Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[CMatt25]

Hi, CMatt25,

I think you are referring to Matt 18:18. But, you know that Peter was the only one to get the Keys

I don’t know. Sure I know the Catholic faith’s interpretation. But I also know my front door key binds my lock and loosens it. And I also know others were given a binding/loosening power too. My key though if it were to get bent out of shape might not work properly. And then to bind and loosen my door I’d might need to get a replacement.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not certain I can expand any further than what I’ve already done. Yes I believe Jn 20 allows for confession to clergy. In fact it was at least according to my prior knowledge a precept of the Catholic Church to confess serious sins once/per yr. But now Guanophore tells me it is not the only way to be forgiven for mortal sins. I thought of other ways such as Anointing or having a contrite heart at the moment of death. But he/she decided my asking about this was immaterial.

It is not immaterial, CMatt, but neither is it adequate to use as an exuse to avoid auricular confession. God is not bound by the Sacrament, but we are. He provided the normative means by which we can be cleansed and healed of post baptismal sins.Unfortunately, what we have today is the clay telling the Potter they know how the pot should be fashioned. God knows things about us that we don’t. We can’t even have confidence that we have a “contrite heart” at the moment of death, or any other moment, because we are unable to access all of the secret intentions of our hearts (attachments to sin). In reconciliation we are cleansed of these, whether we are aware of them, or not.

I already sited a direct method, “forgive us our trespasses” from our Lord’s Prayer along with passages referring to us also being forgiven if we forgive others and by confessing to one another we are healed.

Yes, but the Apostles taught that prayer like this for mortal sins is insufficient.

What I meant by my statement was some might argue the Catholic Church added the mandatory requirement to do Jn 20:23 once a year as an obligatory means to be forgiven.

Peace and God bless you too!

Yes, some might argue that, because they do not realize that the Gospel of John was written when auricular confession to the priest had already been in practice for 60 years. John is looking back into the sacramental life of the Church throughout his whole gospel. He has unique perspectives on baptism, Eucharist, confession, annointing, holy orders because it has already been in practice for over half a century.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t demand any Scriptural proof that I remember. I asked for evidence that the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the West, had the power to appoint and depose bishops before, say, about 700 AD. That is, historical evidence.

I think I may see the issue though - I don’t mean the power to ordain a bishop - of course all bishops have that power. I mean the power to place bishops in other Sees, and to remove them, of his own volition.

What do you call the installation of Matthais?

 

[guanophore]

Tantum, I’m so confused about this at the moment. Was confessing serious sins to a priest at least once a year a precept of the Catholic Church or not? And if so, where can I find that in Scripture as a mandatory obligatory means for being forgiven? I’m not asking where I can find it as one way to seek forgiveness. But as the mandatory means.

CMatt, you are arriving at a false conclusion because you are using a false premise.

God can forgive whoever He wants, however He likes. He instituted confession as the normative means by which His healing grace flows for restoration in the case of post-baptismal serious sins.

God gave His Church the authority to bind and loose (legislate/make rules and disciplines) and to forgive and remit sins. The Church has managed this sacrament in different ways throughout time and culture.

I am sure, though, that you can find a way that these passages of Scripture do not apply in your case, so that you can excuse yourself from any obligation that may exist.

 

[guanophore]

most people IMO really do there best with regards to religion, and in the end more seems to have to do with their own experiences, up-bringing, and a whole host of chances rather than anything else. I find this to be true of non-Christians and even atheists.

:clapping: :tiphat:

Catholics believe that religion has more to do with what God has revealed about Himself, and His grace at work within us to bring us into conformity with Himself.

Since God is at work within us to will and to do His good will, our own experiences, upbringing and “chance” don’t have to be hindrances when it comes to walking according to His design for His creation.

 

[guanophore]

that is the issue, since there not even a single historical person between 100 and 1100 A.D. that even comes close to the Protestant interpretation of Scripture (oral traditions)

I disagree, patricius. There were people separating the Sacred Scriptures from the Sacred Traditions that produced them from the time they were written. We have ample evidence of this in Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, and many other Fathers of the Church who wrote about it. They called these persons “heretics” and “apostates”.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt, you are arriving at a false conclusion because you are using a false premise.

God can forgive whoever He wants, however He likes. He instituted confession as the normative means by which His healing grace flows for restoration in the case of post-baptismal serious sins.

God gave His Church the authority to bind and loose (legislate/make rules and disciplines) and to forgive and remit sins. The Church has managed this sacrament in different ways throughout time and culture.

I am sure, though, that you can find a way that these passages of Scripture do not apply in your case, so that you can excuse yourself from any obligation that may exist.

Despite God being able to forgive whoever and however, if it’s a false premise that a precept of the Catholic Church is that serious sins are still to be confessed in the manner of at least once a year to a priest, then that’s news to me. Though yes I understand you believe such rules can be made or added as obligation. That’s your belief. And may God bless you, the most faithful Catholics, those perhaps called “Cafeteria”, and Protestants, and all others in our faith journeys.

 

[guanophore]

According to Protestants, the ECFs, the accurate, non-heretical ones anyway, were indeed in line with Protestant thinking. However, they could not be called Protestants, because such a word was not in use nor logical back then.

Why don’t we get into this a little later, when you are ready to start reading them.

Right now, you will have your hands full with the Catechism.

Ah, but Protestants believe it is. Most, if not all, start out with the assumption that the CC is a denomination like any other.

Yes, of course, but erroneous assumptions do not make something a fact. The fact is that the CC is the Church of the New Testament, and all other denominations define themselves by which and how much of the Catholic doctrines they reject.

Yes–and calling them apostates is something Protestants may point to as proff of the growing corruption in the church. These so-called “apostates” are seen as the ones with the truth, and as members of the Church founded by Christ, even if the fallible men of the church administration wanted to declare them seperated.

Such a position would emanate from that deficient understanding of “Church”. The Apostles taught that Jesus is the Head of His One Body, the Church, and that she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. As a result of these divine elements, she cannot err.

You are correct that fallible men attached to her can err, and there have been instances of people in positions of leadership that have rejected the Truth. However, these persons, having departed from the Faith, do not represent what the Church believes and Teaches.

there have always been people in the church that the church claimed were “heretics” or “apostates”. Lutherans would point to the fact that such people stayed in the church as a remnant of truth left in the church.

Yes. However, it would seem that it would have to be shown that the Church founded by Christ was in error and that those who were thougth to have departed from it were correct. I think an examination of history will be helpful in this regard.

Also, since, if one follows extremely traditional Lutheranism (as I do), they find no argument with the official statements of the papacy up until the Reformation, when things really got ugly. After all, what were the “Catholic” positons of the early church fathers? Bishops? Mary and the saints? The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Baptism of infants? Very traditional Lutherans embrace all of that, so arguing the Catholicity of the ECFs would require something a little more substantial than that.

Yes, Luther retained a majoirity of the Apostolic Teaching, which is why we are closer to unity than we are with modern fundamentalist “bible churches” who rejected a larger amount of the Apostolic faith. Luther jettisoned the Petrine Gifts, and the Apostolic Succession, but retained much of the doctrine, including the Marian doctrines.

So am I. It’s a shame that there is so much division. However, Protestants are united where it matters–in the mercy of Christ Jesus.

And in that, united with Catholics as well.

Which idea are you referring to?

See the little blue square next to the name of the person? If you click on that, it will take you right back to the spot where the idea originated. You can trace it backwards through the thread, in case you lose track.
"Lovesa:

As for Christ breaking his promise that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, He kept that promise by keeping the truth alive and well in the Church until the abuses became too great. After that, He simply moved the church away from what had become a corrupt institution and gave it a different name.

I am interested where it can be shown in scripture that Jesus would protect His church only “until the abuses became too great” then he would “move the church away”.

This tradition of man was created to justify departure from the Church founded by Christ. But Scripture is clear that no corruption of man is stronger than His Holy Bride. It is those who separate from the Teaching of the Church that “move away” from His Body. Men are always in need of Reform. The doctrine of Christ never is.

1. Christ protected His Church by keeping the truth alive in people unjustly deemed “heretics”.
2. He allowed the Church to break away from a false institution. (Which can be seen in any number of warnings against false prophets. There is also a claim in Revelation somewhere about somebody claiming the throne of God, which some read the papacy into.)
3. Since Protestantism survived and continues to teach Biblical truth (Protestants say) to this day, the Church is, in fact, protected.

You have not shown that persons called heretics by the Church were said to be so “unjustly”.

You have not shown that the Church founded by Christ was ever a “false institution”. His warnings about false prophets and wolves among the sheep were always about the wolves and false ones, never His Church. The letters of Revelation clearly show His involvement in keeping His bride Holy.

You have not shown that there is any such thing as “biblical truth” apart from the teachings of those who assembled it.

After all, if there are incorrect doctrines in various denominations, that is the fault of mankind.

I agree, but I think it goes further than this. When error is taught, it causes souls to pass through the gates of hell. This is exactly what the Evil One wants to happen, so he tries to attack the Church, especially striking the shepherds, in an effort to scatter the sheep.
.

 

[guanophore]

The important truth–Christ died so save all–is intact, and since the Bible does not confuse people, it is not important to squabble over minor tents of faith.

I agree that this important truth is widely preserved among our separated brethren. However, the Bible most certainly DOES confuse people. First of all, the things of God cannot be understood with the unspritual mind, so people that read without this get lost easily. Second, we can only understand what is written according to our expereinces and education (or lack of it). If so many people were not confused, there would not be so many factions in Christendom, all claiming to be “bible based”.

2 Peter 3:15-17
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Obviously, ignorant and spiritually unstable persons have been twisting the Scriptures ever since they were written.

Christ did not come to cause debates about “when does it become the Body” or “do we baptize babies”. He came with a simple message for a world that needed it.

I agree, but debates have been necessary for the very reason Peter gave above. Also, we are all limited in our knowledge, seeing " through a glass darkly". This is why we are in need of revelation.

Certainly; it’s one of the more popular theories. However, one must keep in mind that Prosestants are used to being told that “God must have abandoned the church” as well, when they do not believe that to be the case.

Yes. Such a position is entirely inconsistent with the scriptures.

The definition of abandonment seems different from the Catholic and Protestant points of view, a thng that is important in recognizing why the viewpoints on whether Christ abandoned the Church differ. After all, many Protestants would find it silly to suggest that God’s Word is weak enough to need constant correction and policing, along with an earthly authority designed to keep up the truth. Surely God’s Word doesn’t need all that.

I am curious why Protestants would find this silly, given what the scriptures say about themselves. How is ignorance and instability to be addressed, without authorative guidance?

It is not a matter of the Scriptures being “weak”, but the persons reading them. In the same way, Catholics find it silly to suggest that God’s Word instilled in the Church could become corrupted, but we both agree that men have corrupted it. If this had not happened, the entire Reformation might have been avoided.

So, Jesus does watch over His Word, both in the Church, and in the Scriptures, to guard and guide it into “all Truth”.

Also, I think it noteworthy that many Protestants do not have an absolutist view of Scriptural truth, the way some Catholics seem to. The Bible is seen as something that God wrote, and which is clear, yes. However,

Not sure what you mean by this.

1. This does not mean historical information is never needed.
2. The Jews themselves apparently debated scripture quite a bit in Jesus’ time. Scriptural debate is one of the cornerstones of Christian thought, the idea goes, and an attempt to stifle someone’s voice simply because they disagree with the church seems dishonest and wrong.

People are free to disagree, but such persons are not to be in positions of authority to teach, preach, or be responsible for the care of the souls that are in the charge of the Church. Having shepherds who do not agree with and are not obedient to the Owner of the flock isn’t safe.

1. Even the child Jesus engaged in this debate, Lutherans argue, else He could not have impressed them with His knowlege. Christ did a fair amount of scriptural explanation for others in His time on Earth, but one notices He did not stifle debate, only point out that His view was right.

I think this assertion is easily refuted in the Scriptures. If you wish, I will be glad to do so.
For now, I will just give you a nibble.

Matt 22:18-22
18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “**Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? **19 Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled; and they left him and went away.

Real conversation stopper, that one.

God has that right, but who else? According to Protestants, no one. Even the ECF, even Luther, even the pope could be wrong.

According to Catholics, the pope can be wrong too!

However, the mind of the Church cannot, because she has the mind of Christ. He speaks His truth through the Church, and preserves her infallibly by it.

1. It’s fairly accepted that debate and even dissent are, in many Jewish circles, seen as healthy things, and one of the purposes of scripture. In a way, Protestants carry on that tradition by continually seeking the truth in scripture, with religious and historical research, yes, and even with reference to the older traditions, but a solid, never-able-to-refute-it doctrine? It seems misplaced, except perhaps in Lutheran synods, which have been bound by the Augsburg Confession etc. since their rise.

People can debate and dissent all they want, but it does not change the Truth of what Jesus taught, and does not affect the Church, which is where He placed His Teachings

 

[PRmerger]

Despite God being able to forgive whoever and however, if it’s a false premise that a precept of the Catholic Church is that serious sins are still to be confessed in the manner of at least once a year to a priest, then that’s news to me.

You seem to be squirming with the fact that confession is a precept, or “mandatory”.

Again, Matt, the Church proposes, it does not impose. Just like Jesus does.

It’s like your mama telling you you need to bathe. Now, it’s up to you to actually get in the tub and scrub. She can’t impose. Only propose that you’re stinky.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CMatt25,

I do not recall your having addressed the question I previous asked about just what part of ****WHATEVER ****- as in “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven…” does not fit with the ‘…rules and obligations…’ you are disagreeing with. Now would be a good time to present your cogent argument.

While you may disagree - that is not the issue. What is the issue is that Christ gave Peter and his successors the power to bind and lose and that is just what we have here. This same power to bind and lose is obvious in the Church Councils that have provided many of the beliefs Protestants hold today. It is the same power and only used when needed to make sure the Chruch is moving towards Christ’s Kingdom.

Please, I am interested in your answer about WHATEVER.

God bless

Despite God being able to forgive whoever and however, if it’s a false premise that a precept of the Catholic Church is that serious sins are still to be confessed in the manner of at least once a year to a priest, then that’s news to me. Though yes I understand you believe such rules can be made or added as obligation. That’s your belief. And may God bless you, the most faithful Catholics, those perhaps called “Cafeteria”, and Protestants, and all others in our faith journeys.

 

[GaryTaylor]

rolleyes: You know, Lutherans also consider the Christians and their situation with Nero part of their history? The fact that the church was not divided at the time means that all Christians can embrace that as their heritage.

The definitive “us and them” is obvious in this thread. Basically its what we been saying all along …There was only “US” and heretics.

: Are there really over 1000 Protestant denominations? Also, there is still only “one” Lutheran church, “one” Methodist church–divided into synods, maybe, with a few minor differences, but the argument that there are different denominations doesn’t say much…

Whats the difference really? Point is there’s one to many and Luther started the chaos? Doesn’t say much? Some don’t believe Christ is God? The Father has a Wife etc. And we can attribute this directly to Luther.

:While all Catholics are under the pope, they aren’t exactly alike. In the same way, Protestants still have a uniting factor–the break away from Rome…

Eastern Rite, Liturgy all well and fine. Has nothing to do with being in communion with Rome. I find it facintaing that in 2011 Protestants claim to fame is “we broke away from Rome in 1500”. What else have you done?

eter didn’t officially preach incorrect things, and Peter did not abuse his station. Also, his successor did not do that. A long string of bad popes had to occur for the Reformation to come about…

Wasn’t my point, my point was humans make errors and will continue to do so. You don’t take your ball and go home and start your own team everytime you hear something you don’t agree with. You correct it by uniting together. Which still need happen today. UNITY not DIVISION.

: Ah, but Protestants say that the Catholic Church is a schism. It broke off from God’s truth, leaving only the Reformers left…

Yes but who speaks World Wide for Christians including Lutherans? Kinda tells a different story doesn’t it?

: Indeed, a lot of splits. But, even if this is not the will of God, it is what has happened. It is not God’s will that people not be saved either, but it happens. Can we take this as proof that the Church fails to evangalize? Of course not…

Not really where I’m at, my point is we are in a worse mess than at at any point in History. Easily can be equated with the Dark Ages. Its time to unite the church in common bonds not debate issues that really are irrelevant. What issue on this thead is so important the Church should be split?

: It was to point out that writings written that long after the gospels are prone to error, because of the distortion history causes. Lutherans do not see that date as close in the least to when the apostles were alive, and it does not fall under the authority of the writings of 70 and before…

The Historic Timelines are throughout this thread, that Lutherans don’t agree with it means what? Read through this thread Protestant timelines are all over the map. Historical ones are not. And they are confimed by Jews, Roman, Greeks and Christians. What does Luther have to do with changing History?

:Has anyone ever suggested that Protestants deny the persecution of Christians by Nero? This was all covered in our high school’s Church History class. All Christians were united, so there was no need for asserting the importance of that incident in the debate about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The fact that Christians died for their faith back then says nothing to the truth concerning the Bible…

I’m just giving you an accurate timeline, if you read through this thread from start Protestants are all over the map from after 350, after 450 etc. Nero points to the correct timeline. Yes…Yes we were all united, thats the whole point. “Your time-line” in scripture is way off above. That is/was the point. But were closer now

Protestant first 1500 years? No? There was no Protestants right? If we are all in agreement their was only One Church it was Catholic with its Eastern Sister Church. Then there simply is no agruement. Matter of fact maybe we can get on to the Real Issue of the Last 500 years and the productiveness of the Protestant Church and its intended future goal for the next 500-years?

: You must have a marvelous memory, then. Unfortunately, the human mind has a tendency to either blacken or sugar-coat the past in a way that distorts history, even in textbooks.

Oh you’ll forget what you had for dinner, but you’ll remember the fellows head chopped off, torture etc And thats very much part of the early church history. Thats what gives us the Time-Lines

: That’s certainly the greatest difficulty in reading the Bible, especially from a Protestant point of view. in theory you can do it alone. However, in practice, I find that one frequently consults the pastor, synod, etc…

There it is? GUIDANCE and RESEARCH? Sounds very Catholic to me? Sounds like…Catholic Doctrine. . So you understand

: Besides, a popular Protestant view is that Satan is behind the extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church…

Two-way street. I’ve read Protestant Biographys which claim satan is constantly in the Protestant Church. “He Came to Set the Captives Free” by DR. Brown, comes to mind immediatly. Point is?

After all, successors, infallibiliy, etc. Just sounds a little too good, doesn’t it?

Sounds right to me, what do you see wrong?

: Yup. :yup: That’s what it’s all about.

Its all about “breaking bread” together and “communion”

God Bless, Gary

 

[Bluegoat]

Catholics believe that religion has more to do with what God has revealed about Himself, and His grace at work within us to bring us into conformity with Himself.

Since God is at work within us to will and to do His good will, our own experiences, upbringing and “chance” don’t have to be hindrances when it comes to walking according to His design for His creation.

I wouldn’t disagree with you - from the POV of God, and the individual, God has an interior relationship with everyone. We can all move closer to a real union with God whatever our circumstances.

On the other hand, it is also the case that we may live in a place and time where we don’t hear the Christian message, or hear it in a distorted way. Or we may be affected by our circumstances and not be able to respond fully to what we do hear. These things can affect our relationship with God - if we say they don’t then we are really saying that there is no benefit to hearing and being able to understand and accept God’s revelation through the Church.

I think that both of these positions are in fact true, and that God can see our hearts and account for whatever circumstances that are beyond our control.

 

[Bluegoat]

What do you call the installation of Matthais?

Do you see that as being something that Peter did all on his own? I’m not sure how one could arrive at that conclusion.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

You know… you really can not keep on making this undoucumented non-historically accurate statements and expect to get away with it. Luther is 16th Century - and he repudiated the Catholic Church. He trashed the Pope and the teaching authority of the Church. He trashed the Bible by removing seven books that did not coinside with his (not Christ’s) teaching. Here is an excellent reference:catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203fea3.asp And then Luther just walked away from the Chruch founded by Christ.

You can not go back and say something like, “Hey, we were there, too!” There were no Lutherans in the area being killed by wild beasts - only Catholics. And the reason for this is that there were only Catholics around at the time professing to follow Christ. The other two main religious groups: Pagans and Jews did not profess to follow Christ. This is a historically accurate statement.

Forgive me while I backtrack a bit here… … but, I have been thinking about your bread metaphor and I have some observations.

If the idea is that the loaf represents all believers. And, a section of the loaf became moldy. How can the remainder of loaf cut or pull itself off? I have seen moldy bread - and just because the spores are not yet visible does not mean they are not already in place and doing their moldy thing! From my experience, I pitch the entire loaf - not trying to save what I think is clean. I have never seen bread consciously separate itself from what it considered desirable and what it didn’t.

Not to beat this metaphor into the ground - but, look at Peter as just one of the believers. It is hard to do that because, in a lot of ways, he is in a class by himself! As bad a public scandal as some of the popes have been … none of them, IMO, can match Peter for sin. Recall, in addition to boasting he would never deny Christ - Peter not only denies Him but, denies Christ to His Face! That is singular. But, looks what happens after the Resurrection - Christ does not fire him!!! Christ reaffirms Peter’s authority (John 21:15-17).

What is noteworthy is Luther’s lack of faith (contrast him with St. Catherine of Siena [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Catherine of Siena]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm]) and how she handled a far worse scandal in the Catholic Church). What is also noteworthy is that Christ did not come back, fire the pope and appoint Luther to take over! Luther basically lacked standing to do what he did - he was not authorized by God to split the Church God had founded (Matt 16:18) - he just did not like what he saw and instead of working on the process of actual reform as St. Catherine did - he fled and lead others away from Christ.

Concerning your criticism of being ‘exclusivist’ let me remind you of an interesting parable that has some bearing here. Matt 22:1-14 (usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm) is the story about the wedding feast and the man found without a wedding garment. It concludes with, “Many are invited but few are chosen.” Christ is quite exclusive - your attention is next directed to John 6 where we find that the Jews, having understood Christ’s Eucharistic Discourse, rejected this doctrine by saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and while walking away they said, “This is a hard saying, who can listent to it?” The bottom line here in both Scriptural accounts is that Christ does not bar you - He wants to embrace you - but, you must do what He tells you. If not, it is you who have excluded yourself.

God bless

You know, Lutherans also consider the Christians and their situation with Nero part of their history? The fact that the church was not divided at the time means that all Christians can embrace that as their heritage, not merely “Catholic” heritage, which is, by its nature, exclusivist.

 

[Lovesa]

Why don’t we get into this a little later, when you are ready to start reading them.

Agreed.

Right now, you will have your hands full with the Catechism.

Oh, I’m getting through it all right. Besides, I’m taking a class on Catholicism come fall and it’s one of our textbooks, so I’m working through church history first.

Yes, of course, but erroneous assumptions do not make something a fact. The fact is that the CC is the Church of the New Testament, and all other denominations define themselves by which and how much of the Catholic doctrines they reject.

That may be true of some denominations, yes, but most Lutherans I know have moved past Reformation fever to focus, instead, on what Lutherans believe, without constant reference to Catholicism. In a Lutheran catechism class, you won’t hear “We believe there is no Apostolic Succession. We’re different than Catholics!” You won’t hear anything about apostolic succession, because the focus is on what Lutherans believe, not on what they’ve chosen to reject. (Which, in recent years, is less about rejection than about finding truth in the Bible. Not being connected to Catholicism, Lutherans don’t feel a need, in catechis, to refute Catholic teaching. Rather, they look for truth in the Bible and present that instead.)

Such a position would emanate from that deficient understanding of “Church”. The Apostles taught that Jesus is the Head of His One Body, the Church, and that she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. As a result of these divine elements, she cannot err.

Ah, but he is, as you said, the head. Is it written anywhere in Scripture that the body must necessarily retain certain parts? Protestants also see themselves as part of this body, and therefore the idea of rejecting one of the body parts as diseased (such as the CC) isn’t seen as the church “erring” so much as one part of it erring. Even if succession were the case, it’s just one part of the body of Christ, not the whole body.

You are correct that fallible men attached to her can err, and there have been instances of people in positions of leadership that have rejected the Truth. However, these persons, having departed from the Faith, do not represent what the Church believes and Teaches.

They do not represent what the CC on Earth believes. However, they are seen as representing what the infallible church of Christ believes, which is not necessarily always given the same name.

 

[Lovesa]

Yes. However, it would seem that it would have to be shown that the Church founded by Christ was in error and that those who were thougth to have departed from it were correct. I think an examination of history will be helpful in this regard.

The Church officials were in error. The people who “departed” from it, however, took the church with them. I have no bible verse saying that the church can move away from a larger body of people in error, but there is also no verse saying that “the church will always be led by one person in one spot”. The church doesn’t have to mean the Catholic Church, from the Protestant view, in fact, it does not.

Yes, Luther retained a majoirity of the Apostolic Teaching, which is why we are closer to unity than we are with modern fundamentalist “bible churches” who rejected a larger amount of the Apostolic faith. Luther jettisoned the Petrine Gifts, and the Apostolic Succession, but retained much of the doctrine, including the Marian doctrines.

Petrine Gifts? A cursory search comes up with the gift of leading people to the truth and “feeding his flock”. All Lutherans are called to do that, so I’m not so sure he jettisoned the Petrine Gifts, as granted them to everyone.

See the little blue square next to the name of the person? If you click on that, it will take you right back to the spot where the idea originated. You can trace it backwards through the thread, in case you lose track.

No, no. I mean, which teaching of the ECFs did Lutheranism reject? I fail to see any. Apostolic succession is read back into the ECFs, but while I see bishops, I see no pope. Lutherans have bishops and support the idea of bishops. They, in this regard, are in line with the ECFs.

I am interested where it can be shown in scripture that Jesus would protect His church only “until the abuses became too great” then he would “move the church away”.

I’d be interested in a verse where he said that wouldn’t happen, myself. Why is it seen as necessary to the protection of the church that it remain in one institution? Is it not conceivable that the one body would become too corrupt and a section of it preserved?

After all, one sees biblical precedent of this. God preserved only a few from Sodom and Gomorrah–and the people who were just had to leave. One sees much the same in the way the disciples disagreed with the greater body of Jewish elders on the godhood of Christ. Had the Jewish leadership, to that point, been the one true church? Surely. However, they lost that when they did not accept the coming of Christ. One may point to the case of the golden calf. One may point to any number of instances I’m forgetting where a smaller group left a larger group and was still in the right. Do the constant corruptions of leadership in the OT point to the idea that God was not protecting his people?

This tradition of man was created to justify departure from the Church founded by Christ. But Scripture is clear that no corruption of man is stronger than His Holy Bride. It is those who separate from the Teaching of the Church that “move away” from His Body. Men are always in need of Reform. The doctrine of Christ never is.

Yes, but the doctrine is its own, independent of the church. God’s word is not dependent on the church to go out and do its work. That is Protestant teaching as I understand it.

You have not shown that persons called heretics by the Church were said to be so “unjustly”.

I’m not sure I can, either. I have neither infinite time nor a definitive list of these so-called heretics. I am not a scholar of church history, either, though I am learning. However, given that there were people called heretics, and who were silenced by a church Protestants deem corrupt, it would seem that the heretics were called thus unjustly. Teachings relating to protestant thought were there, yes, but, without going into details about how protestant teachings are biblical, I’m not sure I can cover that.

 

[Lovesa]

You have not shown that the Church founded by Christ was ever a “false institution”. His warnings about false prophets and wolves among the sheep were always about the wolves and false ones, never His Church. The letters of Revelation clearly show His involvement in keeping His bride Holy.

I can only present that which the church I belong to teaches, occasionally with my own opinion. Besides, the church is an institution of all believers, to protestant understanding. Wolves may be anywhere and anyone. They can be your pastor, your synod leader–anyone. Even the pope may be a wolf, and thus in error. I know that is not Catholic teaching, but the church is seen as uncorrupted even by poor leaders, even by fallible leaders. After all, the pope is not the church. The bishops are not the church. The church is the body of all believers, and should never be reduced to just the sheperds of the flock.

You have not shown that there is any such thing as “biblical truth” apart from the teachings of those who assembled it.

The teachings of those who assembled it=the apostles and bible compilers, yes?
The bible calls itself the truth, several times. It calls itself clear. The Bible is biblical truth, and the most important message is clear: Christ died to save. That is all. Anything else is not that important to salvation, and disagreements really aren’t that big of a deal. What is horrible and reprehensible is when salvation is made a matter of a series of commands, mandatory for being part of the church, that Christ never said were essential. The idea that one must be 100% cetain of whether this point or that point is true is just bogus on the face of it to not a few protestants, because not baptizing babies may be ill advised, but it’s not a one-way ticket to hell. The ticket to hell is disbelief–no more, no less.

I agree, but I think it goes further than this. When error is taught, it causes souls to pass through the gates of hell. This is exactly what the Evil One wants to happen, so he tries to attack the Church, especially striking the shepherds, in an effort to scatter the sheep.

So, doctrinal errors lead to hell? When they are major errors, certainly, but the CC also has a bad history of abuses leading to the loss of faith. Is this seen as evidence that the church is incorrect? By non-Catholics, perhaps, but not by Catholics.

In much the same way, one doctrinal slipup isn’t seen as utterly fatal by most protestants. It is simply a matter of opinion, an opinion Christ will correct when we see Him.

 

[Lovesa]

Hi, Lovesa,

You know… you really can not keep on making this undoucumented non-historically accurate statements and expect to get away with it. Luther is 16th Century - and he repudiated the Catholic Church. He trashed the Pope and the teaching authority of the Church. He trashed the Bible by removing seven books that did not coinside with his (not Christ’s) teaching. Here is an excellent reference:catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203fea3.asp And then Luther just walked away from the Chruch founded by Christ.

You can not go back and say something like, “Hey, we were there, too!” There were no Lutherans in the area being killed by wild beasts - only Catholics. And the reason for this is that there were only Catholics around at the time professing to follow Christ. The other two main religious groups: Pagans and Jews did not profess to follow Christ. This is a historically accurate statement.

This is what many protestants find frustrating about the Catholic reading of church hsitory. It erases the presence of people with dissident view in the church at the time, even loyal “Catholics” who perhaps were more protestant in their thinking, to modern mindsets.

However, there was no split in the church at the time. The history of the early church is the history, not only of Catholicism, but of Christianity. Christians died under Nero, many of whom, perhaps, held more “protestant” type views. Granted, the word had no meaning back then, but the criteria was being a Christian, not being a perfect “non-heretical” Christian. The fact that Catholics like to pretend they were the only ones in existence back then is frustrating to Lutherans, because back then Lutherans did not exist. There were Christians, and, as Christians, Lutherans can claim early church history as part of their history as well. That is less a historical inaccuracy than a historical fact. Christians were one. Lutherans, and other protestants, are Christians. Therefore, church history before the split is the history of all Christians, to be embraced by all Christians. Is that so difficult? Did the Christians who were heretics to modern Catholics not also die? Are their deaths any less part of church history? Are their sacrifices lesser? I don’t think so.

From my experience, I pitch the entire loaf - not trying to save what I think is clean. I have never seen bread consciously separate itself from what it considered desirable and what it didn’t.

Ah, but here we run into another danger. All bread gets moldy. Surely the church does not get moldy as it ages? At any rate, I tend to use the bread that isn’t moldy, if it’s not too far gone. It has yet to kill me.

Not to beat this metaphor into the ground - but, look at Peter as just one of the believers. It is hard to do that because, in a lot of ways, he is in a class by himself! As bad a public scandal as some of the popes have been … none of them, IMO, can match Peter for sin. Recall, in addition to boasting he would never deny Christ - Peter not only denies Him but, denies Christ to His Face! That is singular. But, looks what happens after the Resurrection - Christ does not fire him!!! Christ reaffirms Peter’s authority (John 21:15-17).

What is noteworthy is Luther’s lack of faith (contrast him with St. Catherine of Siena [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Catherine of Siena]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm]) and how she handled a far worse scandal in the Catholic Church). What is also noteworthy is that Christ did not come back, fire the pope and appoint Luther to take over! Luther basically lacked standing to do what he did - he was not authorized by God to split the Church God had founded (Matt 16:18) - he just did not like what he saw and instead of working on the process of actual reform as St. Catherine did - he fled and lead others away from Christ.

I hardly think Luther’s leaving constitutes a lack of faith. If he was wrong, misguided faith, yes. However, while Luther had no standing to do what he did, he did have the authority based on God’s calling that men testify to the truth. Whether or not he did that, that was his intent, not “splitting the church God had founded”.

Also, Luther is hardly the first head authority of the Lutheran church. He founded it, surely, but he was hardly given the right of apostolic succession. That authority lies in the bishops.

Finally, I’d like to note that the church listened to St. Catherine. What if it had listened to Luther at first, rather than waiting for things to get worse? I am sure he would have debate, had he been listened to. This continual rejection would seem only to push one towards considering the church yet more corrupt, and worth abandoning. The church was seen as leading people from Christ. Luther never led them away from Christ, but away from the CC. Christ is not confined to the CC.

Concerning your criticism of being ‘exclusivist’ let me remind you of an interesting parable that has some bearing here. Matt 22:1-14 (usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm) is the story about the wedding feast… that Christ does not bar you - He wants to embrace you - but, you must do what He tells you. If not, it is you who have excluded yourself.

Certainly. However, protestants have hardly rejected God’ call. They have believed the message and become one with Christ. If they fail to be part of a physical church body, they hardly see that as a problem. After all, Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

As I see it, there really is a logical error in your presentation. Simply stated, you can’t be here and there claiming to be the same yet different and picking which ever aspect you think fits best at the time.

There were no Lutherans in the1st Century. There were, however, heretics as was previously explained. The entire idea is that there was a unified and cohesive group following Christ through the Church He founded on Peter. From the very beginning Sacred Tradition - inspired by God (the same God Who inspired Sacred Scripture) - guided the Church moving towards Christ’s Kingdom.

But really, one wold have to wait until at least 400AD when the Canon of Sacred Scripture was finally developed by the Catholic Church… to come up with SS. A lot has to do with keep time and history in chronological sequence.

God bless

This is what many protestants find frustrating about the Catholic reading of church hsitory. It erases the presence of people with dissident view in the church at the time, even loyal “Catholics” who perhaps were more protestant in their thinking, to modern mindsets.

However, there was no split in the church at the time. The history of the early church is the history, not only of Catholicism, but of Christianity. Christians died under Nero, many of whom, perhaps, held more “protestant” type views. Granted, the word had no meaning back then, but the criteria was being a Christian, not being a perfect “non-heretical” Christian. The fact that Catholics like to pretend they were the only ones in existence back then is frustrating to Lutherans, because back then Lutherans did not exist. There were Christians, and, as Christians, Lutherans can claim early church history as part of their history as well. That is less a historical inaccuracy than a historical fact. Christians were one. Lutherans, and other protestants, are Christians. Therefore, church history before the split is the history of all Christians, to be embraced by all Christians. Is that so difficult? Did the Christians who were heretics to modern Catholics not also die? Are their deaths any less part of church history? Are their sacrifices lesser? I don’t think so.

Ah, but here we run into another danger. All bread gets moldy. Surely the church does not get moldy as it ages? At any rate, I tend to use the bread that isn’t moldy, if it’s not too far gone. It has yet to kill me.

I hardly think Luther’s leaving constitutes a lack of faith. If he was wrong, misguided faith, yes. However, while Luther had no standing to do what he did, he did have the authority based on God’s calling that men testify to the truth. Whether or not he did that, that was his intent, not “splitting the church God had founded”.

Also, Luther is hardly the first head authority of the Lutheran church. He founded it, surely, but he was hardly given the right of apostolic succession. That authority lies in the bishops.

Finally, I’d like to note that the church listened to St. Catherine. What if it had listened to Luther at first, rather than waiting for things to get worse? I am sure he would have debate, had he been listened to. This continual rejection would seem only to push one towards considering the church yet more corrupt, and worth abandoning. The church was seen as leading people from Christ. Luther never led them away from Christ, but away from the CC. Christ is not confined to the CC.

Certainly. However, protestants have hardly rejected God’ call. They have believed the message and become one with Christ. If they fail to be part of a physical church body, they hardly see that as a problem. After all, Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.