, and not that”. Jesus is THE Rock, and grafted Peter into Himself. Without integration and unity with the cornerstond, Peter cannot be a foundation stone. Peter cannot either be separated from the faith that makes him rocky. Peter, like all the Apostles, becomes part of the foundation because their faith is one with their personhoood. It is no longer they that live, but Christ that lives in them. There is no separation of the three “rocks”.

 

[guanophore]

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!

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? what do you think Jesus meant when He told Peter to feed and care for His flock?

Can you feed and care for someone if you have no jurisdiction over them?

 

[guanophore]

Your comment isn't valid!

How and when did scripture become “invalid”?

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 .

The governance of the One Church does not constitute an addition to the deposit of faith.