Blue Goat
I think your ameba analogy is likely the best argument for the protestant faith. Indeed, I think this issue is more of a spectrum. How far does the church extend? I don’t think we know that. It is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to believe that the Holy Spirit is present and guiding protestant denominations in their communities. We don’t think they are “churches” because we think there is only one church (currently in schism).
I think certain Catholics go a little bit overboard when they try to explain too precisely how the Holy Spirit works. So whereas in the first Church councils (including the one in the book of acts) it appeared that several church leaders needed to agree to define doctrine whose truth is ensured by the Holy Spirit we now, over a century later are taught that this is not the case. We are now taught by Vatican I that if the Bishop of Rome states certain things as a preface then what follows will be ensured infallible by the Holy Spirit.
Well I’m not saying that anyone necessarily denied this before, but it definitely seems a new modus operandi for the church. In the first 1800 years people could believe or not, in the immaculate conception. They might also believe, like St. John Chrysostom, that the gospel seems to contain minor contradictions. But after 1800 years by way of “clarified understandings” of the importance of Papal pronouncements we now
must believe in the immaculate conception and deny even minor/meaningless inaccuracies to the same extent as if this were part of the Nicene Creed.
I guess I have to say I have my doubts that anyone really knows with this sort of precision exactly how the Holy Spirit safeguards the Church and leads us to salvation. But I include myself in that group of the ignorant so I certainly cannot say the Holy Spirit does not guide the church just as described by Vatican I.
But even if I did become convinced of that it would never lead me to say I am going to break from the church. The church may kick me out but I’m not leaving willingly. That just seems the height of irrationality.
I think Luther pretty clearly rejected the only thing that could be considered the church as it existed at his time and formed his own. He may not have admitted that but historically it’s hard to believe otherwise.
….
I have never understood why people would try to argue that the Reformers thought they were starting something new. It seems to me it is a matter of mixing up the Reformers and their decedents with some modern branches that are rather further removed.
….
Here I think you are stretching things a bit. Sure the reformers did not claim “hey join our new start up church that I myself just created.” Nevertheless, they knew they were starting new. They had to reach agreements about how their liturgy would work, what sorts of art, if any, would be in their new reformed churches, how they would teach about the Eucharist, what requirements there would be for priests, how would they be appointed, how would one be saved etc. etc. These were issues/arguments that happened and sometimes caused a real fracturing within Protestantism.
I think contrasting the creation of protestant churches, with the schism with Catholics and Orthodox, really highlights how the protestant church was the creation of a new church. When there was the Schism with Orthodox it’s not like the orthodox had to decide/argue about how they would now do things . They basically did things the same as before the schism.
….
You can read Luther through his whole life and see that he is clearly in a tradition of Christian, and specifically Augustinian thought. ….To use a different analogy, you may think the branch diseased, but it still grew from the trunk.
…
Similarly there were reformers who emphasized different aspects of the faith who remained in the church. The Franciscans are an example. But Luther not only did his own interpretation and emphasis but specifically and deliberately rejected the only identifiable Church as he knew it.
Martin Luther wrote: “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist…” (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom.
Again consider this in comparison to the east west schism. The Bishop of Rome did not say the Bishopric of Constantinople was “the seat of the anti-christ” and vice versa. Yes they may have argued that particular people were bad, but Luther’s attack is on the actual structure of the church. That there was and should be a Bishop in Rome with
some authority was understood and agreed for at least 1350 years right?
Hopefully you would agree that the ancient church did not view the Bishop of Rome as the seat of the anti-Christ. So then, since Luther says it was as of 1520 (and some Lutherans still maintain this) then when did this become the case?
Assuming a protestant would deny Peter was the first Pope, would say Clement also have taken the seat of the anti-Christ?
I have heard arguments that based on Foxes Book of Martyrs it seems one early protestant position was that the church was pure until it actually held secular power. (around the time of Constantine?) Then it started persecuting the “true church” – that is those who were considered heretics. From what I understand though at least some of these “martyrs” would have been considered heretics by most Protestant groups as well.
After reviewing the history I believe protestant’s would have to maintain that the church at the very least “lapsed” at some point. But Scripture says it will always be guided by God.
)
But, look what happened when even publicly sinful men occupied the Chair of Peter… yes, there was public scandal - but, at no time was error taught. By this I mean that from the very beginning the Catholic Church has taught and continues to teach that: