Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[GaryTaylor]

Being a cradle Catholic and lifetime Catholic I’m wondering why you are insinuating I’ve been fed this 100’s of denominations stuff?

I’d appreciate it, Gary, if you’d refrain from evaluating my spirituality. I never evaluate yours. I just converse. Thanks.

Wrong, I 'm asking you a simple question, do you believe God resides in the EO and CC?

We both see comments of all practices within the Bzyantine, TLM, Novus, etc. Then we have some very good Christians who appeal to the Higher Denominations of Protastant Faith. We talk to them, you know them. JOn right off the top of my head.

So when we judge the mass, then we must question where God reside’s… Do these Mass’s of Latin/West evolvement mean God doesn’t exist and dwell as the Holy Spriit.?

Are Lutherans and Angelicans not at the 7th council? How do we make them feel as our neighbors?

I’m not judgeing your faith. I thought you converted to the EO. Personally If I see anyone Catholic go’s anywhere, it would be their I prefer. But I dosen’t make it right through my undertanding of Scripture. or being raised in it from an eastern church. Which is obviously debatable to others. My point is the correct way for each one us as individuals to view Gods church to unite his church. Or pay the consequence,

Its a mirror image of Luther to me. How do you change the church? We tried that, now lets do it together for how ever long it takes, till its acceptable to everyone. I see no reason why the elect of the EO cannot become the elect of the CC. But Someone has to speak for all of Chiristianity as Christianity in Christs church. Who else in the immediate is most qualified and in the in the position already to do this but Benedict?

But I’m not condemning your faith. Im condemning the ways we go about to bring unity to Gods church through mankind.

You asked me one post “what can I do as individual”? Really, thats what I been thinking about bro? And really it was Michael who planted the seed in my mind even before that. Talking about “respect”.

I believe we who live US just have been doing the most damage in this situation. We listen to guys from Russia or the East. And they have no clue what we are talking about. Their state of mind is lets do it, let all get together… I think they have it right!

Nothing personal my friend. Just processing and feeding back.

God Bless, GT

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

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.

This is the topic of this thread.
Please note the bolded section.
Return to the topic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gary,

You are going to have to do a better job of stonewalling…from what I have seen your responses have been rather clear to me! But, I do have one question for you - and one I honestly have not been able to answer…!

From about 32-33AD when Christ told Peter that he would be the foundation that Christ, the Cornerstone, would build His Chruch on - through the period of the Early Church Fathers who defended the Primacy of Peter, infant baptism, the Real Presence, Confession, Mary the Mother of God, etc we see a Church that was persecuted from the Roman Empire and attacked by heretics like the:

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)

Did well in maintaining the teachings of Christ.

But, about 1500 years later… in 1517 with Luther’s 95 Thesis starting the porcess, we see virtually a combination of all heresies being brought out again - there is NO Primacy of Peter - he was simply over-rated in the first place, infant baptism is NOT allowed - immersion only if you do it at all, the Real Presence was denied - just like those in John 6 who walked away because they could not believe, Confession requires a priest and this position has been done away with, and Mary the Mother of God - impossible!

So, why do you think all of these these traditions of men came out at that time?

God bless

We are still still waiting for you to define Matthew 16:16 to19 as I’ve laid it out. You’ve said zero:shrug:

Till we can move past that Apostolic Succession you have failed to provide anything but rhetoric.

You have a lack of understanding of scripture, history, and archaelogy. All which prove Peter to Benedict.

I won’t talk about your eduction that would make me as ignorant as you.

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi, Gary,

You are going to have to do a better job of stonewalling…from what I have seen your responses have been rather clear to me! But, I do have one question for you - and one I honestly have not been able to answer…!

From about 32-33AD when Christ told Peter that he would be the foundation that Christ, the Cornerstone, would build His Chruch on - through the period of the Early Church Fathers who defended the Primacy of Peter, infant baptism, the Real Presence, Confession, Mary the Mother of God, etc we see a Church that was persecuted from the Roman Empire and attacked by heretics like the:

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)

Did well in maintaining the teachings of Christ.

But, about 1500 years later… in 1517 with Luther’s 95 Thesis starting the porcess, we see virtually a combination of all heresies being brought out again - there is NO Primacy of Peter - he was simply over-rated in the first place, infant baptism is NOT allowed - immersion only if you do it at all, the Real Presence was denied - just like those in John 6 who walked away because they could not believe, Confession requires a priest and this position has been done away with, and Mary the Mother of God - impossible!

So, why do you think all of these these traditions of men came out at that time?

God bless

Truth be told…hows that saying go about Erasmus? He laid the Golden Egg? And I believe its something he took to his grave as a Catholic.

If we look at Luther and his personality. Then Erasmus who he obviously respected feeding thoughts to him? Cosmic explosion is what happened.

And thats not to say that God didn’t bring something good out of it with the spead of the Gospel. But my oh my, how do we justify this today? Scares me.

God Bless, Gary

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Real Presence doctrine remained in Lutheranism and in many quarters of Anglicanism. The primacy of honor idea due to the pope was respected by Anglicans but not the notion of a universal primacy of jurisdiction. Confession continued to be respected by Martin Luther and Lutheranism as well as in Anglicanism. It was a part of the catechism and the Book of Common Prayer. Marian devotion did wane in a huge way. Infant baptism absolutely was allowed in Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Immersion only was not the Anglican or Lutheran view either. I think this post is too vague in that it makes the mistake of lumping all Protestants under one roof. You seem to be describing Anabaptists, Reformed Calvinists, and the views of guys like Calvin, Bucer, Zwingli and company?

Hi, Gary,

You are going to have to do a better job of stonewalling…from what I have seen your responses have been rather clear to me! But, I do have one question for you - and one I honestly have not been able to answer…!

From about 32-33AD when Christ told Peter that he would be the foundation that Christ, the Cornerstone, would build His Chruch on - through the period of the Early Church Fathers who defended the Primacy of Peter, infant baptism, the Real Presence, Confession, Mary the Mother of God, etc we see a Church that was persecuted from the Roman Empire and attacked by heretics like the:

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Arianism (4th Century)
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
Nestorianism (5th Century)

Did well in maintaining the teachings of Christ.

But, about 1500 years later… in 1517 with Luther’s 95 Thesis starting the porcess, we see virtually a combination of all heresies being brought out again - there is NO Primacy of Peter - he was simply over-rated in the first place, infant baptism is NOT allowed - immersion only if you do it at all, the Real Presence was denied - just like those in John 6 who walked away because they could not believe, Confession requires a priest and this position has been done away with, and Mary the Mother of God - impossible!

So, why do you think all of these these traditions of men came out at that time?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

You are probably correct - I did lump a lot together and was a bit vague … in not downright inaccurate. Now, by your criteria, the thread itself may be considered a bit vague … but, I think your criticism was correct… as far as it went. Not to be too outrageous on this … but, how can there be a Lutheran doctrine on the Real Presence when there are no validly ordained priests to bring the Sacrifice of the Mass to the congregation? Unlike the Orthdox, they maintained validly ordained priests through validly consecrated bishops - while the Lutherans gave up on this.

During the reign of King Edward VI the Church of England no longer upheld the Mass as a sacrifice. “In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued his apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, in which he upheld the Church’s position that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and void.” When the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, came to power under King Henry VIII, he drastically modified the rite of ordination, eliminating all references to a sacrificial priesthood.” Here is a link to this work by Pope Leo XIII: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm that will be instructive on this topic.

So, in the interest of simplicity - let me drop those other items (at least for now) and just focus on for 1500 years Catholics taught about the Real Presence but under Henry VIII’s loyal Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (2 July 1489 – 21 March 1556) the form of consecration was changed so that an invalid consecraton was attempted. Finally uner Edward VI (12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553) the first English monarch raised as a Protestant who did away with the Mass.

My appreciation of these facts is that while Luther was a priest and Henry VIII was not - the Anglicans basically held on to a valid consecration longer than the Lutherans - at least until Edward VI abolished the Mass. Now, if you think the Anglicans can validly consecrate bread and wine into the Real Presence, then please, send me some references. But, I think that Pope Leo XIII answered all the questions out there.

God bless

The Real Presence doctrine remained in Lutheranism and in many quarters of Anglicanism. The primacy of honor idea due to the pope was respected by Anglicans but not the notion of a universal primacy of jurisdiction. Confession continued to be respected by Martin Luther and Lutheranism as well as in Anglicanism. It was a part of the catechism and the Book of Common Prayer. Marian devotion did wane in a huge way. Infant baptism absolutely was allowed in Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Immersion only was not the Anglican or Lutheran view either. I think this post is too vague in that it makes the mistake of lumping all Protestants under one roof. You seem to be describing Anabaptists, Reformed Calvinists, and the views of guys like Calvin, Bucer, Zwingli and company?

 

[GKC]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

You are probably correct - I did lump a lot together and was a bit vague … in not downright inaccurate. Now, by your criteria, the thread itself may be considered a bit vague … but, I think your criticism was correct… as far as it went. Not to be too outrageous on this … but, how can there be a Lutheran doctrine on the Real Presence when there are no validly ordained priests to bring the Sacrifice of the Mass to the congregation? Unlike the Orthdox, they maintained validly ordained priests through validly consecrated bishops - while the Lutherans gave up on this.

During the reign of King Edward VI the Church of England no longer upheld the Mass as a sacrifice. “In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued his apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, in which he upheld the Church’s position that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and void.” When the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, came to power under King Henry VIII, he drastically modified the rite of ordination, eliminating all references to a sacrificial priesthood.” Here is a link to this work by Pope Leo XIII: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm that will be instructive on this topic.

So, in the interest of simplicity - let me drop those other items (at least for now) and just focus on for 1500 years Catholics taught about the Real Presence but under Henry VIII’s loyal Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (2 July 1489 – 21 March 1556) the form of consecration was changed so that an invalid consecraton was attempted. Finally uner Edward VI (12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553) the first English monarch raised as a Protestant who did away with the Mass.

My appreciation of these facts is that while Luther was a priest and Henry VIII was not - the Anglicans basically held on to a valid consecration longer than the Lutherans - at least until Edward VI abolished the Mass. Now, if you think the Anglicans can validly consecrate bread and wine into the Real Presence, then please, send me some references. But, I think that Pope Leo XIII answered all the questions out there.

God bless

I know what you meant, but, Pope Leo didn’t answer anything, personally, though the Apostolic Letter he signed (written primarily by Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val, with two assists) did say what the RCC position on the matter (double entendre ) was, to be sure. As I said somewhere above. the precise point which Apostolicae Curae was saying that the apostolic succession was lost to the Anglicans is not clear. Clark (ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION, the best analysis of the Letter, from a RC standpoint, highly recommended) puts it in Elizabeth’s day, 1559.

Anglicans don’t agree with the logic in* AC* (another interesting instance of politics, personalities and theology in that story), but certainly you as a RC should affirm it.

A good exposition of the Anglican side of the question is in STEWARDS OF THE LORD/ Fr. J. Hughes. Fr. Hughes is an interesting guy in his own right; the first Anglican priest to be ordained RC priest sub conditione, post AC.

Like much of history, the sad story of* AC*, from the first meeting of Lord Halifax, and the Abbe Portal, in 1890, to the last of the Maldives Conversations around 1927, is…complicated.

It’s likely gurney has heard of this.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No worries, Tom. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the Anglicans didn’t believe the Liturgy was a sacrifice. Perhaps the more evangelical/calvinist wings bought into that but there is nothing in the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer that contradicts the sacrificial side of the worship. They reject Transubstantiation, Adoration, etc. no doubt.

As far as the Lutherans were considered, they didn’t view apostolic succession as necessary for a valid Eucharistic consecration. They believe in the priesthood of all believers and that episcopal succession is not as important as the succession of orthodox, faithful, truths passed down from the Scriptures and councils. That is the Lutheran belief. I’m not Lutheran.

As far as apostolicae curae is concerned, this is a topic GKC and I have talked about in here for years and years now. The opinion of Leo was one not shared by the Anglican bishops of the time. Saepius Officio was written by Frederick Temple, the then Archbishop of Canterbury along with William Maclagan, the then Archbishop of York. They rebutt Leo XIII’s null and void argument VERY nicely and very charitably. I highly suggest reading their point of view. They talk to the Pope very respectfully and yet disagree with outstanding logic. The absence of sacrificial language in the Edwardine Ordinal was no different from the Catholic ordinal that had been in use a couple hundred years prior to Matthew Parker’s consecration. So the fact that the Roman Catholic ordinal just a couple centuries earlier was equally lacking in the mention of a sacerdotal sacrificial function in a way would nullify Catholic orders as well?

Give this a read, Tom. You might be surprised: anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

You are probably correct - I did lump a lot together and was a bit vague … in not downright inaccurate. Now, by your criteria, the thread itself may be considered a bit vague … but, I think your criticism was correct… as far as it went. Not to be too outrageous on this … but, how can there be a Lutheran doctrine on the Real Presence when there are no validly ordained priests to bring the Sacrifice of the Mass to the congregation? Unlike the Orthdox, they maintained validly ordained priests through validly consecrated bishops - while the Lutherans gave up on this.

During the reign of King Edward VI the Church of England no longer upheld the Mass as a sacrifice. “In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued his apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae, in which he upheld the Church’s position that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and void.” When the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, came to power under King Henry VIII, he drastically modified the rite of ordination, eliminating all references to a sacrificial priesthood.” Here is a link to this work by Pope Leo XIII: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm that will be instructive on this topic.

So, in the interest of simplicity - let me drop those other items (at least for now) and just focus on for 1500 years Catholics taught about the Real Presence but under Henry VIII’s loyal Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (2 July 1489 – 21 March 1556) the form of consecration was changed so that an invalid consecraton was attempted. Finally uner Edward VI (12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553) the first English monarch raised as a Protestant who did away with the Mass.

My appreciation of these facts is that while Luther was a priest and Henry VIII was not - the Anglicans basically held on to a valid consecration longer than the Lutherans - at least until Edward VI abolished the Mass. Now, if you think the Anglicans can validly consecrate bread and wine into the Real Presence, then please, send me some references. But, I think that Pope Leo XIII answered all the questions out there.

God bless

 

[GKC]

No worries, Tom. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the Anglicans didn’t believe the Liturgy was a sacrifice. Perhaps the more evangelical/calvinist wings bought into that but there is nothing in the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer that contradicts the sacrificial side of the worship. They reject Transubstantiation, Adoration, etc. no doubt.

As far as the Lutherans were considered, they didn’t view apostolic succession as necessary for a valid Eucharistic consecration. They believe in the priesthood of all believers and that episcopal succession is not as important as the succession of orthodox, faithful, truths passed down from the Scriptures and councils. That is the Lutheran belief. I’m not Lutheran.

As far as apostolicae curae is concerned, this is a topic GKC and I have talked about in here for years and years now. The opinion of Leo was one not shared by the Anglican bishops of the time. Saepius Officio was written by Frederick Temple, the then Archbishop of Canterbury along with William Maclagan, the then Archbishop of York. They rebutt Leo XIII’s null and void argument VERY nicely and very charitably. I highly suggest reading their point of view. They talk to the Pope very respectfully and yet disagree with outstanding logic. The absence of sacrificial language in the Edwardine Ordinal was no different from the Catholic ordinal that had been in use a couple hundred years prior to Matthew Parker’s consecration. So the fact that the Roman Catholic ordinal just a couple centuries earlier was equally lacking in the mention of a sacerdotal sacrificial function in a way would nullify Catholic orders as well?

Give this a read, Tom. You might be surprised: anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

I thought you might have heard of it.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sometimes I find the Orthodox argument interesting that the idea of “validity” springs from scholasticism that came out of Catholic thinking. Transferring the Holy Spirit becomes almost mechanical with prescribed formulas only and the holistic overarching common orthodox (small o) teachings are not necessary. The “valid but illicit” stuff is utterly foreign to the East. The Cyprianic approach almost makes more sense to me sometimes. Of course I have an open mind to both.

Just got back from Target with Luke. We were looking at all the cool Thor and Green Lantern toys. I feel like an 8 year old!

I thought you might have heard of it.

GKC

 

[The_Sentry]

Sometimes I find the Orthodox argument interesting that the idea of “validity” springs from scholasticism that came out of Catholic thinking. Transferring the Holy Spirit becomes almost mechanical with prescribed formulas only and the holistic overarching common orthodox (small o) teachings are not necessary. The “valid but illicit” stuff is utterly foreign to the East. The Cyprianic approach almost makes more sense to me sometimes. Of course I have an open mind to both.

Same here. Sometimes it really does make a lot of sense!

Just got back from Target with Luke. We were looking at all the cool Thor and Green Lantern toys. I feel like an 8 year old!

It’s important to focus on the awesome things in life!!!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve never been a DC fan. But since my boys wanted to see Batman, I got Batman Begins. Boy was that LAME…stunk…

It’s important to focus on the awesome things in life!!!

 

[GKC]

Sometimes I find the Orthodox argument interesting that the idea of “validity” springs from scholasticism that came out of Catholic thinking. Transferring the Holy Spirit becomes almost mechanical with prescribed formulas only and the holistic overarching common orthodox (small o) teachings are not necessary. The “valid but illicit” stuff is utterly foreign to the East. The Cyprianic approach almost makes more sense to me sometimes. Of course I have an open mind to both.

Just got back from Target with Luke. We were looking at all the cool Thor and Green Lantern toys. I feel like an 8 year old!

I got trunks full of LOTR figures, MIP.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

MIP? I bought literally shopping carts full of Star Wars action figures when Phantom Menace, Clones, and Sith came out as well as the retro figures from the old films. I knew when I had kids someday it’d be a bonanza. The boys ate 'em up!

I’m tempted to buy a bunch of Iron Man, Thor, and Capt. America stuff. I love the Avengers…

I watched Batman Begins tonight. Boy was that a thumbs-down. DC just can’t get it together. I hope Green Lantern is decent. Looks pretty good. The Batman plot was just bland, lacked depth or interest, was incongruent with the old story, and the acting stunk. I didn’t enjoy that one bit. I need more Marvel now…

I got trunks full of LOTR figures, MIP.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

Thank you for the information on Saepius Officio - prior to your post, I was unaware of it.

I will read it.

God bless

No worries, Tom. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the Anglicans didn’t believe the Liturgy was a sacrifice. Perhaps the more evangelical/calvinist wings bought into that but there is nothing in the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer that contradicts the sacrificial side of the worship. They reject Transubstantiation, Adoration, etc. no doubt.

As far as the Lutherans were considered, they didn’t view apostolic succession as necessary for a valid Eucharistic consecration. They believe in the priesthood of all believers and that episcopal succession is not as important as the succession of orthodox, faithful, truths passed down from the Scriptures and councils. That is the Lutheran belief. I’m not Lutheran.

As far as apostolicae curae is concerned, this is a topic GKC and I have talked about in here for years and years now. The opinion of Leo was one not shared by the Anglican bishops of the time. Saepius Officio was written by Frederick Temple, the then Archbishop of Canterbury along with William Maclagan, the then Archbishop of York. They rebutt Leo XIII’s null and void argument VERY nicely and very charitably. I highly suggest reading their point of view. They talk to the Pope very respectfully and yet disagree with outstanding logic. The absence of sacrificial language in the Edwardine Ordinal was no different from the Catholic ordinal that had been in use a couple hundred years prior to Matthew Parker’s consecration. So the fact that the Roman Catholic ordinal just a couple centuries earlier was equally lacking in the mention of a sacerdotal sacrificial function in a way would nullify Catholic orders as well?

Give this a read, Tom. You might be surprised: anglicanhistory.org/orders/saepius.pdf

 

[ShaunCathConvrt]

Haha YES! I was a former protestant and here I am now! I’m home! Rome sweet home! . How come the question doesn’t make sense to her??? That was a valid question!!! She just could not answer the question because she doesn’t know what to answer.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s another link which is worth a read in regards to the present conversation on Saepius Officio

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CD4QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.sensagent.com%2Fapostolicae%2Bcurae%2Fen-en%2F&ei=h0TmTba4Ks-3tgfS57TYCg&usg=AFQjCNGZWle0dLgbGj5wdcuZcSNo-iQWXA

God Bless, Gary

 

[GKC]

Here’s another link which is worth a read in regards to the present conversation on Saepius Officio

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CD4QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.sensagent.com%2Fapostolicae%2Bcurae%2Fen-en%2F&ei=h0TmTba4Ks-3tgfS57TYCg&usg=AFQjCNGZWle0dLgbGj5wdcuZcSNo-iQWXA

God Bless, Gary

Pretty good coverage for an on-line source, though it passes rapidly over much history in the matter, occasionally giving a slightly tinted impression. But very good, as far as it goes.

For intense detail on the history, with info on who did what, when and why, Hughes’ (who is mentioned there) ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID is highly recommended. Best coverage of the sad story that I know of.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hughes should have to pay GKC for every time the book is plugged on here (although I doubt Hughes is still with us!)

Pretty good coverage for an on-line source, though it passes rapidly over much history in the matter, occasionally giving a slightly tinted impression. But very good, as far as it goes.

For intense detail on the history, with info on who did what, when and why, Hughes’ (who is mentioned there) ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID is highly recommended. Best coverage of the sad story that I know of.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hughes should have to pay GKC for every time the book is plugged on here (although I doubt Hughes is still with us!)

I’m pretty sure he was, as of this morning.

GKC