Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[jnpl1185]

*What earlier Catholic teachings? Up to which council?

If they agree with all the councils that the Eastern Orthodox consider valid, then why did they not become Eastern Orthodox?
*

Do you want an answer to the thread question or is this just more baiting? If we can drop the high and mighty nonsense, I’ll try to answer from the Lutheran perspective and from the history I’ve read–if you are actually interested in that perspective and not just in shooting it down. The early reformation was by no means uniform. Some early reformers believed in the validity of most church teachings with the exception of abuses, others believed that there needed to be an authority–ultimately this could not be a person as most Lutherans do not interpret the “rock” passage in the same way RCs do (meaning that Peter being the Rock and the successors to Peter having that same power are two separate matters). Eventually, biblical authority won out.

There is no specific council specified to my knowledge. The attempt at reformation was to get back to what was perceived to be more “pure” and biblical teachings. Purgatory, merit of salvation to any degree, etc. were among those things seen as unbiblical to the reformers.

But we don’t forget that. We know he was an Augustinians monk so one wonders where he got all his erroneous beliefs from?

From the bible. Go figure. It is not your interpretation, but it is a valid one. Have some respect.

*As for “reformer” can one really apply that term considering that what followed was deformation not reformation? Would one call the every growing number of Protestant Denominations a reformation? Would one call it a restoration? *

Again, I am trying to represent the Lutheran perspective here since the original inquirer seemed interested. I am not going to convert you any more than you are going to convert me. What I can say, though, is that Luther cannot be held responsible for everything that people have done since 1517. We are all responsible for our own actions and no one else’s. I cannot defend other denominations, but they are all entitled to their beliefs. It is only a deformation if you have a very rigid and unforgiving perspective on what Christianity is. For you Christianity seemingly means Roman Catholicism. For others it does not. Again, have some respect.

Was that the state of Christianity before so we What new teaching was incompatible with the Bible and the traditional teachings of the Church Fathers?Who was he kidding, all the rites within the Church were all approved by the Magisterium. He didn’t have that.

The biggest matter was the indulgences. I perceive that people here like to make the excuse that it was not doctrine. It didn’t need to be–practice is ultimately the more important thing. Again, after Luther was excommunicated and reconciliation with the Church was not possible (except that Luther simply give up, and say he was cool with indulgences), the reformers transferred authority from the Pope to the Bible.

Whether they identify themselves differently does not make it so. They all sprung around about the same time and they were all born of a protest against the Church.

Arrogant comments such as this are what have made ecumenical dialogue so difficult. Catholics everywhere thank you. You don’t have to believe it, but again, this is the other perspective.

Then why are we still separated. If it is so minor, then how you come you are not Catholic? How come by yourself, you cannot cross that “very little” divide?

My words were “relatively little”. Please actually read instead of jumping to false interpretations. Little in relation to the perceived differences before the JDJ. Now, there are even more doctrines that have been added since the reformation which many Lutherans have difficulty with. People within the Church may have taught of Mary’s assumption for example, but many theologians even within the catholic church did not believe in this as I understand. And I think I recall reading that Aquinas’ opinion of the immaculate conception was not exactly the same as what the church teaches today. Not sure about this last bit though.

*No it didn’t. The true reformation happened around a few years after Luther’s time and it happened through Saints like St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis de Sales.

It is however a continuing renewal because that is what the Church is about, continuing renewal.

Contrast that with the Protestant Churches who instead of becoming renewed, became even worse, admitting and permitting things such as contraception, abortion, active homosexuality, priestesses, etc, etc. So when will the Protestant churches start the renewal from this downhill trend?*

Excuse you. Not all protestant denominations support this behavior. At least try to educate yourself before making uninformed comments. The ELCA is a very liberal sect of Lutheranism, but most Lutherans do not even consider them to be true Lutherans. You can’t blame everyone for the actions of a few. Again, even the word “protestant” is insufficient. Catholics like talking about “Protestants” without regard to which groups and which people they are actually dealing with.

Many “protestant” Christians long for improved relations with the Roman Catholic Church but there are still some things separating us. Dialogue and understanding are how we might come to settle these differences someday–not trying to prove to one another that the basis of the other’s beliefs are faulty and sinful. This will only lead to further separation Arrogance and Pride are the sins that need to be fought when it comes to ecumenical dialogue. If you want people from different faiths to join the CC, understanding is the answer. Not condemnation.

 

[benedictus2]

You should define what you mean as Primacy?

I did. I said:
“So you are saying that Rome did not have primacy **among these Patriarchates during this time?”
**
“These patriarchates” being Alexandria and Antioch”

The only primacy Rome had was over the Italian Catholics a few kilometers around Rome, the Suburbicarian Church of Rome! Then you have to look at what primacy stands for?

Nope. If the Rome is the prime See, then it stands to reason that his primacy extended over all the Church.

Later Rome and Constantinople were given primacy over West and Eastern Christendom , respectively,

Quite wrong. Rome always had primacy. Then when Constantine moved his seat to Constantinope, Cerularius decided that Constantinople should therefore be second to Rome. But the Pope decided against that because Alexandria had always been the second patriarchate. Constantinople only became the second Patriarchate after the council of Chalcedon and only after the diminishment of Alexandria.

but these ridiculous claims were not even thought of except by Rome in his wildest dream!

Sorry but the Church Fathers prove you false.

There was no acceptance of modern Roman additions except by Rome till Trent.

Wrong. It was so way long before that. From the 1st century in fact

When The Bishop of Rome tried to pressure the African’s in to accepting a Bishop, they had sacked for wrong doing, they told him in no uncertain terms to clear off! This was before Arles! They did this twice ,Cyprian was involved the first time and was chairman of the Council that rejected the popes uncalled for interference and the second attempt in, I think, the fourth century Augustine was there.

Can you please provide citations and what exactly happened. Everything here is rather vague. It might be easier if you can provide a link.

Get it through your mind that in the early days, up to S.Leo, or just before him, there were no Roman Claims accepted except those given by the Councils

Here is an extract from this link but I do urge you to read the entire article.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

St. Clement’s Epistle is the earliest source we have that witnesses to the priority of the Roman church. However, it is perhaps the witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch, which is of even greater importance as it was the first direct evidence from an outside source and an Eastern one at that. St. Ignatius of Antioch is an important link in the chain of establishing the priority of the Roman Church in antiquity. According to some of the early Fathers (including the church historian Eusebius of Caesaria), St. Ignatius was the second successor to the See of Antioch (succeeding St. Evodius) and was appointed by the Apostle Peter himself. Later on he was a coworker or disciple of the Apostle John. Fr. Afanassieff made the following observations about his Epistle to the Romans written about 15 years after St. Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians:
We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages…The Roman Church ‘presides’ in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…
[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome. [4]

It is the Councils that are the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Yes that too and the College of Bishops, but also the Pope by Himself when speaking ex-cathedra.

 

[benedictus2]

Again define what you mean by primacy, what does this word mean? Where was this primacy held and what over? You tumble words out as though you were emptying a bean sack.

Aah, your rant is becoming tedious and tiresome. Are you incapable of keeping to the topic? You are sounding like a petulant child.

Rome got his authority from being a bishop,and later a metropolitan and very much later a patriarch.

Hmm, care to give me a timeline of all this happenings? Facts please.

He didn’t at any time have any thing to do with Britain, but he was the Emperors Parish priest.

Oh, really? I though earlier you said earlier he was a bishop. Your thinking is very fuzzy you are not even keeping track of your own arguments.

the Church at Rome was used as a dept of state and the bishop of rome was used as a ciil servant! very early on he was given by the Emperor the use of the Roman Polis to pursue his own ends and by this means he enforced his views on all his surrounding bishops and congregations,

Citation please. Since you are writing all these ( and with I assume some scholarly work to support all these) then please give support.

Regarding Glastonbury and the Celts. No one knows where they came from, in that we’ve got no polis reports or newspaper cuttings.

Really. Have you tried researching how Christianity came to Ireland? Or are you just parroting GKC?

And I was not referring to the Celts but the Celtic Church meaning Irish Christianity. Where did Christianity in Ireland come from?

How about you read this
wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/christianity.html

But at least nine sources amongst the early
fathers report that they were here. If you could produce nine early fathers to back any of your claims, you would be estatic.

I already did and you never replied to those posts. It seems you suffer from selective reading.

You and your colleague are like ferrets in a bag twisting, snarling and crying, face it friends, you need proof!

No my dear. It is you who have to give proof. Fom the very beginning all you have ever spouted has been (as Tom Qualey put it) high on heat and lacking in light.

Your arguments have been refuted over and over again and here you are going back to your old arguments.

You couldn’t even answer directly the very simple question in my post.

You know why, because your blood is boiling as you post and so you cannot think straight. Maybe you need to take a deep breath and meditate before you start writing.

 

[benedictus2]

seamusmohr:
S.Peter was a member of the apostolic college, first in line? Perhaps! Perhaps?!?! You obviously don’t know scripture.
Which probably explains your inability to give a simple exegesis of Mathew 16:13 onwards. I have asked you that twice and no answer from you.

But scripture had and still has by Catholics to be read through the lens of the early fathers and not to put too fine a point forward, none of us ere are in that category!

Maaan, we have replied to that post many times before and provided you with proof. You keep saying things over and over again you remind me of a child exercising his “pester power”.
What are you trying to do? Wear us out with you “broken record” argument? Are you hoping that if you say it often enough it will become true?

It has little or nothing to do with Christ or S.Peter what you are discussing on this board!

And that just goes to show how totally ignorant you are of ecclesiology.
Heelloooo, Christ established the Church.

You are trying to exalt the position of an earthly body, The Holy Roman Church, a particular Church!

Nope. And I have given you support for that that “Nope” plenty of times.

The Bishop od Rome is admitted to be the Primus of the West, by Anglicans, Orthodox and your own people, it is accepted because the title was given him by one of the Councils. What is not acceptable are additions to the Canons of the Church and Councils by the Holy Roman Church in an effort to increase his authority beyond what was intended! As Dineen the Monk reportedly wrote,

,“Be it known and declared that we all , individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God and to the Bishop of Rome and to every sincere and godly christian so far as to love everyone according to his degree, in perfect charity and to assist them by word and deed in becoming children of God. But as for any other obedience , we know of none, that he whom you term the Pope or Bishopof Bishops, can demand. The deference we have mentioned we are ready to pay him as to every other christian , but in all other respects our obedience is due to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon, who is alone under God our ruler to keep us right in the way of salvation.”

And blah, blah, blah blah. All irrelevant and nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Aaah, Seamus. You will try the patient of a saint and I am far from being one.

 

[benedictus2]

Primacy of honor, yes. The “Coryphaeus” the Orthodox called Peter, the big brother so to speak. Antioch also had a Petrine origin, also respected highly as a patriarchate, but due to the fact that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and that Rome was the imperial capital, was wealthy, large, powerful, and Petrine, it gained a primacy of honor and respect. Did it maintain a primacy of universal supremacy over all Christendom? Not by a longshot historically…post 1054 we start to see those machinations ensue…

Not post 1054. Prior. Way prior.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not post 1054. Prior. Way prior.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

We been through all this here also. The Arian heresy and the East is not an unknown. We could lay it all out step by step and have also done so on other threads.

Really has nothing to do with the fact the Conclaves, the Church, Jesus Christ started with Peter and the Vicars of Chirst have continued till Benedict XVI.

One can believe anything they want to believe but perspective is the wrong word. The right word is Truth and regardless who believes it doesn’t change.

Schism and heresy is just what it is. Those are the Polite words used by Rome which we have also showed in the CCC, Doctrine and Dogma.

And the comment on the Assumption of Mary is off track above and you need a link to support your comment jnpl1185. I’m sure its not the Assumption of Mary your thinking of and I believe you’ve confused it with another Marian dogma. But they are you words.

Were looking for the Apostolic Succession from your church in Scripture or before Scripture to 2011. Thats all you have to provide.

Claiming some of us don’t believe Matthew…well lets lay it out step by step and go through it, “we have” not a new concept either, been there done that. Its the authority given to Peter by Christ and it comes out no other way. As we see, there is no counter theory thats arrived yet, we’re still waiting 60+ pages? What lacking is anyone else who has come along and proved anything contrary verse by verse in context?

Otherwise this has become an exercise in “what you believe” not what the truth is. And likes and dislikes has nothing to do with Truth either. The I don’t like this or that about the CC. It doesn’t change Historical fact or truth.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GKC]

And where did the Glastonbury and Celtic Church come from? Were they founded from the Eastern Church?

Furthermore, back in the 3rd century, even though there were three patriarchates, Rome always had primacy. It was not as if this patriarchates were somehow separate churches.

No, directly from a variety of apostles or their relatives, or their followers. Note that from the Glastonbury theory, it dates back to around 40 AD.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

=benedictusWhat earlier Catholic teachings? Up to which council
If they agree with all the councils that the Eastern Orthodox consider valid, then why did they not become Eastern Orthodox?

You have an erroneus belief, both you and the Church you belong to/.
There’s only one Church and that is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ. To belong to it one must have received baptism followed by confirmation from a valid bishop after being taught the Catholic faith as Revealed by Christ, recorded in scripture and being completed, interpreted and explained, by the Holy fathers in Council!
Whilst the Church is one, our union is in Christ.we are not a monolith Church , but a series of disparate organisations all holding the same beliefs. In the early church as reported in Acts we were organised as the People of God at Corinth, or Ephesus. later as numbers grew, we were the Suburbicarian Church at Rome and later the Suburbicarian Church in Italy! The name given to the British Catholics was brief enough, the Church in Britain and later the Church in England. It was not a monolithic organisation but a series of separate entatities.

"My father has sent me, even so I send you"
That was to the Apostles; in Acts we find S. Paul commissioned Timothy to Apostolic
Authority at Ephesus and Titus at Crete. S.Irenaeus writes of those to whom the apostles delegated their powers to whom the Apostles delivered the Churches. To this mode of organisation the later fathers, after Irenaeus bear witness.
" S.Cyprian clearly says ,“Christ says to the apostles and thereby to all prelates, who by vicarius ordination are successors to the apostles,'He that heareth you heareth me and he that heareth me , heareth Him … and he expressly indentifies the bishop with the apostles , saying, ‘The Lord chose the Apostles , that is Bishops.’”

When we look at these quote there are no mention, implicit or explicit to any visible heads.

We have now got to a point where we have not just one ,Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches, but two and the silly thing is neither speaks to the other in any meaningful way!
Again I tell you clearly there is no authority given in scripture to any authority superior to that of the Apostles found in scripture. It is the Apostalate that is the supreme authority instituted by Christ in His Church.
Now the Church in Britain, holding to the faith revealed by Christ , taught by the Apostles and interpreted and completed by the College of Bishops, claims to be a Communion of Catholic believers within the body and holding apostolic orders for some two thousand years feels no pressure to go ,“become Eastern orthodox” and follow rites that are strange to them when they are comfortable and safe with rites and teaching from their own past!

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, directly from a variety of apostles or their relatives, or their followers. Note that from the Glastonbury theory, it dates back to around 40 AD.

GKC

You have a link that accurately supports this?

GT

 

[GaryTaylor]

You have an erroneus belief, both you and the Church you belong to/.
There’s only one Church and that is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ. To belong to it one must have received baptism followed by confirmation from a valid bishop after being taught the Catholic faith as Revealed by Christ, recorded in scripture and being completed, interpreted and explained, by the Holy fathers in Council!
Whilst the Church is one, our union is in Christ.we are not a monolith Church , but a series of disparate organisations all holding the same beliefs. In the early church as reported in Acts we were organised as the People of God at Corinth, or Ephesus. later as numbers grew, we were the Suburbicarian Church at Rome and later the Suburbicarian Church in Italy! The name given to the British Catholics was brief enough, the Church in Britain and later the Church in England. It was not a monolithic organisation but a series of separate entatities.

"My father has sent me, even so I send you"
That was to the Apostles; in Acts we find S. Paul commissioned Timothy to Apostolic
Authority at Ephesus and Titus at Crete. S.Irenaeus writes of those to whom the apostles delegated their powers to whom the Apostles delivered the Churches. To this mode of organisation the later fathers, after Irenaeus bear witness.
" S.Cyprian clearly says ,“Christ says to the apostles and thereby to all prelates, who by vicarius ordination are successors to the apostles,'He that heareth you heareth me and he that heareth me , heareth Him … and he expressly indentifies the bishop with the apostles , saying, ‘The Lord chose the Apostles , that is Bishops.’”

When we look at these quote there are no mention, implicit or explicit to any visible heads.

We have now got to a point where we have not just one ,Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches, but two and the silly thing is neither speaks to the other in any meaningful way!
Again I tell you clearly there is no authority given in scripture to any authority superior to that of the Apostles found in scripture. It is the Apostalate that is the supreme authority instituted by Christ in His Church.
Now the Church in Britain, holding to the faith revealed by Christ , taught by the Apostles and interpreted and completed by the College of Bishops, claims to be a Communion of Catholic believers within the body and holding apostolic orders for some two thousand years feels no pressure to go ,“become Eastern orthodox” and follow rites that are strange to them when they are comfortable and safe with rites and teaching from their own past!

You have to disprove Matthew verse by verse which you have ignored since you started posting. We laid it all 10-20 times including the Apostolic Succession. Wheres the link for your church that leads to Peter?

Do you have one, or are you still blowing smoke?

GT

 

[benedictus2]

Do you want an answer to the thread question or is this just more baiting?

Why is it that when you are asked a perfectly logical and rational question you call it baiting?

That question followed perfectly from your statement that went: “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.”

If we can drop the high and mighty nonsense,

It was not high and mighty nonsense. It was a perfectly logical question based on what you wrote.

I find it perplexing, that you consider this high and mighty nonsense.

I’ll try to answer from the Lutheran perspective and from the history I’ve read–if you are actually interested in that perspective and not just in shooting it down.

I am not interested in shooting you down. If you would have just gone on with the answer instead of all this …

The early reformation was by no means uniform. Some early reformers believed in the validity of most church teachings with the exception of abuses, others believed that there needed to be an authority–ultimately this could not be a person as most Lutherans do not interpret the “rock” passage in the same way RCs do (meaning that Peter being the Rock and the successors to Peter having that same power are two separate matters). Eventually, biblical authority won out.

There is no specific council specified to my knowledge. The attempt at reformation was to get back to what was perceived to be more “pure” and biblical teachings.

And that is as fuzzy as it gets. What can one mean by pure if one does not even know by what standard to gauge that purity.

Purgatory, merit of salvation to any degree, etc. were among those things seen as unbiblical to the reformers.

And how did they come to the conclusion that purgatory was not part of the “pure” doctrine of the Church?

If they are saying that purgatory is not part of the doctrine of the Church then they must have some idea where the cut off (as to Councils) began. I mean what was the council before which purgatory was not part of the doctrine of the church.

From the bible. Go figure. It is not your interpretation, but it is a valid one. Have some respect.

From the Bible or a misrepresentation of the Bible, and even a violation of the Bible?

Again, I am trying to represent the Lutheran perspective here since the original inquirer seemed interested. I am not going to convert you any more than you are going to convert me.

I am not trying to convert you. You are trying to present the Lutheran perspective. I am trying to present the flaws in it.

What I can say, though, is that Luther cannot be held responsible for everything that people have done since 1517.

To some extent he can be. You see, it is these erroneous doctrines (which people have bought into) which underpins Protestantism. If he had just left his protest at protest and not come up with heretical doctrines, he would have been a major force for good. He should have kept at, even rallied the people to protest against the practices and that would have been heroic.

We are all responsible for our own actions and no one else’s. I cannot defend other denominations, but they are all entitled to their beliefs.

I never said otherwise.

 

[benedictus2]

It is only a deformation if you have a very rigid and unforgiving perspective on what Christianity is.

How can you not call it deformation considering the ever splintering of the Protestant churches?

It is not about having a rigid or unforgiving perspective. It is about the truth. What is true?

So long as we can hold on to truth, so long as that does not get clouded by error, then no matter how bad our practices become, then there will always be that truth by which we can measure our practice, that truth which will be our guide.

For you Christianity seemingly means Roman Catholicism. For others it does not. Again, have some respect.

Nope. I don’t mean that at all.

Whatever made you think that I don’t consider Lutherans Christians?

However, I am not going to be relativist either and say that both Catholics and Lutheran hold to the same truth because clearly we don’t.

The biggest matter was the indulgences. I perceive that people here like to make the excuse that it was not doctrine. It didn’t need to be–practice is ultimately the more important thing.

No. Doctrine is important. That is what defines the Church.
Although Christ commanded us to love, when He promised to send the Holy Spirit, He said that the Paraclete will guide the Church into all Truth.

Truth is important because this is what guides love so that it is true love not mush or sentimentality.

As bad as the practices were, as we have seen, reform happened because there was that correct doctrine to guide the church.

What keeps us apart now is not practice but doctrine.

Again, after Luther was excommunicated and reconciliation with the Church was not possible (except that Luther simply give up, and say he was cool with indulgences), the reformers transferred authority from the Pope to the Bible.

The teaching on indulgences is not wrong. It is actually doctrinally sound. However, it did get abused. It was the abuse that needed to be removed.

Arrogant comments such as this are what have made ecumenical dialogue so difficult. Catholics everywhere thank you. You don’t have to believe it, but again, this is the other perspective.

Why do you say it is arrogant when it is true that they all sprung around the same time and all because of a protest against the Church? They may have protested the abuses but it does not detract from the fact that they were founded in protest.

 

[GKC]

You have a link that accurately supports this?

GT

No, not off hand. But then I rarely use links for much, in exposition. I cite books, that being my nature and essence (got 30,000 of the little beasts,really need to get on with building that library addition to the house. Still, you might google around to see what turns up. Glastonbury legend might get it.

As to books, then, on the Glastonbury legends, I gave a few of them somewhere up above in this expansive mess. Lewis’ ST.JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA AT GLASTONBURY is classic. Harvey’s TO THE ISLES AFAR OFF is comprehensive and recent. Gray’s THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN is typical.

n. b. Anyone demanding to know how I defend these things will be ignored.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

My words were “relatively little”. Please actually read instead of jumping to false interpretations. Little in relation to the perceived differences before the JDJ. Now, there are even more doctrines that have been added since the reformation which many Lutherans have difficulty with. People within the Church may have taught of Mary’s assumption for example, but many theologians even within the catholic church did not believe in this as I understand. And I think I recall reading that Aquinas’ opinion of the immaculate conception was not exactly the same as what the church teaches today. Not sure about this last bit though.

Theologians are not the magisterium. And as much as I love St Thomas, neither was he. What he wrote also needed to pass by the magisterium.

The issue is authority and infallibility. If the doctrine on infallibility is correct, that it stands to reason that all the churches teachings are correct.

Excuse you. Not all protestant denominations support this behavior. At least try to educate yourself before making uninformed comments.

I know that not all of them don’t but I am illustrating the fact that in large part it has happened. And the root of that stems from the relativism of the theological innovations that came with the reformation.

The ELCA is a very liberal sect of Lutheranism, but most Lutherans do not even consider them to be true Lutherans. You can’t blame everyone for the actions of a few. Again, even the word “protestant” is insufficient. Catholics like talking about “Protestants” without regard to which groups and which people they are actually dealing with.

Yes, I know that there is a broad spectrum of Protestantism, but they all hold to SS and SF and this is how they justify these very unchristian teachings.

Many “protestant” Christians long for improved relations with the Roman Catholic Church but there are still some things separating us.

I don’t long for improved relations with the Lutheran Church.

I long for the Lutherans to cease their protest and come home.

The abuses that Luther was protesting is long gone. The doctrine that he thought he needed to protest against is a correct doctrine badly misused.

The reformation is over.

I invite you to read Return to Rome by Francis Beckwith. He goes into a detailed analysis of the contentious issue of justification.

Dialogue and understanding are how we might come to settle these differences someday–not trying to prove to one another that the basis of the other’s beliefs are faulty and sinful.

Actually, converts and re-verts came back to the Church when they realized that the basis of their previous belief was faulty.

It is only when we realize the error, that we can hopefully find the right path.

This will only lead to further separation Arrogance and Pride are the sins that need to be fought when it comes to ecumenical dialogue. If you want people from different faiths to join the CC, understanding is the answer. Not condemnation.

We do not condemn people. Only bad teaching. And bad teaching should be condemned. As the early Councils did when they condemned heresy.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t understand this argument or the constant question harkening to whether or not the Celtic Church or early English church was Eastern or not? Of course it was not. But the universal supremacy and infallibility of the pope was hardly believed at the time these early Briton churches were founded so I can’t understand the point?

Sorry but I didn’t bring that one up. GKC did.

However to the point of whether Rome was considered the Prime See at around that time, well there is support for that.

 

[benedictus2]

You have an erroneus belief, both you and the Church you belong to/.
There’s only one Church and that is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ. To belong to it one must have received baptism followed by confirmation from a valid bishop after being taught the Catholic faith as Revealed by Christ, recorded in scripture and being completed, interpreted and explained, by the Holy fathers in Council!
Whilst the Church is one, our union is in Christ.we are not a monolith Church , but a series of disparate organisations all holding the same beliefs. In the early church as reported in Acts we were organised as the People of God at Corinth, or Ephesus. later as numbers grew, we were the Suburbicarian Church at Rome and later the Suburbicarian Church in Italy! The name given to the British Catholics was brief enough, the Church in Britain and later the Church in England. It was not a monolithic organisation but a series of separate entatities.

"My father has sent me, even so I send you"
That was to the Apostles; in Acts we find S. Paul commissioned Timothy to Apostolic
Authority at Ephesus and Titus at Crete. S.Irenaeus writes of those to whom the apostles delegated their powers to whom the Apostles delivered the Churches. To this mode of organisation the later fathers, after Irenaeus bear witness.
" S.Cyprian clearly says ,“Christ says to the apostles and thereby to all prelates, who by vicarius ordination are successors to the apostles,'He that heareth you heareth me and he that heareth me , heareth Him … and he expressly indentifies the bishop with the apostles , saying, ‘The Lord chose the Apostles , that is Bishops.’”

When we look at these quote there are no mention, implicit or explicit to any visible heads.

We have now got to a point where we have not just one ,Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches, but two and the silly thing is neither speaks to the other in any meaningful way!
Again I tell you clearly there is no authority given in scripture to any authority superior to that of the Apostles found in scripture. It is the Apostalate that is the supreme authority instituted by Christ in His Church.
Now the Church in Britain, holding to the faith revealed by Christ , taught by the Apostles and interpreted and completed by the College of Bishops, claims to be a Communion of Catholic believers within the body and holding apostolic orders for some two thousand years feels no pressure to go ,“become Eastern orthodox” and follow rites that are strange to them when they are comfortable and safe with rites and teaching from their own past!

You still have not given me an explanation of Matthew 16:13 onwards.

 

[GKC]

Sorry but I didn’t bring that one up. GKC did.

No he didn’t. GKC consistently brings up that no one knows who, when, how, etc, etc.

Citation of quotes to the contrary will be considered.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

We been through all this here also. The Arian heresy and the East is not an unknown. We could lay it all out step by step and have also done so on other threads.

Really has nothing to do with the fact the Conclaves, the Church, Jesus Christ started with Peter and the Vicars of Chirst have continued till Benedict XVI.

One can believe anything they want to believe but perspective is the wrong word. The right word is Truth and regardless who believes it doesn’t change.

Schism and heresy is just what it is. Those are the Polite words used by Rome which we have also showed in the CCC, Doctrine and Dogma.

And the comment on the Assumption of Mary is off track above and you need a link to support your comment jnpl1185. I’m sure its not the Assumption of Mary your thinking of and I believe you’ve confused it with another Marian dogma. But they are you words.

Were looking for the Apostolic Succession from your church in Scripture or before Scripture to 2011. Thats all you have to provide.

Claiming some of us don’t believe Matthew…well lets lay it out step by step and go through it, “we have” not a new concept either, been there done that. Its the authority given to Peter by Christ and it comes out no other way. As we see, there is no counter theory thats arrived yet, we’re still waiting 60+ pages? What lacking is anyone else who has come along and proved anything contrary verse by verse in context?

Otherwise this has become an exercise in “what you believe” not what the truth is. And likes and dislikes has nothing to do with Truth either. The I don’t like this or that about the CC. It doesn’t change Historical fact or truth.

God Bless, Gary

Yes, it seems that people just spring unnecessary information which just keeps this thread going round and round in circles.

 

[benedictus2]

No he didn’t. GKC consistently brings up that no one knows who, when, how, etc, etc.

Citation of quotes to the contrary will be considered.

GKC

Refer to your post 924.

 

[GKC]

Refer to your post 924.

Ok. It says “Of course. But if you follow the Glastonbury, or the Celtic Church lines, you get a whole lot of argument”.

I will now consider it… (musing music in background)…

Nope. You will have to connect the dots.

GKC