Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

You know, that sounds like a great idea for another thread!

I have already explained that this break from Rome was not JUST about Henry’s sex drive - but, his response to not getting his way. Basically, Henry made himself Pope (so the government of Henry’s church rested with Henry and his appointees). Henry kept the Seven Sacraments, kept the litergy, kept the prayers and teachings that did not conflict with him being his own pope… like marriage laws.

His desire for a male heir was obsessive. And, when ‘wife #2’ failed to produce a male heir, she lost her head and Henry was in search of another woman. Everything else was secondary.

Besides lust, Henry was truly motivated by pride and greed (and with him and his friends having impoverished the country - greed was barely enough!)

Those are the reasons for Henry’s revolt from the Catholic Church.

God bless

So forget Henry and lets return to the power struggle that existed from 800AD to the 17th, Century within the Catholic Church on the question of the Magisterium ? Four or five councils discussed the matter, this is what you and your colleagues are ignoring, as well as the fact that only two English Kings, neither of whom were honourable men, actually supported the Papal Claims!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well; maybe you can show us where in that scripture the phrase “Roman Catholic” is found?

Every Roman Catholic here traces their church’s beginnings around AD 32 so that leaves you some pretty serious back-tracking to do here.

I might add that when your church says “saved by grace;” (through faith;" you mean something different than do many Christians/Protestants when they say it. “use the language” but keep your own doctrines, seems to be the approach of the Roman Catholic denomination.

The Bible is Christian; it is nowhere close to being “only Catholic.”

Who wrote the NT? That would be Catholics. Even Luther used a catholic version for his translation? Who’s Bible do you suppose they were using in the catholic churchs Ignatius spoke about? Someone else’s? Its the Catholics Bible. We allowed you to copy it and of couse that became 10% corrupt immediatly.

Oh please, there was only One Church, Christs, it was the Catholic Church which we already showed you Ignatius among others coined on 107-AD. So it was well known years before that or he would have never used the term. And the Bible came after the CC, not before, so there is only ONE way of live talked about the Catholic.

Maybe you should show us where Protestant Chuch is named? I understand it came from the word PROTEST with Luther in the 1500.s

The CC isn’t a denominaion, its the Mystical “BODY” of Jesus Christ. It is “THE” church. All aother “denominations” are cells living outside the true church. They may be christian churchs in “some” sense. But they are not part of the body in the full sense becuase NONE maintain the total Truth. If they manitianed the tptal truth they would be in communion with Rome.

You must have missed or ignored my earlier post. Page 17 its located.

When Christ chose Peter He already knew he would be sifted like wheat. No surpize whats happened since Christ left in the Flesh. He undestood all this would happen, And He correctly stated the Gates of Hell would never prevail. And since they haven’t it should be a great indicator they never will, and also a great indicator how far of track denominations are. So no human error occured which He wasn’t aware of. He still is binding and loosing according to te CC though. Just as He stated He would. Why would Christ choose Peter after He knew he would deny Him three times in one night? He chose Peter because he knew the truth in Christ who He was, where He cane from and he actually “got it” He BELIEVED, and those are the followers of the CC today, no different and humans possible of errore just like Peter was of course. Those who truly believe in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ are the church Human error was a give, it was known. But walking away from the Catholic Church was never an option, nor will it ever be. To unite the divisions is the only option. United we stand, divided more souls are swept to damnation. And World Peace becomes a nice thought but never a reality as promised at Fatima. and in Isaiah. World communion brings World peace. Maybe we should try something that actually will work iand was instructed by GOD? Instead of another denomination? What do you think. I guess it depends on how much you really read into this, and how much faith you really have, how much you really believe we live Gods Mercy momnet by moment. And if in fact you really hear Christs Voice. Like all His sheep do.

And today how many denominations do we have in the USA that believe what? Some are a stretch to even call Christian. That was defined by Irenaeus as schisms and heresys in 170.

With all the info out here from the first 300 years of church fathers. All the scripture verse’s coinciding with the catholic church. You you would think by “now” man would realize. “hey we have a problem”. Maybe we ought to get back to Christs church before it gets any worse. The US may not be so lucky to miss the persecution next time. Its been very fortuante so far.

Unfortunately we have many still who chose to believe the Bible according to their own understanding and thus todays situation in American and the West.

The question is when are we going to get back to the real church of Jesus Chirst and back to the business of Wolrd Peace and Saving Souls?

If Christ washed the feet of the Apostles, maybe the protestants can humble themselves and realize the real church is still inbetween their pride and ego. I don’t know what it will take. But its obviously needed. Everyone see’s that. No? How ill survive otherwise by chance? liuck? In other words you would have to believe God isn’t is Full Control of this moment by moment.

No Historian of Theologian see’s but “one” catholic church for over the first 800 years. And that is the Catholic Church. And it pretty clear how Christ started it who he gave the Keys to and how it would work. The verses are on my last post.

Whats seriously lacking is anything of substancial in contrary. We would all love to see that “still”.

In this entire thread what of significance has been said for the protestant church existing prior to 1500. None, its a historical fact it didn’t. It also a historical fact of how little the protestant church has accomplished since the USA was founded. We just have about another 200 denominations from little to no belief or futher in heretical thinking. Long as you disagree with the CC you seem to think that makes all this OK. When in fact only the opposite is true.

If there is something of significance to debate here by all means lets get to it. I see passing vague comments by Protestants, None of which prove the point of the OP. Which “YOU” proposed. Thus it becomes your responsibility to prove it.

God Bless, Gary

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

You know, that sounds like a great idea for another thread!

I have already explained that this break from Rome was not JUST about Henry’s sex drive - but, his response to not getting his way. Basically, Henry made himself Pope (so the government of Henry’s church rested with Henry and his appointees). Henry kept the Seven Sacraments, kept the litergy, kept the prayers and teachings that did not conflict with him being his own pope… like marriage laws.

His desire for a male heir was obsessive. And, when ‘wife #2’ failed to produce a male heir, she lost her head and Henry was in search of another woman. Everything else was secondary.

Besides lust, Henry was truly motivated by pride and greed (and with him and his friends having impoverished the country - greed was barely enough!)

Those are the reasons for Henry’s revolt from the Catholic Church.

God bless

Henry did not revolt from the Catholic Church, that’s laughable! The irritating thing is that you don’t even try to prove your case. That Henry was greedy, selfish and lustful, I have no doubt, but that was the standard amongst the rulers of western Europe including the papacy in Northern Europe. When you mention his impoverishing the country? If you studied the history of the country at this time you would find constant complaints from the English Church and people at the Papal Courts greed for money and the pretexts used to squeeze it out from a Catholic people and Church! THis had been a complaint since Henry II time, further you will find this was the state of things and had been done by all the Norman Rulers of England since William the Butcher. Under Henry II, both Church and state were discussing ways and means of rejecting the papacy! As long as the pope had kept to his wide but undefined brief, things went on smoothly enough, but when he sought to widen his political authority especially there was trouble. During the various schisms within the Church at Rome, according to Archbishop Lanfranc, the King with the agreement of the Bishops decided which of the culprits to support! Pascal II. in a letter to the King in 1115 complained that he was,“astonished and grieved that so little regard is paid to S.Peter in your dominions , for neither nuncios nor letters to the Apostolic See can make their way in to your Kingdom without consent of your majesty!” This state of things had existed since the rise of the papacy under the early Saxon things. It had nothing to do with henry 8!

 

[GKC]

Read the early fathers! Not just isolated clips.

You have to go farther still and tell us how the Petrine mantel falls upon the Bishop of Rome?

How’s Fred?

GKC
Sadly Fred died at Christmass, a lovely dog! It was after a short period of ,slowing,’ down,not a particular illness that I could see, but he died in his sleep!
It isn’t the same, but I’m obliged that you remember him and taking the trouble to enquire!

I am truly sorry to hear this. I am familiar with the place a good dog can get, in the family and in the heart. Our own dog left us, almost 4 years ago, aged nearly 17. The void is still there.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Henry did not revolt from the Catholic Church, that’s laughable! The irritating thing is that you don’t even try to prove your case. That Henry was greedy, selfish and lustful, I have no doubt, but that was the standard amongst the rulers of western Europe including the papacy in Northern Europe. When you mention his impoverishing the country? If you studied the history of the country at this time you would find constant complaints from the English Church and people at the Papal Courts greed for money and the pretexts used to squeeze it out from a Catholic people and Church! THis had been a complaint since Henry II time, further you will find this was the state of things and had been done by all the Norman Rulers of England since William the Butcher. Under Henry II, both Church and state were discussing ways and means of rejecting the papacy! As long as the pope had kept to his wide but undefined brief, things went on smoothly enough, but when he sought to widen his political authority especially there was trouble. During the various schisms within the Church at Rome, according to Archbishop Lanfranc, the King with the agreement of the Bishops decided which of the culprits to support! Pascal II. in a letter to the King in 1115 complained that he was,“astonished and grieved that so little regard is paid to S.Peter in your dominions , for neither nuncios nor letters to the Apostolic See can make their way in to your Kingdom without consent of your majesty!” This state of things had existed since the rise of the papacy under the early Saxon things. It had nothing to do with henry 8!

(insert eating popcorn smiley here)

GKC

 

[Lovesa]

The Church gets its power from God - it is His Bride and Christ has not only promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail, but that the Spirit of Truth would guide His Church to all Truth. So, the same God that lives in the Church and its members is giving the Bible is life and freedom from error.

Surely, the Church gets its power from God, but if the evidence is found in the Bible with the Bible not being the source of church authority, why is Biblical proof turned to to prove these points? Is it, then, being used also as a historical document?
tqualey;7849682:

Let us look at the audience that was around in 400AD when the Canon of Sacred Scriptures was released. There were still three main religious groups: Pagans, Jews and Catholics. By 400AD there had already been about 3 Successors to the Chair of Peterhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm. While gone, the murderous persecutions of the Roman Empire must have still inspired fear in the hearts of believers, there would have been two church councils by then dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm

mainly concerning the major heresy of Arianism (Christ was not God). So, the idea of creating mischief by manipulating scripture would have not made any sense - really. What do you think would have been accomplished? Besides, Christ is Truth - and it is the Devil who is the Father of Lies. Resorting to devilish lies to bolster God’s Kingdom really makes no sense. This is where faith is needed. Admittedly, it is not nearly as exciting as a conspiracy theory involving God, the Church and a lot of evil to deceive innocent believers. This is more like Dan Brown material, eh?

What would have been accomplished? Simple; the church would have been given authority to declare the Arians heretics (not arguing the weren’t) without due debate, etc.

Also: no arguments on my side about Christ as Truth. However, if the early church leaders were in any way corrupt, they could have been acting out of the influence of Christ.

Matthew and John were the two Apostles (original Twelve) who wrote the two Gospels bearing their name and Mark and Luke were disciples. When it comes to the who wrote what - I think the best approach is to start out with teh concept that God is the Principal Author. While God did not dictate to the Sacred Writers, He did inspire them - and the bottom line is that God’s message of Salvation was communicated then - and still communicates today.

See; this is what I find funny about many Lutherans. Some people honestly do believe God sat down with the disciples (though not physically present) and dictated the Bible, word for word. Not my view, but an interesting one. (That point is open to free opinion for Lutherans. We have a teaching that anything not found in the Bible is open to belief, or adiaphora.)

Now, do you thnk the Apostels were … Lutheran…? Seriously, if not Catholic, just what were they? They had already been arrested, beaten and thrown out of the Temple - so they could not really call themselves Jews. They believed Jesus was the Christ and prayed for His return, as he promised. This question is as serious as a heart attack! Most of the Protestants i have interacted would much rather come up with a fanciful story of pre-Protestant Rebellion individuals hiding out in the desert … until the 16th Century! It is a fanciful tale because - there is absolutely no merit in this tale.

The Apostles? Lutheran? Heaven forbid, no. The general idea I’ve seen was that the church was not split into factions at all, so the apostles were Christians. Good, loyal, nondenominational Christians. If you run into the word Catholic to describe them in early writings, it’s because it’s a good word later appropriated by the Catholic Church, and does not necessarily mean they are one and the same. For example, the Republican/Democrat parties of the USA are quite different since their foundings. One might not recognize them, so calling them the same party seems silly to some, despite the constant name. The same goes for the word Catholic.

:ehh: And there were rebels hiding in the desert? As in, they had to flee to get away from the bad bad Catholics? :knight1: Did they ever have to fight off people sent to kill them? :knight2: And live in the desert, caves, and things like that? :winter:

I may look up that story; it sounds fun, if not ridiculous. After all, the church had the sense to deal with the Arians, and it’s not like they had to worry too hard about getting killed over their beliefs.

(I don’t mean to sound so amused, but this is news to me. I’ve heard a few select individuals went to live in the desert, but that it was more in protest and a desire to live out their faith their own way than to hide away from persecutors.)

There really is a paper trail - beginning with Christ, appointing Peter as the leader of the Apioostle, and all the apostles as the First Bishops. The Catholic Church can really traces its roots back to Christ and the Apostles - the 16th Century Protestant only have men to look at for these man-made relistions as they developed the traditions of men.

I may have to look up a timeline of the first popes. I’ve never been able to wrap my head around that notion, but the timeline usually seems weird or unlikely in spots.

 

[Lovesa]

Exactly! So, why would this principle not apply to the Word He placed in the Church? On what basis would He abandon that Word?

Not so circular, since God is not confined to the Bible. He has made promises to this effect that existed long before the NT.

The curious thing is, why do our separated brethren not apply this principle to the Church?

Because it seems to them that the Church is in error, and has introduced contrabiblical beliefs. Whether or not this is true it open for debate, but that’s the belief.

No, the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church. Granted He is expressed in the pages of Holy Scripture, but He is not confined to it.

Concurred.

The only relevance this has to the papacy is that God has promised He will lead the Church into all Truth, so that the Pope cannot teach errors to the flock. If error were taught, then souls would pass through the gates of hell, and Christ will not allow this to happen.

The relevance I see is the idea that there is an actual person in a leadership position–somebody who will continue into the future. I haven’t seen that elsewhere.

The two are not separated. Jesus intended for HIs Church to be visible. He will not allow His Holy Bride to be corrupted at all!

Here’s where we differ. The Lutheran church beliefs that they are quite seperated. Elsewise everyone in the Church visible would be saved, which is not always so. After all, salvation comes from faith*, and certainly there are members of the church visible, who, through lack of faith, are not members of the church invisible, and there are people not joined with the church visible who are members of the church invisible by merit of faith.

*I think the protestant (esp. Lutheran) idea of sola gracia is often exaggerated. Yes, salation by faith, not works, but there are other venues, as someone has pointed out. There is communion, baptism, confession, etc. However, all these things are a product of faith, and they come from a faithful person. In the same way that these things save, they are useless without faith, so that the doctrine is reduced to sola gracia for ease of conversation, etc., as well as to give all credit to God. Sola gracia is certainly not a denial of the importance of works, for faith without them is dead.

There are no contradictions between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. They both came from the same Source (God) and therefore, cannot contradict. Sacred Tradition (the teaching of the apostles) produced the New Testament.

If it seems they contradict, then one does not understand one, the other, or both.

Perhaps, but that is where the split comes in, I think. The tradition seems to contradict.

 

[PRmerger]

Because it seems to them that the Church is in error, and has introduced contrabiblical beliefs. Whether or not this is true it open for debate, but that’s the belief.

Perhaps, but that is where the split comes in, I think. The tradition seems to contradict.

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?

 

[Lovesa]

It seems to me that a Lutheran could not accept that Apostolic authority has been preserved by God through the Succession. If he did, he could not, in good conscience, continue to exist outside of the authority appointed by Christ. It is the witness of the Scripture, though, and the early church, that this is the case. In scripture their successors are called “episkopos” or overseers of the flock. We call them bishops. They are assisted by presbyters (priests) and diakonos (deacons).

They couldn’t if they believed it was preserved by succession, granted. However, if the succession was broken somewhere along the line, they very well could.

If the word of God is to remain incorrupt, the God will not allow it to be corrupted where He has placed it.

Isa 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Jesus put His Word into the Church, He breathed the Spirit into the Church. If He did not preserve His word in it, why not?

He preserved his word in it, sure. The question is whether or not this Word is also in the form of Peter’s so-called successors. If it is not, then the only Word that can be counted on for sure is scripture.

I agree, but Jesus made certain specific promises to His Church.

What happened to the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation? Are we to think He stopped intervening in this way to keep His Church pure?

The question is how much He intervened. The Lutheran Jesus isn’t as hands-on as the Catholic one, it seems to me. He stops major heresies, but otherwise lets people go on as they will.

John 19:10-11
10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”

Jesus did not excuse Pilate of his sin. He did say the Jews bore a greater sin.

Fascinating…

I find it very odd, but in order for the Reformers to find it necessary to rewrite the Apostolic faith, it seems that it would be necessary. There could be no really holy Catholics who embraced Catholic faith existing. If there were, they would have embraced false doctrines, and been unable to walk in purity before God.

But they didn’t see themselves as rewriting the Apostolic faith, only restoring it to purity.

There were many corrupt persons in positions of authority. The leadership of the Church had been conflated with secular affairs for centuries. The purity of the gospel was not reaching the people.

Yes. They did not realize that they could be freed of corruption without changing what was once for all commited to the Church by the Apostles. This being the case, they changed the meanings of some of the words, and reoganized the doctrines of the faith to meet their needs.

Is the meaning of various words so important, in comparison to the major truths of the faith? It doesn’t seem to me that words that aren’t even in the Bible matter so much. For instance, the word sacrament is nowhere in there, yet there are disputes as to what constitutes one. Is this matter of semantics so important, when both churches use all 7…things…while referring to them with different titles?

Better watch yourself! You may have already drifted into Catholicism!

Yeah; I’ve been wary of that for a little while. I’m not the best Lutheran in the world, but I can’t call myself Catholic either. It leads to weirdness when people ask what I am.

Perhaps you have not studied enough of the history yet?

Hopefully. I’m somwhere between Lutheranism and Catholicism with my beliefs at the moment, and it’s frustrating not to be solidly in one or the other.

Exactly! YOu have arrived at the reason Jesus needed to give the gift of infallibility to the Church. That is what keeps us out of unavoidable corruption based upon our own perceptions.

We actually had a talk about that in confirmation class, when I was in 8th grade. “Catholicism seems tempting 'cause of its claims to being all perfect and whatnot, but it’s actually not as perfect as it claims.” It was like a sex ed talk in tone, and it was so weird. Like claiming infallible truth was like sex, and marriage was death and heaven, so claiming infallibility before god explained everything at death was like premarital sex. Tempting, but kids, you’ll get diseases!

Luther was a Catholic, and much of the Lutheran faith has retained Catholic teaching.

Exactly! I had to explain that to a friend of mine a short while ago. He wanted to seriously date, and said I should convert to Methodism. It occurred to me I could be more easily Catholic than another kind of Protestant, for the very thing you note.

 

[araiceil]

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]

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?

 

[seamusmohr]

(insert eating popcorn smiley here)

GKC

Could it be that you imagine that Henry , influences William the First?

 

[GKC]

Could it be that you imagine that Henry , influences William the First?

Never occurred to me.

Does popcorn suggest that, to you?

GKC

 

[GKC]

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?

Decree of nullity.

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

GKC

 

[Lovesa]

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?

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

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?

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? 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?

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

15 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Note that if “your brother sins against you”, tell him his fault. What of sins that impact no one but the sinner, such as missing church intentionally, etc.?

6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; 7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This does not carry with it the obligation to confess sins to a priest, but to Jesus. Why?

I wish I could remember the other things that bother me, but they’re slipping from my mind right now. Will keep trying to remember, though.

 

[seamusmohr]

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?

There no Roman Rite till Trent and the Suburbicarian Church of Rome metamorphosed in to the Holy Roman Church and turned itself in to a Sect!

As far as I have been taught the Anglican Church used a mixture of British and Western!

 

[GKC]

There no Roman Rite till Trent and the Suburbicarian Church of Rome metamorphosed in to the Holy Roman Church and turned itself in to a Sect!

As far as I have been taught the Anglican Church used a mixture of British and Western!

 

[araiceil]

Actually I didn’t say that he wasn’t a philanderer.

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

 

[araiceil]

Never occurred to me.

Does popcorn suggest that, to you?

GKC

Holy cow! If I had been eating popcorn when I read this, I would have choked on it! Thanks for the laugh!

 

[GKC]

Holy cow! If I had been eating popcorn when I read this, I would have choked on it! Thanks for the laugh!

seamus and I are old acquaintances.

GKC