Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[seamusmohr]

i could not tell whose quote this is! If i have misapplied it’s origin, please forgive me, and correct me.

can you say some more about how “rome became a catholic sect” and the nature of the sectarianism?

 

[seamusmohr]

I am afraid you lost me here. Is he saying that the Roman Rite became a “sect” because the council of Trent sent the findings to the successor of Peter?

If that is true, why did not the Roman Rite become a “sect” when the results of the councils of Hippo and Carthage were sent to him in the late 300’s?

**

It was the custom to send out the minutes of Councils ,or Synods, for both info and distribution by meropolitans and others.

**

The problem with the papacy is simple for me! If you can prove the claims from the Revelation of Christ, Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils , all of the first three centuries perhaps I could accept i

t**

 

[guanophore]

at the Council of Trent, ad 1545/ 1564 the catholic bishops who attended this council surrendered their responsibilities on to the shoulder of the Bishop of Rome, by allowing him to have the final voice in their deliberations. Collectively the Bishops hold the Place of the Apostolic College, that is authority. The bishops of Trent betrayed their Master!

Ok, I was following this correctly. I will refrain from addressing this further until I read your responses to my other comments, which demonstrate that this is a false statement.

Including the successor of Peter, or following the leadership of Peter, does not negate the responsibilities of the Apostolic college.

It is clear in Acts that James recieved instruction from Peter, and immediately implemented pastoral instructions to correct the problems. He in no way abdicated his pastoral duties because he was led by Peter.

A sect is a religious body distinguished by peculiarities of faith and practice from other bodies, or in the catholic church, other communions, adhering to the same general system. I.E The two most obvious deviations , or peculiarities that have evolved from Trent are Papal Jurisdiction and much later, Papal Infallibility.These are the two main ones that I see!

At this point you are not making sense. You are saying that a sect was created at Trent, but you are using things long after Trent so support your assertion. Either it happened at Trent, or it happned when the "obvious deviations "occurred. From what you have shown, none of these things happened at Trent.

Jurisdiction andInfallibilty, which wasn’t discussed, but was a milestone on the way are to Catholics heresy!

Can you reword this? I am not understanding what you are saying.

Since universal jurisdiciton and papal infallibility are not products of Trent, how can you say that “at Trent” a "Roman sect " was formed.

Not a papal church, but the papal was not and indeed is not, the Catholic Church. It was simply a Communion within that Church.

I know it is important for many of those who are separated from unity with the successor of Peter to claim that they are still Catholic. But this represents a redefinition of what is Catholic. The Catholic Church is the one that is in communion with the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, including the successor of Peter. East was separated from west when communion was lost between the Eastern successors of the Apostles and the successor of Peter. Communion was lost in the Reformation when the authority of the bishops in communion with Rome was rejected.

You may well think as you do, your problem is to prove my contention wrong, as an Anglican Catholic I hold that the Faith in a nutshell is ,"Revelation, Scripture and The College of Bishops. The latter being holy tradition.

Of course we are in agreement on these, as they are Catholic beliefs. The only difference is that non-Reformation Catholics are still in communion with the successor of Peter. Reformation Catholics have mentally excised the successor of Peter from the college of bishops, apparently thinking that by refusing to admit him, he therefore becomes absent.

You’r entitled to your likes and dislikes, this is fair enough, but if you judge the contents of a book by its cover , that’s your problem I should imagine

I do, indeed. That does not keep me from reading the books, though, and at times, revising my judgment accordingly.

For example, I used to thing the Gospel of Mark was reflecting the position of Mark, which I am sure it does, but after further study, I learned that Mark wrote “Peter’s Gospel”.

Do you mean that I should quote Vatican production instead.

How about neither? How about looking at the ECF’s through a different lens? Is is necessary to read them with ant-Catholic glasses?

Before any agreement was affirmed the decision was to be agreed by the pope and before the Council could finally come to agreement the whole pot had to be agreed by Rome. Ecumenical Councils were free and Trent was not!

I think you need more study of history, sea. There is nothing wrong with the successor of Peter agreeing to the findings of councils. I offered the example of the councils of Hippo and Carthage that received the agreement of Gelasius. I fail to see the problem with this.

You are also lacking a lot of political history around the ecumenical councils. They have always been influenced by politics and economics. Fortunately, God is able to preserve His Teaching in the midst of these influences, just as was done at the first 7 ecumenical councils upon which all Christians have agreement. If you think Nicea was free of these things, you are mistaken.

That is why I believe the Roman Church is a sect. Th Spanish King complained ,“I sent Bishops to Trent and they came back parish priests.”. Ricco. Milan 1600. Trent.}

It would be dangerous to leave someone in the role of Bishop who had departed from the Teachings of the faith, don’t you think?

 

[guanophore]

It was the custom to send out the minutes of Councils ,or Synods, for both info and distribution by meropolitans and others.

Yes, but which Patriarchs felt compelled to ratify them by formal decree? Such was the Decree of Gelasius.

The problem with the papacy is simple for me! If you can prove the claims from the Revelation of Christ, Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils , all of the first three centuries perhaps I could accept it.

This is a very good sign, sea. THat means, if you really are willing to look at history and theology through fresh lenses, then reconciliation will quickly follow.

Let me ask you a simple question. When Jesus gave Peter the care and guidance of His Flock, did He indicate geographical jurisdictions?

How was Peter to feed and care for the lambs if his jurisdiction was not universal?

 

[Bluegoat]

Oh but it did support my position and not yours and GKC.

You were claiming that the Christianity in Britain was not Romand.

So I gave the link to the BBC document and this explanation:

No, that wasn’t the claim. If you read back, the original claim I responded to was that Christianity in Britain came from missionaries sent from Rome. There is no evidence that is the case, and that is what I said, that is wht GKC said, and that is what your source said.

I made no claims about their ultimate communion or unity with Rome.

I have no disagreement that they were under the purview of the Roman Patriarch, and historically they accepted that.

My position is that the Roman patriarch eventually took a left turn and put himself into schism with the Church, That, ultimately, is what caused the Reformation. So although the Reformation has many unfortunate aspects, it was justified in the sense that a patriarch who has put himself outside of orthodox Christianity doesn’t have any authority, and ought not to be followed. But it took some time before that became clear and there was the political possibility to break away from Rome.

You I imagine would maintain it is impossible for the Papacy to be in error in that way, which is fine, but I don’t think it is a hand’s down argument by any means.

 

[jnpl1185]

To my Protestant friends, I wish I had a better understanding of Protestant thought on this so can you help me? As we know the 1st 1500 yrs are often brought up by Catholics. The East-West 1054 Schism aside, they maintain that sure while there may have been heretical beliefs exisiting among groups, there was one universal Church founded by Christ, existing with the beliefs that we know as Catholic beliefs. Even if some of those beliefs took time to develop into definition. And if Catholic teachings needed reformed, they ask, why did it take Christ 1500 yrs? I asked a Protestant friend of mine and she said my question made absolutely no sense to her.

Well, my first thoughts on this are that it did not take a whole 1500 years for a need of reform–Church teachings have been constantly and repeatedly reformed within the church through the many many councils throughout the centuries (you’ve heard probably of the Gregorian reforms, etc.). The reforms needed in the 1500s had to do in large part with a departure from traditional Catholic teachings in soteriology during the high and late middle ages which reared their head in the form of monetary indulgences–the teaching, whether “official” or not, that salvation or at least less time in Purgatory could be bought with money or by serving in Crusades, etc.

I can only speak for Lutheran belief, which traditionally holds that the “Reformation” was actually more of an attempt at “Restoration” of earlier catholic teachings. People forget that Luther was a genuine believing Augustinian monk before becoming the “reformer.” And it was because of this and Augustine’s teachings on grace (see “On Free Will and Grace” and “On the Freedom of the Will”) that Martin Luther saw the need to stand up to the Church. His original intentions were not to change church teachings, but to refute those new teachings which were incompatible with the Bible and the traditional teachings of the Fathers. Also, Lutherans still believe that they are part of the apostolic and universal Church–the traditional view is that they are simply another rite within that church just as you have the Latin rite (which is what Roman Catholics refered to themselves until more recent times), the Anglican rite, and the various Orthodox rites. So even the name of this thread is difficult since Lutherans and Anglicans and Episcopalians have been lumped into protestantism and most educated Lutherans and Anglicans do not identify themselves as such.

That said, after Vatican II and the Joint Declaration of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican, there is relatively little separating traditional Lutherans and Roman Catholics. It just took the Church 500 years to make the changes. The doctrinal changes that remain have much to do with the doctrines that have come into existence after the Reformation (declaration of Papal Infallibility, Marian doctrines, etc.) as well as theological distinctions having to do with justification (at least among some groups).

 

[jnpl1185]

Also, it should be recognized that the individual reformers are not the only ones responsible–much of the German Reformation in particular resulted from a series of Peasant Wars which started before Luther nailed up his 95 theses and culminated in the wars of 1524-5. The people rose up against local nobility and bishops because of their economic oppression (backed by many Church teachings of the day) by these institutions and the reformers gave some semblance of form to that chaos. So, in the grand scheme of things, we must all recognize, whether Catholic or Protestant, that there is plenty of culpability to go around for the unfortunate split in the Church.

Just some thoughts.

 

[guanophore]

If you read back, the original claim I responded to was that Christianity in Britain came from missionaries sent from Rome.  There is no evidence that is the case, and that is what I said, that is wht GKC said, and that is what your source said.

Sure there is evidence! All the Liturgies were in Latin, not Greek.

If the missionaries had not been from the Latin Rite, they would have taught the Liturgies in a Slavic, Oriental, or Greek language.

I made no claims about their ultimate communion or unity with Rome.

Does that mean you are not opposed to unity?

I have no disagreement that they were under the purview of the Roman Patriarch, and historically they accepted that.

Is this not the same as “came from Rome”?

My position is that the Roman patriarch eventually took a left turn and put himself into schism with the Church, That, ultimately, is what caused the Reformation.

Here is the problem with that position. A person cannot be “in schism” with the Church. Schism refers to whole communities that are split off from the One Faith. When individuals fall away, they may be schismatics (practicing schism), or they may be apostates, or heretics, but such a one does not automatically take the entire flock with him. Therefore, you would have to show that the Apostolic Faith was abandonded by the whole flock.

Besides, one man’s sins, no matter how deadly, cannot cause such a vast consequence as the Reformation. This required many thousands of wolves among the sheep for as many years. The Reformation is a product of centuries of simony and abuse of power. It spans the lives of dozens of popes, some of them very faithful.

So although the Reformation has many unfortunate aspects, it was justified in the sense that a patriarch who has put himself outside of orthodox Christianity doesn’t have any authority, and ought not to be followed.

Jesus spoke against this flaw in reasoning.

Matt 23:1-4
23:1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Jesus replaced the Seat of Moses with the Apostolic college, but the principle remains the same. Do not rebel against the authority appointed by God. Follow the Truth, and not their bad example.

God also shows what He thinks of those who contend against the authority He appoints in the account of Korah in Num. 26

 But it took some time before that became clear and there was the political possibility to break away from Rome.

The politics are an equal part of the problem on both sides. It does not take the faithful but an instant to determine if a leader is behaving wolfishly. But saints and faithful Christians for centuries clung to the One Faith that was handed down from the Apostles. They did not need to create a new church.

You I imagine would maintain it is impossible for the Papacy to be in error in that way, which is fine, but I don’t think it is a hand’s down argument by any means.

The Pope making an error does not equate to the Church being in error.

 

[guanophore]

Well, my first thoughts on this are that it did not take a whole 1500 years for a need of reform--Church teachings have been constantly and repeatedly reformed within the church through the many many councils throughout the centuries (you've heard probably of the Gregorian reforms, etc.).

I agree with you that men are always in need of Reform, and that reformation had been going on since the beginning of the Church. However, what needed reform has never been the Teachings. The TEachings of Jesus are infallibly preserved in the Church, and being from God, are never in need of Reform. This is where the Reformers missed the mark. They rightly identified the practices of Catholic clerics as being corrupt, and representing a departure from the Faith, but instead of returning to the Truth Faith that was committed “once for all to the saints”, they created different doctrines that were not part of that deposit. Gregory is a good example of this, but with all Catholic reformations, he was addressing practices and people - not doctrine.

The reforms needed in the 1500s had to do in large part with a departure from traditional Catholic teachings in soteriology during the high and late middle ages which reared their head in the form of monetary indulgences–the teaching, whether “official” or not, that salvation or at least less time in Purgatory could be bought with money or by serving in Crusades, etc.

Yes, there were many misrepresentations of the Faith at the time of the Reformation. However, these do not reflect the Teaching of the Church. On the contrary, it was the departure from the Faith of the Apostles that triggered the need for reform. However, the doctrine was not at fault - it was the people who were not properly representing it. I agree, the Reformation was a reaction to these wolves among the sheep.

I can only speak for Lutheran belief, which traditionally holds that the “Reformation” was actually more of an attempt at “Restoration” of earlier catholic teachings. People forget that Luther was a genuine believing Augustinian monk before becoming the “reformer.” And it was because of this and Augustine’s teachings on grace (see “On Free Will and Grace” and “On the Freedom of the Will”) that Martin Luther saw the need to stand up to the Church.

Yes, I agree there was a great need for restoration to the Teachings of the Aposltes that were not being followed. However, Luther did not need to “stand up to the Church”. This is where he failed to distinguish between the wolves among the sheep, and the Holy Bride of Christ. If he had stood up to the wolves, without departing from the One Faith, the results might have been very different. But he did not seem to recognize that the Church is infallible because Jesus is her Head,a nd He is God. She is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, and it is these divine elements that prevent her from sin.

His original intentions were not to change church teachings, but to refute those new teachings which were incompatible with the Bible and the traditional teachings of the Fathers.

That is just the problem, though. There WERE no “new teachings”. Only practices that departed from the once for all deposit of faith. The Church is not at liberty to add to this once for all deposit.

Also, Lutherans still believe that they are part of the apostolic and universal Church–the traditional view is that they are simply another rite within that church just as you have the Latin rite (which is what Roman Catholics refered to themselves until more recent times), the Anglican rite, and the various Orthodox rites. So even the name of this thread is difficult since Lutherans and Anglicans and Episcopalians have been lumped into protestantism and most educated Lutherans and Anglicans do not identify themselves as such.

Yes, the thread topic may be misleading, but it sure has spawned some great discussion.

That said, after Vatican II and the Joint Declaration of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican, there is relatively little separating traditional Lutherans and Roman Catholics. It just took the Church 500 years to make the changes.

The fact is that there were no changes. The JDJ just formally articulates what has always been the case, confirming that the doctrine was never the problem in the first place!

The doctrinal changes that remain have much to do with the doctrines that have come into existence after the Reformation (declaration of Papal Infallibility, Marian doctrines, etc.) as well as theological distinctions having to do with justification (at least among some groups).

Except that these are not doctrines that have come into existence after the Reformation.

The CC considers the public revelation of Jesus to be closed at the death of the last apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted from the once for all deposit of faith that was given at that time to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Also, it should be recognized that the individual reformers are not the only ones responsible–much of the German Reformation in particular resulted from a series of Peasant Wars which started before Luther nailed up his 95 theses and culminated in the wars of 1524-5. The people rose up against local nobility and bishops because of their economic oppression (backed by many Church teachings of the day) by these institutions and the reformers gave some semblance of form to that chaos. So, in the grand scheme of things, we must all recognize, whether Catholic or Protestant, that there is plenty of culpability to go around for the unfortunate split in the Church.

Just some thoughts.

No, jnp. While the Peasant wars are definitely a factor in the Reformation, the oppression of them does not in any way represent the Teachings of any Church, Lutheran or Catholic. Anyone who reads Luther’s writings about the Peasants will never espouse them as part of the Lutheran faith, anymore than the greed of the Catholic Bishops involved represented the faith of the Apostles that is infallibly preserved in the Church.

Yes, persons in positions to alleviate the problems, such as bishops and princes, departed from the Christian faith in terms of their treatment of the poor, this came from their human lust for power, not from Church Teachings (in that day, or any day).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The key word being “stand!” Kate and I went; she really LOVED it. She talked all the way home about how much she enjoyed it. It really is a rich, worshipful, ancient experience. My second visit was much better than my first. The priest, who has been gone for a few weeks now, is back, Father George. He’s just great, very friendly. The DL is a lovely experience. The coffee hour kicked butt, too!

Yep.

And let us know how things stand, at the DL.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi tualey,

I don’t find automotive metaphors the best way to depict Christian revolts!

I don’t think my line of thought is confusing at all. It’s pretty simple. The pope, after the fall of Rome, took on political and secular functions he never had previously and from the Orthodox and Anglican angle, he never should’ve had such powers. As the Church usurped the wealth of European nations, meddled in their civic affairs, and the monestaries and priories became wealthier and more powerful, the secular evolution toward nation-states took place. Eventually, as GKC points out nicely, something had to give. Henry took over and very little was changed. Ed and Liz changed more. But ultimately the Catholic Church had to be expelled from England sooner or later in this evolution to make England a free nation and the same was true of the other European states moving toward nationhood. Henry had plenty of cause for his decree of nullity quest, also as GKC has pointed out and can do so (as forementioned) far better than I ever could (!!!) and when he became the head of the Church in England, he made very few changes.

The Orthodox might say to the Catholics that if they hadn’t created ideas like purgatory, indulgences, scholasticism, annates, mortal vs. venial sins, papal supremacy/infallibility, and so many other innovations, there would’ve been no need for a Reformation in the first place. In fact, some Orthodox I know have made such an assertion. None told me that today at the Orthodox Church I visited though

Hi, Gurneyhalleck1

Maybe it is just me having trouble following your train of thought. In prior posts you were basically saying that Henry’s break with the Catholic Church was not such a big deal - no where near the significance of Edward or Elizabeth much later. Maybe an analogy would be helpful here: If an automobile was parked on a hill with the break engaged and the driver in place so that it is not moving we do not have a dangerous situation. A guy named Henry throws the driver out and disengages the break and now the car is quickly rolling down the hill. If I understand your argument correctly, the claim is that the engine and the transmission and radio were not touched so everything is just fine… but, the car is about to crash! When the accident investigation team arrive and look for why the car crashed - one could say that there was an annoying driver (the one Henry threw out) or the owner’s manual was not being followed or there was a crack in the windshield - or anything thing other than: Henry threw out the driver and released the break! Henry’s actions are the proximate and direct cause for the wreck.

To try and claim that it did not crash on Henry’s watch requires that we overlook the murder of thousands, the total disregard for the conscience of everyone under Henry’s control, and the theft of Church property. It all happened and can not be ignored. Yes, Edward and Elizabeth put their own marks on this wreck - but, they would have never been in such a position if it were not for Henry.

Now, there really isn’t an argument that the revolt from the Catholic Church probably was singularly instrumental in the ultimate development of the nation state. But, that appears a bit remote from this topic… don’t you think?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jnp,

You really have a lot of material here - I will try and address what I can and then we can take it from there.

,-the teaching, whether “official” or not, that salvation or at least less time in Purgatory could be bought with money or by serving in Crusades, etc.

One of the problems with lumping unlike items together is that it tends to produce conclusions that are lead one off into the wilderness. There has never been an official teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the sale of indulgences as an appropriate activity. If you believe other-wise then it would be good to supply the appropriate references to back up your statement.

Apparently there were several individuals out there that were running regular ‘sales’ on indulgences! And this is nothing else but simony - which was soundly condemned by St. Peter himself. (Acts 8:9-24). Those who preached and encouraged others to buy or sell indulgences were in grave error - and Luther was correct in pointing out the error to any and all.

I can only speak for Lutheran belief, which traditionally holds that the “Reformation” was actually more of an attempt at “Restoration” of earlier catholic teachings.

Where I have a problem with this, Jnp, is that this Augustinian monk went from acknowledging, believing and administering Seven Sacraments to only acknowledging two. This is neiher ‘reform’ or ‘restoration’ but total revolt. The other five Sacraments had nothing to do with the sale of indulgences. Luther’s decision to abandon the teachings of the Catholic Church in this matter is simply revolt from the authority structure he detested. The idea here is that the Catholic Church - from its earliest days has always maintained the Seven Sacraments as part of the Apostolic Tradition. The way I see it, Luther was not really interested in going back where he would encounter teachings from the ECF that did not support Luther’s novel theology.

People forget that Luther was a genuine believing Augustinian monk before becoming the “reformer.” And it was because of this and Augustine’s teachings on grace (see “On Free Will and Grace” and “On the Freedom of the Will”) that Martin Luther saw the need to stand up to the Church. His original intentions were not to change church teachings, but to refute those new teachings which were incompatible with the Bible and the traditional teachings of the Fathers.

As best as I can see, Luther did not initially intend to break with the Ctholic Church. Yet, he did - and did so that his own private theology would apparently replace the established teachings of the Catholic Church - the one he agreed prior to his ordination - was founded by Christ on Peter.

There is truly a lot of complexity to Luther - and the animosity that the various German Princes had for the Pope only added another and further complicating element of intrigue. While I personally do not know exactly when his thinking transitioned from fighting abuses in the Church founded by Christ to actually overthrowing the Chruch founded by Christ - all I can say is that it happened. Undoubtedly, he was influenced by others - but, in the end, he did take a stand and that is what is being evaluated.

…Martin Luther saw the need to stand up to the Church. His original intentions were not to change church teachings, but to refute those new teachings which were incompatible with the Bible and the traditional teachings of the Fathers.

It would be instructive to me if you were to provide evidence that the Scripture, Tradition and the ECF did not support the five Sacraments that Luther pitched out.

Also, Lutherans still believe that they are part of the apostolic and universal Church–the traditional view is that they are simply another rite within that church just as you have the Latin rite (which is what Roman Catholics refered to themselves until more recent times), the Anglican rite, and the various Orthodox rites.

This is actually a misstatement of fact, Jnp, The Catholic Church does not recognize the Orthodox as a rite but a schismatic church, and the Lutheran and Anglican as heretical. There is a special Anglican Rite - but, this is only for those who have converted over to the Catholic Church. Here is an instructive link: ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

That said, after Vatican II and the Joint Declaration of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican, there is relatively little separating traditional Lutherans and Roman Catholics. It just took the Church 500 years to make the changes. The doctrinal changes that remain have much to do with the doctrines that have come into existence after the Reformation (declaration of Papal Infallibility, Marian doctrines, etc.) as well as theological distinctions having to do with justification (at least among some groups).

As I recall, Luther had a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Surely, if Luther were here today, he would be embracing the Marian doctrines…

I look forward to the progress being made so that, like some of our Anglical brothers, we can be of one Faith united under the Successor of Peter

God bless

 

[Bluegoat]

Sure there is evidence! All the Liturgies were in Latin, not Greek.

If the missionaries had not been from the Latin Rite, they would have taught the Liturgies in a Slavic, Oriental, or Greek language.

We don’t know that there even were missionaries, and we certainly don’t know that they were sent by Rome, which was the original claim. There is good reason to think this may be unlikely though it’s not impossible.

Also, I am not sure your liturgical claims here make sense, though I’m not enough of an expert on liturgies of the period, or Celtic liturgies, to say anything definitive.

Does that mean you are not opposed to unity?

Theoretically no, though I wouldn’t claim unity for the sake of it where there was, in fact, disunity.

Is this not the same as “came from Rome”?

No, not at all. As I said, the original claim was that Rome sent missionaries. That is, came from Rome, as in from the Pope. Some people think the first Christians may have come to Britian from Rome with the Roman army - that is, came from Rome but not from the Church, and not as missionaries. They may also have been missionaries that came from some other route, or something else entirely. Who knows, maybe the legendary account is the accurate one.

The thing is, it is entirely possible that Christianity was introduced to Britian quite early, before the papacy was really very much developed, or there was much of a centralized system in place at all. To talk about it in terms of the papacy missionizing the Britons doesn’t make sense.

Here is the problem with that position. A person cannot be “in schism” with the Church. Schism refers to whole communities that are split off from the One Faith. When individuals fall away, they may be schismatics (practicing schism), or they may be apostates, or heretics, but such a one does not automatically take the entire flock with him. Therefore, you would have to show that the Apostolic Faith was abandonded by the whole flock.

The Pope wasn’t just an individual though, was he? He had all kinds of people following his leadership.

Besides, one man’s sins, no matter how deadly, cannot cause such a vast consequence as the Reformation. This required many thousands of wolves among the sheep for as many years. The Reformation is a product of centuries of simony and abuse of power. It spans the lives of dozens of popes, some of them very faithful.

Again, I am not talking about one man, but an institution and many people.

Jesus spoke against this flaw in reasoning.

Matt 23:1-4
23:1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Jesus replaced the Seat of Moses with the Apostolic college, but the principle remains the same. Do not rebel against the authority appointed by God. Follow the Truth, and not their bad example.

God also shows what He thinks of those who contend against the authority He appoints in the account of Korah in Num. 26

The politics are an equal part of the problem on both sides. It does not take the faithful but an instant to determine if a leader is behaving wolfishly. But saints and faithful Christians for centuries clung to the One Faith that was handed down from the Apostles. They did not need to create a new church.

The Pope making an error does not equate to the Church being in error.

But again, we are not discussing an individual Pope making an error, but rather an institution teaching a false doctrine about the role of the papacy, and a loss of confidence in the institution.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I find this post most interesting from two aspects: First- you appear to requiring some type of paper trail where the Pope specifically deployed a specific set of Missionaries to a specific geographic area.

Britian in the first two centuries had specific assets that the Roman Empire wanted like lead and gold (encyclopedia.farlex.com/Roman+Britain) and many colonies were established. So the area would have not be unknown - the problem comes in when one tries to document troop movements for regular activities (not major battles or campaigns from pubicity seeking Emperors). The fact that Roman troops were there is excellent evidence that someone in authority gave the order for them to be there - even though there may not be an actual record of the order. Looking at the body of evidence: ruins of garrisons, personal artifacts, etc evidence of other orders - it would be a logical inference to state that Rome was responsible for all the Roman troops in the country - and that their orders ultimately came from the Emperor.

There is eventually solid evidence that missionaries from Rome came into the area. Prior to that we need to make another inference - similar to what we did for the Roman troops being sent by the Emperor. There is no evidence of Greek text, writings, carvings or artifacts that I am aware of so we are left with at least two possible conclusions: they just showed up one night, set up their camp, culture and churches and were ready to preach the next morning! Or, there was a gradual influx of missionaries (without passports or other records that they came into the country) who began to establish the Catholic Church throughout the country.

Just looking at how most things tend to work, the second seems to be the most reasonable - and without the iron-clad guarantee of an original document signed by the Pope giving the very first missionary his deployment orders - I think we could seriously consider this as the most reasonable.

Second - there is this emphasis that Rome really was not responsible for establishing the Catholic Church in England as a argumentative foundation that the Pope was rejected as the government authority for Chruch matters well before the year 200AD. Thus setting the stage for Henry VIII’s attempt to establish his own church with him as the head.

While the concepts of Apostolic Succession are important for those who are interested in just what Christ did in establishing His Chruch on earth (Matt 16:18) the reverse is equally true - those without Apostolic Succession have no ability of tracing their origins in an unbroken manner back to Christ.

God bless

We don’t know that there even were missionaries, and we certainly don’t know that they were sent by Rome, which was the original claim. There is good reason to think this may be unlikely though it’s not impossible.

Also, I am not sure your liturgical claims here make sense, though I’m not enough of an expert on liturgies of the period, or Celtic liturgies, to say anything definitive.

Theoretically no, though I wouldn’t claim unity for the sake of it where there was, in fact, disunity.

No, not at all. As I said, the original claim was that Rome sent missionaries. That is, came from Rome, as in from the Pope. Some people think the first Christians may have come to Britian from Rome with the Roman army - that is, came from Rome but not from the Church, and not as missionaries. They may also have been missionaries that came from some other route, or something else entirely. Who knows, maybe the legendary account is the accurate one.

The thing is, it is entirely possible that Christianity was introduced to Britian quite early, before the papacy was really very much developed, or there was much of a centralized system in place at all. To talk about it in terms of the papacy missionizing the Britons doesn’t make sense.

The Pope wasn’t just an individual though, was he? He had all kinds of people following his leadership.

Again, I am not talking about one man, but an institution and many people.

But again, we are not discussing an individual Pope making an error, but rather an institution teaching a false doctrine about the role of the papacy, and a loss of confidence in the institution.

 

[guanophore]

The Orthodox might say to the Catholics that if they hadn’t created ideas like purgatory, indulgences, scholasticism, annates, mortal vs. venial sins, papal supremacy/infallibility, and so many other innovations, there would’ve been no need for a Reformation in the first place. In fact, some Orthodox I know have made such an assertion. None told me that today at the Orthodox Church I visited though

They might, but I don’t think they would entirely. Latin Catholicism shares about 98% theological unity with the Orthodox. For example, although "purgatory’ is a Latin word, the Orthodox (as well as our separated protestant brethren) also believe in final theosis.

Scholasticism is not an invention of the CC, but it is true that Catholic theology is very influenced by it, just as the East is more influenced by oriental philosophy. The Orthodox also accept various degrees of sin (the gospel of John is really more Eastern in theology than western, after all). They have also always affirmed the Primacy of Peter.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I find this post most interesting from two aspects: First- you appear to requiring some type of paper trail where the Pope specifically deployed a specific set of Missionaries to a specific geographic area.

Britian in the first two centuries had specific assets that the Roman Empire wanted like lead and gold (encyclopedia.farlex.com/Roman+Britain) and many colonies were established. So the area would have not be unknown - the problem comes in when one tries to document troop movements for regular activities (not major battles or campaigns from pubicity seeking Emperors). The fact that Roman troops were there is excellent evidence that someone in authority gave the order for them to be there - even though there may not be an actual record of the order. Looking at the body of evidence: ruins of garrisons, personal artifacts, etc evidence of other orders - it would be a logical inference to state that Rome was responsible for all the Roman troops in the country - and that their orders ultimately came from the Emperor.

There is eventually solid evidence that missionaries from Rome came into the area. Prior to that we need to make another inference - similar to what we did for the Roman troops being sent by the Emperor. There is no evidence of Greek text, writings, carvings or artifacts that I am aware of so we are left with at least two possible conclusions: they just showed up one night, set up their camp, culture and churches and were ready to preach the next morning! Or, there was a gradual influx of missionaries (without passports or other records that they came into the country) who began to establish the Catholic Church throughout the country.

Just looking at how most things tend to work, the second seems to be the most reasonable - and without the iron-clad guarantee of an original document signed by the Pope giving the very first missionary his deployment orders - I think we could seriously consider this as the most reasonable.

Second - there is this emphasis that Rome really was not responsible for establishing the Catholic Church in England as a argumentative foundation that the Pope was rejected as the government authority for Chruch matters well before the year 200AD. Thus setting the stage for Henry VIII’s attempt to establish his own church with him as the head.

While the concepts of Apostolic Succession are important for those who are interested in just what Christ did in establishing His Chruch on earth (Matt 16:18) the reverse is equally true - those without Apostolic Succession have no ability of tracing their origins in an unbroken manner back to Christ.

God bless

The speculation on the origin of the organized Church there is speculative, but the best bet is that the first presence was as a result of individual converts, in the Roman occupation, which (from the Roman standpoint) is well documented; no inference is required, I got a dozen books on the subject. St. Alban is not historically sound, but that’s the rough time frame. Another school centers on the Glastonbury/Joseph of Arimathea legends, but that’s not one I would recommend. I’ve given some references that deal with these ideas, before. Earliest dates for most guesses are around 200 AD. Or, if you follow the Glastonbury legends, more like 40 AD.

But nothing is known.about the first 300 years, or formal and organized missionary work. No one knows.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Orthodox don’t categorize sins, don’t use scholasticism, don’t believe in anonymous confession, use leavened bread, don’t accept papal infallibility, don’t accept papal supremacy, don’t accept the filioque, have huge liturgical differences between the Divine Liturgy and the Novus Ordo, choose saints differently, believe in Eucharistic ecclesiology instead of universal, use spiritual fathers as opposed to a universal catechism, don’t believe in indulgences, see the Atonement differently, look at Original Sin differently, approach sacred art differently, I’m not so sure about that 98% number I hear Catholics say things like that but oddly enough never hear the Orthodox say such things?

They might, but I don’t think they would entirely. Latin Catholicism shares about 98% theological unity with the Orthodox. For example, although "purgatory’ is a Latin word, the Orthodox (as well as our separated protestant brethren) also believe in final theosis.

Scholasticism is not an invention of the CC, but it is true that Catholic theology is very influenced by it, just as the East is more influenced by oriental philosophy. The Orthodox also accept various degrees of sin (the gospel of John is really more Eastern in theology than western, after all). They have also always affirmed the Primacy of Peter.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes. And according to Bishop Lightfoot, England needed several re-conversions to Christianity. Several major areas of the British Isles became Christian under Augustine of Canterbury only to be reclaimed by barbarians, etc. Aiden is someone who was a major part of that re-conversion mission and he’s rarely spoken of. Interesting guy.

The speculation on the origin of the organized Church there is speculative, but the best bet is that the first presence was as a result of individual converts, in the Roman occupation, which (from the Roman standpoint) is well documented; no inference is required, I got a dozen books on the subject. St. Alban is not historically sound, but that’s the rough time frame. Another school centers on the Glastonbury/Joseph of Arimathea legends, but that’s not one I would recommend. I’ve given some references that deal with these ideas, before. Earliest dates for most guesses are around 200 AD. Or, if you follow the Glastonbury legends, more like 40 AD.

But nothing is known.about the first 300 years, or formal and organized missionary work. No one knows.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I find this post most interesting from two aspects: First- you appear to requiring some type of paper trail where the Pope specifically deployed a specific set of Missionaries to a specific geographic area.

Britian in the first two centuries had specific assets that the Roman Empire wanted like lead and gold (encyclopedia.farlex.com/Roman+Britain) and many colonies were established. So the area would have not be unknown - the problem comes in when one tries to document troop movements for regular activities (not major battles or campaigns from pubicity seeking Emperors). The fact that Roman troops were there is excellent evidence that someone in authority gave the order for them to be there - even though there may not be an actual record of the order. Looking at the body of evidence: ruins of garrisons, personal artifacts, etc evidence of other orders - it would be a logical inference to state that Rome was responsible for all the Roman troops in the country - and that their orders ultimately came from the Emperor.

There is eventually solid evidence that missionaries from Rome came into the area. Prior to that we need to make another inference - similar to what we did for the Roman troops being sent by the Emperor. There is no evidence of Greek text, writings, carvings or artifacts that I am aware of so we are left with at least two possible conclusions: they just showed up one night, set up their camp, culture and churches and were ready to preach the next morning! Or, there was a gradual influx of missionaries (without passports or other records that they came into the country) who began to establish the Catholic Church throughout the country.

Just looking at how most things tend to work, the second seems to be the most reasonable - and without the iron-clad guarantee of an original document signed by the Pope giving the very first missionary his deployment orders - I think we could seriously consider this as the most reasonable.

No, I’m not looking for a paper trail. I’m saying that you cannot assert that the Christianity in Britain was established by missionaries sent by the Roman church. That was your assertion, but we have no reason to think that is true, and depending on the time-line, which we also are not sure of, some reason to think it may not be.

You seem to be saying here that you think that if Roman soldiers introduced Christianity, this is the same as it being established by the Roman Church, because the Emperor sent the troops. That is not necessarily the case. Some think that Christianity may have come with the troops Claudius sent - he surely was not intending to spread Christianity.

Second - there is this emphasis that Rome really was not responsible for establishing the Catholic Church in England as a argumentative foundation that the Pope was rejected as the government authority for Chruch matters well before the year 200AD. Thus setting the stage for Henry VIII’s attempt to establish his own church with him as the head.

I’m not sure why you would dispute the truth or falisty of a statement based on what use the person will put it to. Who cares if someone will argue that with it - we still don’t know that Christianity in Britain was established by Roman missionaries, and it is inaccurate to say so.

Some people might argue that. There is some reason to argue that it didn’t seem obvious to the British Christians that they should accept Roman rule, since it was something that they had to work out. The did accept it of course, really it seems without a huge amount of fuss, and I don’t know why anyone would dispute that.

However - one might say, in hindsight, that perhaps Rome in this was showing the beginnings of the issues that would ultimately lead to problems. We know that much was lost in British Christianity because of the Roman insistence on Roman forms, and then we also know how the development of the papacy carries on from there. So perhaps one might argue that while the bishop of Rome was the legitimate patriarch of the West, it was illegitimate for him to assume that kind of power. I don’t know, I’m not sure how that compares to what the other patriarchs did in that period, so I can’t say if that is reasonable.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say with regards to apostolic succession so it is difficult to respond… In general, those who do not believe in it seem to say that it is a succession of faith, rather than having a necessity of unbroken laying-on-of-hands. That is, they believe apostolic succession relates primarily to apostolic faith. I haven’t said that and it isn’t my position, though I think it is interesting to ask whether it would be better to have apostolic succession, or apostolic faith, if one had to choose.