Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

The papacy made it impossible for the monarchs and princes to do their jobs, and so they broke away from the temporal power of the papacy.

Oh they did much more than that. They broke away from the spiritual powers of the papacy as well.

Unfortunately the papacy insisted that meant spiritual schism as well.

Because it meant spiritual schism. They came up with their own doctrines.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Another point where you seem to be rather behind with the news.

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

So what? Does that justify making one’s self the head of the Church?

As for a woman not being a secure heir, Spain managed very well didn’t she?

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

And if you are not granted one, stamp your foot and start your own church

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

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

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

Henry wanted everything his way. He already sought a papal dispensation to be allowed to marry Catherine and now he wants another to divorce her.

A lack of a male heir was never grounds for annulment.

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

If that is so, then why did Henry not just insist on a separation of temporal powers. Why insist on being head of the Church as well?

 

[benedictus2]

What it comes down to I think is that you can’t claim spiritual authority and exercise it for purely temporal ends, and then expect anyone to take that spiritual authority seriously.

In the same vein you can take temporal authority and expect to exercise it for spiritual ends and then expect to take that temporal and spiritual authority seriously.

Hypocrisy does not nullify truth.
And I don’t mean the spiritual authority of individual priests, bishops, or popes, but of the church, sacraments, and Tradition.
Then you are not making any sense. If the authority of the popes in general cannot be taken seriously then we cannot take any of Christ’s words seriously either considering that He was the one who established the office.

The lack of Christian unity is a scandal and a shame, but the CC brought the Reformation on itself.

No she didn’t. The bad popes did, but not the Church. The Church will always be holy regardless of some of the foibles of her members.

That excuse no longer holds water (at least for those who can think).

The undermined their own authority at every level.

They were corrupt hypocrites but they cannot undermine their authority because their authority did not come from them. It was given by God and only God decides when that authority has been undermined.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Now that may be a bad form, Luther has no grounds for demanding that the Holy See talk to him. He can propose but has absolutely no authority or grounds or basis for demanding that they accede to his requests.

If anything, this just goes to show you that the Church is really Christ’s Church. If the Holy See had listened to Luther and followed his dictates, then the Catholic Church will be in the same quagmire protestantism is in now.

And while it is the case that there came people who believed in individual interpretation of Scripture, it isn’t necessarily accurate to say that they came from Luther.

Sorry, but it did. Refer back to the link I gave earlier.

As a matter of fact, Luther and Calvin both realized the problem of private interpretation and said as much in their letters. But they still stuck to their faulty doctrine.

There were really several parallel reformations in that period. If you want to ask what mistake Luther made that resulted in these other types of thinkers, you might as well ask what mistake the Catholic Church made that resulted in so many reformers and governments rebelling.

True the Popes back then made serious behavioral and moral mistakes. But no doctrinal ones. The compass was still functioning that is why the Church is always refreshed and revitalized. Not so with the broken compass that Protestantism inherited.

Let me give you another thought. Maybe it wasn’t the Reformers breaking away that made people think that anyone was able to lead with the inspiration of the HS.

Nope. That’s where it all started.

Maybe the problem was the idea that a single leader could make decisions for the whole church - the leadership model that distinguishes Catholicism from the early church - that ultimately lead to the Reformation, and the unfortunate splintering of the Christian world that followed.

Well, since that was Christ’s idea then He must have got it wrong then.

I was reading the conversion story of a Protestant, and her Pastor (who remained Protestant) said that there really ought to be only one head. He said, they tried it with two and it just didn’t work.

Here’s something to help you make sense of it
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Protestantism-and-Authority.aspx

 

[benedictus2]

You define the origin of the Catholic Church as God.

Fair enough.

All Christian denominations claim their origin as God; so, this is not peculiar to Catholics.

If I should claim to be the Queen of England, would that make it so?

Still, your point is taken.

Jesus handpicked the Apostles.

True.

Each became a Bishop.

Each became a Bishop?

Each appointed successors to themselves?

Well, ok, for you, but, for me, history does not support your thinking.

Actually it does. It is your thinking that neither history nor the Bible supports.

And so, I disagree; but, let me say that I am impressed by the succinct succession of your thoughts: quite impressive [no sarcasm intended].

It is succinct because it is true. ESMDHokie thinks things through.

 

[benedictus2]

My point is that you asserted Bluegoats statement that Henry VIII was not in fact a philanderer was true. It clearly and factually is not.

Your opinion on the reasoning behind his denial of an annulment is simply that. Doctrinally since he had a child with her (actually, more than one, but one that lived) it is clear that according to the DOCTRINE of the Church, the marriage was a VALID one and therefore not eligible for ANNULMENT.

Don’t kid yourself… As far as Henry’s part in the reformation in England goes, it was sparked by his desire to have a male heir, and the Church’s moral standards were too high to allow that to happen.

Brilliant!

 

[benedictus2]

The problem with Henry the 8th was with him wanting a male heir and being broke. Don’t forget politics played a big part. Rome was playing France, the German States, and Spain against each other. The Pope was ruler of the Papal States and let’s face it there was corruption within the Church. If the Church would have cleaned up it’s act, there probably wouldn’t have been a need for Luther. Luther was right in his Augsburg Confessions.

Luther’s perception of the corruption in the Church was correct. If only he had limited himself to that.

 

[benedictus2]

(Well, I would argue with the Immaculate conception, which is an innovation, and certainly not part of Sacred Tradition.)

Not an innovation. A development of doctrine. Refer again to the Newman link I gave earlier.

It seems to me that what you mean by rebelled is probably different than what I mean. At what point would you say he rebelled, or no longer hoped for a reconciliation?

Would there be a Lutheran church now if he did not rebel? Do you think he would have been ex-communicated if did not insist on his heretical beliefs?

If he had only been more humble he would really have been a force for the good.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually I didn’t say that he wasn’t a philanderer. He was not, however, while married to Catherine thought to be especially lecherous compared to other people in political marriages.

Whether he was more or less lecherous than other people in political marriages is beside the point. He was lecherous full stop.

There isn’t much evidence that he was carrying on constantly or with multiple people at once.

There are two on record, Anne and her sister.

You might be surprised to discover that the Catholic Church’s understanding and treatment of the Sacrament of marriage has not always been the same,

How so?

and has not always been observed, even by the Church itself.

What do you mean by this? That the Church has not always taught what it taught about the sacrament of marriage or that some of the member of the clergy had taken on “wives”?

As regards the latter, that’s practice. That has nothing to do with doctrine. As I said before they were certainly hypocrites. But as Kreeft said: hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, I’m not sure what else could be done under the circumstances. To stay where he was under those circumstances?

What do you mean what could he have done under the circumstances? He could have been more humble for one thing. He could have trust on God’s promise that He will be with His Church till the end of time for another.

The Church was not willing to give an inch,

Why should she? Luther’s duty was to bring the corruption to the attention of the people and the Church. That was all. He had absolutely no right to demand to be listened and acceded to.

and there were serious problems.

That, we already know.

At most, I think he could have retired silently.

Nope. The real option was to accept the decision of the Church. Humility. There it is again.

But he eventually came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not in fact the Church. Which would mean that he didn’t owe it any obedience at all.

And there’s the self-serving assessment. And the grave error.

Now, I don’t think this is the case. Lutherans do not teach that Luther, or any individual has that role, and although Luther was influential in the Reformation, he did not in fact have the role of an ultimate authority.

Perhaps not as regards what the Lutheran church believed but certainly with what he individually believed. He said once that he did not fear the pope because he has his own pope, the self.

That is why Lutheranism was and is confessional. Confessional Christianity is something of an attempt to re-create a model of the Church where you have all members in some sense determining as a whole what is doctrine.

And there never was a need to re-create a model of the Church because the Church was still there and guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by her Founder.

This is somewhat similar to what you see in the English Church or Orthodoxy, though through a different mechanism. Notionally (not necessarily successfully) they are all rejecting the idea of one leader or head who can impose ideas on the Church as a whole.

Rejecting Christ’s idea you mean.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2

It is always a pleasure to read your excellent posts…

God bless

What do you mean what could he have done under the circumstances? He could have been more humble for one thing. He could have trust on God’s promise that He will be with His Church till the end of time for another.
Why should she? Luther’s duty was to bring the corruption to the attention of the people and the Church. That was all. He had absolutely no right to demand to be listened and acceded to.
That, we already know.
Nope. The real option was to accept the decision of the Church. Humility. There it is again.
And there’s the self-serving assessment. And the grave error.

Perhaps not as regards what the Lutheran church believed but certainly with what he individually believed. He said once that he did not fear the pope because he has his own pope, the self.

And there never was a need to re-create a model of the Church because the Church was still there and guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by her Founder.
Rejecting Christ’s idea you mean.

 

[benedictus2]

Does it ever occur to you that there might be another way to look at things? Does it worry you that there are many very holly, intelligent, and learned people who don’t read the history of the Church, or the Fathers, the way you do?

I don’t know about Tom but it doesn’t worry me .

People like C.S. Lewis, or Timothy Ware, or heck even the Dali Lama?

CS Lewis’s thinking is more Catholic than protestant and why would the Dalai Lama’s opinion count in this matter. If his belief is of equal validity with the Christian belief then why did Christ have to come? Christ is not just one more guru in a long line of gurus.

All of the things you mention here are well understood and acknowledged by non-Catholic Christians. And yet they are not all led immediately to the conclusion that Catholicism is true.

Then isn’t that the whole point of these forums - to ferret out the truth. Just because they are not let to the conclusion that Catholicism is not true does not make it not true.

It is not very rational base one’s arguments on statistics when it calls for logic.
As to the other point: As far as I know, Catholic scholars have no problem with the term early Church. They of course think the Catholic Church was the early church, but they still use it when that is what they are talking about. I haven’t, however, seen any try to argue that Protestants or the Orthodox do not share the history of the early church.
No the Protestant Churches (depending upon how far removed they are from the early reformers) do not share the same history. That is just a matter of fact.

As for the reformers, they shared the same history when they were Catholics but when they became protestant they started their own history.

For one thing, how does one make a case for starting up one’s own Church when Christ’s church is still going well albeit run but corrupt men?

Even Jesus told the Jews to do what the Pharisees teach them to do because they sit on Moses’s chair.

 

[benedictus2]

You know, I had Catholic teachers when I was in university, who were published scholars.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Another of my professors was the first Protestant to ever be visiting Patristics professor at the Augustinianum in Rome.

Same with this one. What does that have to do with anything? Are you sort of trying to appeal to authority here?

Are you suggesting that I am making up the fact that they would use the term “Early Church” or that they understood that non-Catholics might actually have some real grasp of history and patristics? Really?

How telling us exactly what you are suggesting?

But then again, may be you have. I just haven’t got to that post yet
So, apologies if that were the case.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t know. Sure I know the Catholic faith’s interpretation.

Then please give us support for your 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.

Humour will not suffice when rational proof is required. So please give us proof of your interpretation. And yes, Biblical reference would be needed.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Very well put!

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Yes, that is true and He moves them towards the Church. That is what Jesus came here for.

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.

That is true, but there is also willful rejection of what one hears especially when it does not fit with what one wants to hear. That is why humility is important. We need to pray for a teachable heart.

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.

That is also true. But there are also things that are within our control.

 

[benedictus2]

OK, so, how do you explain omitting Lutherans from the early years of church history? Can you claim that, because Lutherans did not exist, any Christian may not look back on those times as his or own past, due to his or her faith? That seems a large claim to make. Also, note that I have never claimed that there were Lutherans back then. There were Christians. Not Catholics. Not Methodists. Not Orthodox. Christians.

Actually, back then there were only Catholic Christians. Everyone one belonged to the Catholic Church. Back then, everyone was in union with Rome. Then the Orthodox schism branched out and 500 years after that the reformers.

How can Protestants stake a claim on shared history when they reject so many of what is traditionally Christian belief?

Even if you believe they differ from the ECFs on some matters, they (people who would not be Catholics today) were still part of the church. There were no divisions, therefore all Christians may look to that as part of the greater Christian past.

How can that be when they hold to different doctrines?

Where is the logical fallacy in that? I find it skeptical that Catholics would read back into history–when the idea of denominations or schisms was moot–modern ideas that do not belong in that time. It’s never been anything but a historical fallacy. One may as well argue whether George Washington would be a Democrat or a Republican. The question is moot.

The reason Catholics reach back into history is simply to show this fact - that a large part of protestant theology is a theological novum.

Also, before 400, there was no canon, yes. However, people still had access to scriptural writings.

And how? Through the Church! And who determined the what is scriptural? The Church.

It’s not as if the books of the bible were hidden at this time.

Neither was it in the printing press. The faithful knew the Bible largely through the readings at Mass.

They were being written, or they were available.

They were transcribed by monks. Monks of the Church.

The idea for a “canon” to be necessary for scripture to flourish is odd to me.

Huh! Without a "canon’ how do you determine what is and what is not scriptural?

How do you know for example, that John should be in and Thomas should be out? Who determines what should and should not be in the Bible?

 

[seamusmohr]

Tell more of the Creed of Trent. Distinguish it from the Catechism of Trent. And the Council of Trent, Session IV.

GKC

GKC: Sorry I can’t oblige with your request, as you have probably noticed I am not at my scintillating best owing to an accident, that while it isn’t life threatening is incapacitating.
For some days now it (the pain,) has been receding and I am able to sit at my computer desk for no more than Five minutes!

The quote I gave was from the TraditionalCatholic.net .Prayer . It is labelled, or headed
Tridentine Creed and is distributed in the next County to returnees to the Holy Roman Church and those other people who need a reminder of what the Roman Doctrine is!

"I…admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions …"

"I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held… Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers."

If the False Creed be interpreted as Trent and the Romans apparently intended the arguments put forward to support the Vatican interpretation would never have got to court!

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, you may not call yourself a Jew, but surely you take the Old Testament, which began as a Jewish work, as part of the Christian faith. Surely, you accept the Old Testament prophets as your forefathers in faith, as well as being Jewish ones. It is in the same way Protestants see early church history.

In the sense that “reformers” were Catholic before they protested, yes. But once they started their own Church then the Lutheran Church started once they split from the Church. Prior to that there was no such thing as a Lutheran Church.

For one thing, they even claim that the Catholic Church from which the “reformers” came from is an apostate Church so how can one claim lineage back to say AD350 when you disregard the years after that prior to the 1500s.

Protestants would argue that projecting the idea of Catholicism (as known today) back on an unsplit church is illogical. It simply was not in the vocabulary back then.

Exactly. And it was never meant to be in the vocabulary,. Christ never ever intended that.

This is Lutheran history from a non-Lutheran perspective. The idea that Lutherans must claim their beginnings in the 16th century denies the very basis of the faith.

Well no it doesn’t because prior to the 16th century there was no Lutheran Church. As I explained to Bluegoat, when you say write the history of something, you write from when it started. The Lutheran Church did not start in 33AD.

Sure, fine, if you don’t believe that. However, Lutherans, while acknowleging the start of their denomination in the 16th century, do not believe they can only be Lutherans. They are Christians first, Lutherans second.

Then how can one believe in a Church that split from the Church that Christ founded? To believe that one has a right to start a church based on one’s assessment that the Church is somehow no longer valid (despite its Founder’s assurance that no such thing will happen) is to doubt its Founder.

It it to put one’s authority and one’s wisdom over and above God’s.

I do claim a certain heritage from the country my ancestors immigrated from to arrive at America, as Lutherans may claim heritage in the early church. I might also claim a certain union of history with England, as that is where this country’s first settlers came from and is a country from which America gets much of its culture. So, yes. I do carry back my history a big further.

Let me put it this way, how can you say that your history starts from the time Christ founded His church when you refuse to accept the authority of that same Church?

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

And, really, if you are going to make a claim about the ECF (and, that would be the Early Catholic Chruch Fathers) then quote them instead of anti-Catholic material that shows its bias in their titles!

For once, I find your comments interesting and I appreciate your kindness in qualifying the ECF as the Catholic Fathers. I did know, but thanks anyway! For the First thousand years
as I have been told, there were only Catholic Fathers it was only after Rome became a Catholic Sect ,after Trent, that it became necessary to differentiate between Catholic and Roman.The use of the term, Catholic , is subject to great misuse by the Roman Apologists on this board and it stems from the decree of Trent that the name of the papal Church was the ,‘Holy Roman’ Church! (para 1. Tridentine Creed!
Now as for the writers, or their writings being anti-catholic, how would you know, have you read them? In fact the writers, all three of them, are, or were in their time, acclaimed scholars who ran rings with their scholarship, around the Romanist opposition and I would ask you to point out the criteria you use to make judgements on them?!