Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[guanophore]

Hi. I’d just like to point out that never was it claimed to be anything but an opinion.

It was stated as if it were a fact, and for people like the OP, it exists in their minds as if it is a fact.

It is an opinion, which protestants believe is supported by the church’s increasing teaching of things which protestants believe are contrary to the Bible. There can be no specific date given, because (again, protestants believe) the perceived errors entered gradually, not all at once, so that there can be no one date. There can only be the point of the Reformation when the perceived abuses were finally addressed in a way that had lasting impact.

There are two issues here that need to be separated. What fomented the Reformation is, as you identified, “abuses”. These actions and doctrines are not part of the church, but come from wolves among the sheep. It is necessary to separate what the Church believes and teaches from those who departed from it.

The other issue is about going of the doctrinal rails. Even if the Church “gradually” absorbed errors, the historical record will show this. We have historical evidence of all the major heresies throught the life of the Church. We should be able to see the council documents, encyclicals, and writings of doctors of the Church and other theologians that contain these “errors”. At the very least, we should be able to pin down a range of dates between which the gradual error crept into the church. It is clearly possible to identify the “abuses”.

Also, this thread did not ask for proof of the opinions initially. It merely asked protestants how they explain the first 1500 years; the statement addresses that. That is how protestants address the first 1500 years. Claiming that stating an opinion when asked one requires irrefutable proof is not conducive to this thread’s purpose. I offered what protestants believe to be proof–supposed false teachings, the impact of the Reformation, etc. I can do no more.

Thank you for your participation. I think you have accurately represented the many of the general misunderstandings espoused by Protestants.

 

[guanophore]

Granted. However, I do not claim to have a specific date when this derailment occurred.

I would be happy with a range of dates (even centuries) and some evidence, literary works or other historical evidence that this happened.

I have only what protestants say, and that is the meat of my argument.

Actually, I don’t really see you arguing. You have consistently stated that you don’t necessarily believe what you have been told, or the prevailing opinons. I get the impression that you are willing to examine these assumptions to find out if they are accurate.

If protestants believe it is not extrabiblical to assume that nonconsistence with the personal reading of scripture is a good premise for belief, I must argue from there.

I don’t think I am following what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you are saying that anyone’s personal opinion about the meanjing of scripture is a good premise for one’s doctrine. Is that right?

Do you think it is possible to defend Sola Scriptura using only Scripture?

I can only speak for myself, I am afraid. Anything else I claim can only be judged against the truth of what other protestants believe.

That is what the OP was asking, I believe. It would be good if you got some help, though.
I mean, there are many Protestants here that could help answer the question.

However, I am not sure whether this indicates an intentional departure or human error taking hold of modern Lutheranism.

There is no doubt that the evil one is highly motivated to derail the church. Pullling us away from the Apostolic faith is one very good method.

I really wish I could tell you exactly where and exactly when. I don’t know when confession was made a requirement.

After the NT, the earliest reference is in the Didache. The Church has had a variety of disciplines and practices for it, but as far as I can tell, it has always been required. We see an OT pattern that is fulfilled in the new.

Lev 5:5-6
5 When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, 6 and he shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

1 John 1:9-10
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I don’t know when the idea that the CC is the only true church became dogma (a Catholic may argue at the start, but still).

Would you not agree that there is only One Church represented in the NT?

Eph 4:4-7
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7

I am aware that it may very well be a false premise, but if the point of a discussion is to prove Catholicism as correct, it seems to me unconductive to start with the premise that “Catholicism has never been wrong” in convincing non-Catholics.

Yes, I agree. However, you must admit, it is a premise that certainly does get a lot of debate going.

While the statement in itself will not convince, persons of integrity such as yourself may find themselves provoked by it. Some of us, in an effort prove to ourselves it was a false premise, ended up finding out that we could not.

I am trying to determine what happened, however. I do believe that there is no specific date in the Protestant argument, simply because errors are stealthy and come one by one, so that p(name removed by moderator)ointing a date is difficult. If I could give one, I would.

I respect that. I think we need to choose an error, though, and follow the concept to see if we can find an origin. This type of historical criticism is very successful in all fields of inquiry.

 

[guanophore]

I acknowlege the difference between “faith statements” and historical ones. However, the satement is more than a faith statement. It is also a historical interpretation–maybe one many do not find accurate–but a historical interpretation. History is facts, yes, but the events are open to interpretation in their impact on the present. One can argue about whether the fall of the Soviet Union affected this or did that, but there will be differing opinions about the circumstances and why it happened.

Yes. I think you make a good point. All Christian faith statements are also based upon historical facts. This is why it is so disingenuous for the OP to say that they are nothing more than personal constructs of one’s own beliefs.

All the creeds are based in historical events, and the NT is also an historical document. It is true that our faith statements are subject to interpretations. Different people and groups of people understand history differently depending upon perspective.

This is precisely why it is so critical that we read the NT from the point of view of the Apostles. Right doctrine is not a matter of interpretation or perspective, but if divine revelation (as much as the OP denies this).

The Apostles demanded strict adherance to this revelation from God:

Rom 16:17-18

17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

Variations on that teaching were not allowed:

1 Tim 1:3-4

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

This doctrine was handed down from the Apostles to the bishops, whose charge it was to preserve and defend it.

Titus 1:8-10
9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

The Catholic Church believes and teaches that we are not at liberty to change any of that which was handed down from the Apostles.

 it seems to me most conductive to argue the Lutheran position. It can only serve to help me understand my positions and the CCs positions better, and it seems to me harmless in regards to whatever faith I have in the future. I am also a little given to arguing a point, not necessarily because I believe it, but because I think it deserves to have its arguments presented. My statements aren't perfect, yes, but I have tried. If I convert, I am prepared to present a Catholic view when queried, occasionally offering a Protestant view as an ex-protestant. There is nothing in the Catholic faith banning this, so I should be fine. :)

Absolutely.

The most effective inquiry results from such a position. The researcher forms an hypothesis then sets about to confirm or deny it. I wish more people would take this highly intellectual and honest approach, rather than just swallowing whatever anti-catholic drivel they have been fed. There is a lot of it out there.

I'm not sure I'm required to turn my reading of history on its head to become Catholic.

No, of course not!

Is it dogma that all (100%) of early Christians were Catholic (conformed to modern Catholic beliefs)?

Not sure what you mean by this. How do you define a “dogma”?

Do you have any evidence that any early Christians were anything other than Catholic?

Is there a dogma regarding the faith of the people who died in the Roman persecution?

Just an historical record, as far as I know. The record shows that they died for espousing Catholic faith.

I have yet to find one in my research of the faith, so I don’t see why I should adapt views that are not crucial to the faith.

I think it is crucial. If the NT record is to be accepted, then it was required to have one faith, and divergent doctrine was not permitted. If it the faith was not Catholic, then it needs to be established what else it was, because Catholics must have departed from the truth faith.

I would, of course, concede apostolic succession etc.,

Why? On what basis?

but there are dogmas and there are opinions.

I agree, though I am not sure how you are using the word “dogma” here. There are also historical facts that are neither dogmas, or opinions.

At any rate, if I convert, it won't be because of church history. In all likelihood it will be something less definable and related to the love and presence of the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist.

This is a good thing, but these two are based upon historical realities.

 

[Lovesa]

Yes. I think you make a good point. All Christian faith statements are also based upon historical facts. This is why it is so disingenuous for the OP to say that they are nothing more than personal constructs of one’s own beliefs.

All the creeds are based in historical events, and the NT is also an historical document. It is true that our faith statements are subject to interpretations. Different people and groups of people understand history differently depending upon perspective.

This is precisely why it is so critical that we read the NT from the point of view of the Apostles. Right doctrine is not a matter of interpretation or perspective, but if divine revelation (as much as the OP denies this).

The Apostles demanded strict adherance to this revelation from God:

Rom 16:17-18

17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

Variations on that teaching were not allowed:

1 Tim 1:3-4

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

This doctrine was handed down from the Apostles to the bishops, whose charge it was to preserve and defend it.

Titus 1:8-10
9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

The Catholic Church believes and teaches that we are not at liberty to change any of that which was handed down from the Apostles.

Absolutely.

The most effective inquiry results from such a position. The researcher forms an hypothesis then sets about to confirm or deny it. I wish more people would take this highly intellectual and honest approach, rather than just swallowing whatever anti-catholic drivel they have been fed. There is a lot of it out there.

No, of course not!

Not sure what you mean by this. How do you define a “dogma”?

Do you have any evidence that any early Christians were anything other than Catholic?

Just an historical record, as far as I know. The record shows that they died for espousing Catholic faith.

I think it is crucial. If the NT record is to be accepted, then it was required to have one faith, and divergent doctrine was not permitted. If it the faith was not Catholic, then it needs to be established what else it was, because Catholics must have departed from the truth faith.

Why? On what basis?

I agree, though I am not sure how you are using the word “dogma” here. There are also historical facts that are neither dogmas, or opinions.

This is a good thing, but these two are based upon historical realities.

I’m using dogma as in something necessary for all Catholics to believe. If I convert, it will be because I’ll have accepted all other tenets of the faith and will accept apostolic succession as well–not because I have necessarily seen it in the record, though I will acknowlege it to be there–but because I will have to, as a Catholic, because it is dogma. It would be very annoying to accept literally every Catholic teaching but that, and, if all other teachings are correct, why not accept that the succession wasn’t broken? The basis for disagreement is that there’s an errant teaching.

As far as taking the position that the early Christians were Catholic–I can see that, from a Catholic point of view. I won’t have problems accepting that. However, it is not dogma to claim that protestants, from their perpective, are not allowed to look back at early church history as also being their own. It is not dogma to tell protestants that, so I see no reason to do it.

As for historical facts that are neither dogma nor opinion, we’ll see as I learn more about the faith.

As for the other things I mentioned being based on historical realities–yeah, sure. However, my faith has never been based on history; it’s been based on God. I’m much more inclined to be convinced by things that exist outside of history than by historical events that only lead to interpretive discussion. I’m just too much a flower girl for that.

 

[Lovesa]

That is what the OP was asking, I believe. It would be good if you got some help, though.
I mean, there are many Protestants here that could help answer the question.

I would love to hear another protestant chime in, too. Maybe one of them can rattle off dates in church history like nothing else.

 

[CMatt25]

It was stated as if it were a fact, and for people like the OP, it exists in their minds as if it is a fact.

Guan now you presume to** know **too the minds of ppl like the OP :bigyikes: But of course it is a fact that Protestant thoughts regarding the Reformation is what Protestants believe.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There sure is as we see on this thread. When thoroughly confronted it holds no water. The significance of History through all the different ethnic/religious groups confirms the historical facts of Jesus Christ and the catholic Church.

For example there’s a consistant Protestant point of view the CC started with Constantine and of course was the Roman Catholic and mor drival promoted to align the CCC with a corupt ROME? and on and on we go.

At this point most of us here have Historical facts stored to long term memory or at least quickly available to us.

Yet “Toms” observation is very accurate also . After many pages we are waiting on the “accurate” protestant history which contradicts Catholic/Christian . We keep hearing it exists, but it continues to to arrive?

I’m confronting the idea that a seperate reality exits in the Protestant mind. These attitudes don’t exist as “Guan” stated above. And all of us have continued to drill home, They exist from denial and learned behavior. How could the NT be wrong when MARK talks about the destruction of the Temple in 70-AD? How could Mark be writting after 70-AD. Is the Bible a LIE? The letters of Ignatius exist in the vatican {Seven to be exact}. Irenaeus books exist and could be written. They are factual. Its now confirmed JOHN was written within a decade of MARK. ALL LIES?

Theres not a “double” interpretation. A double standard. There’s the Truth and the Lie.

As far as being Catholic. I’m Catholic because I’m convinced in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. I’m convinced the Sacrements are a Grace/Blessing given to the Church from God. I’m convinced the Words spoked to Peter and at the Last Supper are recorded History. I’m convinved the HS guides this church, matter of fact as you see by my testimony I know He does. An open mind, and seeking truth bought me to the CC, Not arriving insisting I knew everything and had all the slick answers. Which BTW are obviously missing on this thread, Which of course is par for the course.

I couldn’t go to my bedroom kneel in front of Cross and ask for forgiveness. To me Confession and Communion are an absolute. And I also firmly believe there is no more worthy cause that to go to confession when you have no sin, in repatation of sinners who have no-one to pray for them, just as the Church has stated and the BVM and Jesus Christ confirmed at Fatima. To me Sunday Mass, and Holy Days of Obligation are a MUST. Let not confuss hwt you “think” you ought to do with what you “NEED” to do per scripture! JOHN is pretty accurate and precise. and if rad the words of Jesus Chirst alone. He confirms the CC 100%.

When mankind sways from Gods Church and the Balance becomes in question, God opens windows in Real Time. The specifics of the message well yes they are important. Whats most important is Gods instruction and warning. Just as with Abraham in the OT. And once again in real tine He has done this …in OUR TIME!

I do believe if you continue to go to the confessional and suffer the Father to share your secrets because you have no safety from them, then at some point you will stop sinning, or you’ll stop going to confession. Same as the Rosary, either your stop sinning, or you’ll stop praying that Rosary.

Its gets back to what I started talking about early in Jacobs Ladder and truly following the path of Jesus Christ. People are “mimicking” church, they attend servive because thats what the Smiths and Jones are doing.

But nonetheless there are those who earnestly Seek God first. Could they be Baptist of Lutheran or whatever? of course they could. But those who make the effort with an open mind to educate themselves through college or the price of a Library Card and truly seek the path and Cross of Christ wind up at the Catholic Church. Statistics in History also don’t lie. Whats lies are conversion stories, not statistics. Another false interpretation early in this thread on how bad the CC is doing. You’d do well to remember without the CC, Christianity crumbles an succumbs to world slavery just as Judaism in Egypt.

So like any river tributary, it feeds the Main River eventually.

But look at the cost, look at the abomination and sin and blasphemy.

You would think if one didn’t know for “fact” what they were tallking about, they would at least have the good sense and respect to remain quiet. NO…here we see the Blasphemey of the BVM, the Church itself, Confession and the Sacrements, and on and on. Here we see the Living Luther Again, and all those who follow in EGO and PRIDE!

Yet no facts are presented in this post which denys Jesus Christs Church on Earth, The Mystical Body of Jesus Christ…The CATHOLIC CHURCH. Only those which agree with the CC version are well represented here, but NONE other! Where? That can prove otherwise? How long can you stare TRUTH in denial? That is IGNORANCE which Dogma, Doctrine and the CCC speak about when its stated. “There is NO SALVATION outside the Catholic Church”

What have we established? The chuch sold indulgences? That is the BEST we can do? And the church has made ammends for this for 500-years? I guess there is no "forgiveness from the Protestant Church. mighty Chirstian of you! Instead of forgiveness we are Called EVIL?

Read on Luther! And you would wonder why God would enter into real time in that Century, in 1917 at Fatima? Where is FORGIVENESS with Protestants? maybe we should start a Thread on that SINCE CHRIST STATEs FORGIVE YOUR ENEMIES, Time to loose the chip on your shoulder from 500 years ago.

The BVM is a Idol? The idol is capitalism, not MARY or the Saints.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

I worked with people my entire life i on ecapacity or another, and nowhere at the ends of the world, with the sick, needy, homeless, addicted, has the Catholic Church not been there. Oh other claim to do this and that also . But go out there on the Front LInes and see the TRUTH. Nowhere have I ever seen the EO involved. and limited help from Protestants. And I worked directly under Professor Cleaver at Yale who was the leading reseacher world-wide on substance abuse/thus behavior.

I hear claims of how much everyone is doing. Well in 30-years on the FRONT LINES with mankind, the only consistant I have seen is the Catholic Church. Oh I have a seen a feeble attempt here and there by Protestant church, but NEVER have I seen the Eastern Orthodox Church do out-reach work in the inner-citys of the East Coast. NYC, BOSTON, NH, BPT, HARTFORD, NEWARK, LI-CITY etc. They are absent, and I have done this for DECADES, The only constant is the Catholic Church.

And a Lady Reverend whom I grew to admire very much who ran an Episcopal Church right next door to where I was directing. Thats a story in itself in baptism for those who the CC wouldn’t take. God works in mysterious ways my friends, make no mistake in understanding this. I refused to allow those children go without baptism sorry CC:shrug: So I took thjem there then enrolled them in the RCIA and the parents came to terms with issues.

Once again man views this as a hoax, no big deal, natural occurance. Every excuse in the book except to look at ones own behavior and TRUTH? How little Faith we have , how little faith

Souls are dragged to hell daily, the only question is how many and for how long. We know Fatima is not over. But we also know when you consider the Confraternity of the Rosary, the Blue Army and Fatima, those Victorys by Mary are very real.

The Supernatural division inhibits and cripples the full effect of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother. All the denominations, the ROC and the EO. Cripple the effort today. that crippled effort cost Souls. The only question is How Many? WHY?

They have resigned to the fact that they will Suffer for God if need be.yet the will of God must be done because of disobedience and the offending God? Then those who Pray the Rosary daily are those who are ready to suffer the consequence for God. In their unselfishness they quote scriture, and say, “Lord they do not know better, forgive then”. I’ll stand in the gap for them, I’ll go for you.

And the Lord said…“Who will Go for Us?. Who will Speak for Us?”

We are not living a time where this may or not happen. Mankind is the War of Good and evil. The Will of Jesus Christ will happen. Did you read the scripture where Christ speaks about the Fall of satan?

…Lord in your name even evil spirits are under our control!

And He said to them “I saw satan falling like lightning from Heaven” Thats how fast satan fell!

LUKE 10:17

Ours is to put aside petty differences, Usher in the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. Follow non-dogmatically which we “all” did at some point.

Thats how it works in Gods Kingdom, Prayer unlocks the Gate to the KIngdom and waiting room is called HUMILITY! You cannot proceed anywhere in the KINGDOM without Humility. How much humility did Martin Luther have? Martin Luther was a self-serving individual.

Those in Gods Kingdom serve God first and always. None one ever balked at giving His life for the Lord if need be, Where is that recored in History?

When they liife flashes before your eyes? thats only partly true. The Sin is what pass’s before your eyes all of it. Just as it did wuth Jesus Christ in His hour. Only He experienced all mans sin. Not his own.

CMATT what is YOUR FAITH? Where do you fall off at the Ecumenical Council. If you are so convinced you follow TRUTH then you should be more than willing to share yoiur TRUTH? Affraid it won’t stand confrontation. I have much respect for Lovesa. I see honestly with her. I have come to know here and you. Her i see what you see is what you get. I can respect that. What to YOU believe? maybe I missed the post?

I see evasivness with you. I would like to know which Christian church you learned this in? We are certainly getting to know each other better, but your belief system is certainly in question? So what denomination do you follow? Is it a mystery you are unwilling to share. And is so if you are so convinced its the true path to GOD? Why no shout it from the roof tops. Like we do as CATHOLICs? …GOD BLESS!!!

God Bless, Gary

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gary,

**NOW YOU’VE DONE IT!!!.. **
So much for Mr. Nice Guy, No one will mistake your post for a ‘warm fuzzy’!! What are you trying to do - correct the distortion of illogic through the corrective lens of documented history?! Well, let me tell you … there is - IMO - a major error in this post of yours! Yep! And, here it is:

An open mind, and seeking truth bought me to the CC, Not arriving insisting I knew everything and had all the slick answers. Which BTW are obviously missing on this thread, Which of course is par for the course.

As I see it - considering that the responses so far could have been sung to the tune of, “I don’t know, but I’ve been told…” (for those who went through military Boot Camp that may bring back memories…) a few ‘slick answers’ may be an actual upgrade! But as it is - all we have is my summary of what I have read so far:
1.) there apparently is no need to research anything when parroting back statements like ‘the error that crept in was gradual and no one noticed until the Revolt’

2.) this is what Protestants think … maybe… or some may, but I don’t
3.) faith has replaced historical accuracy - or, if what the history of the Early Catholic Church says isn’t what we want to hear, we will overcome it with faith in the humans who founded our religion.

Hmmmmmmm … have I missed anything?

There is a discipline to providing a reasoned debate - a demand, if you will, that, if you are going to champion a cause - then you must study that position and be able to adequate defend it from all challenges. Intellectual honesty demands that if you can not defend a point that it be investigated so you know why you were not able to defend it. Now, that is how folks become proficient at championing a earthly cause for a highly perishable award. Everything we are focused on are the realities of the Hereafter.

If anyone advocating the Protestant position wants to step up to the plate, please bring more than a thereadbare opinion.

Excellent post, Gary

God bless

 

[josephback]

I used to be Protestant, but now I hold that if the Church ever had to be refounded or the Gospel restored we’d all be doomed, because there’d be no way to tell who restored the “true” Gospel. Jeuss said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, and we should take Him at His word. The Church will always remain the Church, and she can be trusted.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Josephback,

Our prayers are with you as you make your journey of faith.

The position you have taken on your post is clear, logical and Scripturally based - I pray that more will take a prayerful look at your post and reflect on the positions they have taken.

God bless

I used to be Protestant, but now I hold that if the Church ever had to be refounded or the Gospel restored we’d all be doomed, because there’d be no way to tell who restored the “true” Gospel. Jeuss said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, and we should take Him at His word. The Church will always remain the Church, and she can be trusted.

 

[josephback]

I hear claims of how much everyone is doing. Well in 30-years on the FRONT LINES with mankind, the only consistant I have seen is the Catholic Church. Oh I have a seen a feeble attempt here and there by Protestant church, but NEVER have I seen the Eastern Orthodox Church do out-reach work in the inner-citys of the East Coast. NYC, BOSTON, NH, BPT, HARTFORD, NEWARK, LI-CITY etc. They are absent, and I have done this for DECADES, The only constant is the Catholic Church.

In defense of the Orthodox, they aren’t very numerous or visible in America. I’m sure they have charities going.

 

[Bluegoat]

In defense of the Orthodox, they aren’t very numerous or visible in America. I’m sure they have charities going.

Um, yeah. As do a lot of other Christian organizations. Most are not as large as the Catholic groups, to be sure, but I am not aware of size determining truth.

Or maybe instead we could look at the Orthodox martyrs of the 20th century, and see how they stack up.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Um, yeah. As do a lot of other Christian organizations. Most are not as large as the Catholic groups, to be sure, but I am not aware of size determining truth.

Or maybe instead we could look at the Orthodox martyrs of the 20th century, and see how they stack up.

Catholics Martyred in the 20th century. There are plenty of books out on the topic. I do believe you’ll find by far the largest numbers are Catholics. But who’s counting?

God Bless, gary

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

“Size” may be an incidental or a contributing factor - but, not a determining factor of the truth… unless, of course, you are telling us of the fish that got away…

Actually there are many that have been martyred for their faiths - in every century. May I suggest you redirect the focus to a more relevant aspect.

Thank you. and God bless

Um, yeah. As do a lot of other Christian organizations. Most are not as large as the Catholic groups, to be sure, but I am not aware of size determining truth.

Or maybe instead we could look at the Orthodox martyrs of the 20th century, and see how they stack up.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

“Size” may be an incidental or a contributing factor - but, not a determining factor of the truth… unless, of course, you are telling us of the fish that got away…

Actually there are many that have been martyred for their faiths - in every century. May I suggest you redirect the focus to a more relevant aspect.

Thank you. and God bless

My comment was as relevant as the comment that Catholics are the only significant institutional presence on moral-social issues. If we are looking at numbers, why not look at number of martyrs rather than size of social justice institutions?

Maybe because neither is directly to the point?

I am still, by the way, waiting for evidence that the Pope before the schism period could appoint and depose bishops of other sees.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I’m sorry, I thought that your question had aleady been answered … and, I certainly did not think you were waiting on me… :imsorry: So, let’s see what we can do…

As I recall Acts 1:15-26 clearly identifies Peter’s leadership role throughout the entire process of selecting Matthias to replace Judas. So this is where Peter, Leader of the Apostles (Pope) directed the process - lots were cast (if you have Faith, the Holy Spirit made His Will known … or… God was never involved (what god?) and this was just the luck of the draw. You draw your own conclusion.) So, there isn’t any confusion - here is the text:
**
15
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16
“My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
17
He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.
18
He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.
19
This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.
20
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
21
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. **

Now, the text lacks the exact words that Pope Peter I consecrated Matthias as Bishop - so, I understand that lacking those words - there is obvious evidence that nothing really every happened except a game of lots.

Scripture lacks any direct or indirect evidence of a Pope deposing a bishop. So, lacking tha truly convincing evidence I guess it does not exist! But, if we look beyond Scripture…

“In 428 Nestorius, the newly installed bishop of Constantinople, attacked the title Theotokos from the pulpit…” Pope Celestine delegated Cyril to either accept Nestorius’ recantation or depose him. Under the authority of the Pope, Cyril deposed Nestorius.

Here is the link with all the details: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409hotm.asp

I guess the real issue is for you to identify why the Pope is not able to consecrate or depose a bishop. Just how do you think the early Catholic Church lasted until the 16th Century awaiting the Protestant revolt?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

My comment was as relevant as the comment that Catholics are the only significant institutional presence on moral-social issues. If we are looking at numbers, why not look at number of martyrs rather than size of social justice institutions?

Maybe because neither is directly to the point?

I am still, by the way, waiting for evidence that the Pope before the schism period could appoint and depose bishops of other sees.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I’m sorry, I thought that your question had aleady been answered … and, I certainly did not think you were waiting on me… :imsorry: So, let’s see what we can do…

As I recall Acts 1:15-26 clearly identifies Peter’s leadership role throughout the entire process of selecting Matthias to replace Judas. So this is where Peter, Leader of the Apostles (Pope) directed the process - lots were cast (if you have Faith, the Holy Spirit made His Will known … or… God was never involved (what god?) and this was just the luck of the draw. You draw your own conclusion.) So, there isn’t any confusion - here is the text:
**
15
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16
“My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
17
He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.
18
He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.
19
This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.
20
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
21
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. **

Now, the text lacks the exact words that Pope Peter I consecrated Matthias as Bishop - so, I understand that lacking those words - there is obvious evidence that nothing really every happened except a game of lots.

Scripture lacks any direct or indirect evidence of a Pope deposing a bishop. So, lacking tha truly convincing evidence I guess it does not exist! But, if we look beyond Scripture…

“In 428 Nestorius, the newly installed bishop of Constantinople, attacked the title Theotokos from the pulpit…” Pope Celestine delegated Cyril to either accept Nestorius’ recantation or depose him. Under the authority of the Pope, Cyril deposed Nestorius.

Here is the link with all the details: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409hotm.asp

I guess the real issue is for you to identify why the Pope is not able to consecrate or depose a bishop. Just how do you think the early Catholic Church lasted until the 16th Century awaiting the Protestant revolt?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

.
The Scriptural passage doesn’t apply at all, not because we don’t see direct evidence of ordination though. THe problem is that this was not a unilateral decision by Peter, rather it was a decision by the Apostles as a group. (And it is possible one of the others ordained him.)

And if you read carefully the link you gave, we also do not have a unilateral papal decision. The decision to remove Nestorius comes from all the Bishops and laity.

This is quite different from the privilege the Pope claims today to appoint and remove Bishops of his own volition. That is what I’m looking for, and pre-schism evidence of this kind of privilege being generally accepted would go a long way to convincing me it is not a pernicious innovation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

No doubt about it - you’re right! Peter was just ‘one of the guys’ - eveyone else really makes the decisions and Peter just seems to be hanging around. You really have to wonder what Christ ever saw in him!..

Now, concerning deposing Bishop Nestorius - it was the Pope who gave the authority to Cyril. Yes others were unhappy with this heretic - but, the decision was not made by others.

But, if you refuse these items, undoubtedly all other efforts are of no avail from me. So, why do you not answer my question and identify why you think the Pope lacked this power - please recall binding and losing authority (Matt 16:18).

I look forward to hearing an actual response with references.

God bless

.
The Scriptural passage doesn’t apply at all, not because we don’t see direct evidence of ordination though. THe problem is that this was not a unilateral decision by Peter, rather it was a decision by the Apostles as a group. (And it is possible one of the others ordained him.)

And if you read carefully the link you gave, we also do not have a unilateral papal decision. The decision to remove Nestorius comes from all the Bishops and laity.

This is quite different from the privilege the Pope claims today to appoint and remove Bishops of his own volition. That is what I’m looking for, and pre-schism evidence of this kind of privilege being generally accepted would go a long way to convincing me it is not a pernicious innovation.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

No doubt about it - you’re right! Peter was just ‘one of the guys’ - eveyone else really makes the decisions and Peter just seems to be hanging around. You really have to wonder what Christ ever saw in him!..

Now, concerning deposing Bishop Nestorius - it was the Pope who gave the authority to Cyril. Yes others were unhappy with this heretic - but, the decision was not made by others.

But, if you refuse these items, undoubtedly all other efforts are of no avail from me. So, why do you not answer my question and identify why you think the Pope lacked this power - please recall binding and losing authority (Matt 16:18).

I look forward to hearing an actual response with references.

God bless

You haven’t actually said anything here.