Sacred Tradition

[MichaelP3]

Hi reggieM

I will answer or rather contribute to this post now. You asked a lot.

Hi Michael,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the correction, if I am in fact, wrong here. But I don’t think it’s enough merely to say that “no Apostasy has been taught by the Reformers”.
You failed to give an answer to how this could be the case. It’s very likely that I am not familiar with the argument, so I would appreciate your reply.

What we have is an either-or situation. Either there was an Apostasy or there wasn’t. You’re claiming that there wasn’t?

That seems to conflict with what is said here in the OP:

Here we have it where Ian says that the early church was doing fine and developed creeds - orthodox. So, there was a Church. But then he says, the teaching became “less reliable” - that means false teaching, heresy - loss of the true faith. In other words, Apostasy.

He says the same here:

You are first of all assuming an either-or-situation. One would need to assume the “Church” was actually taught to be as is the Catholic understanding.

He goes on that the Church did not have infallible teaching as it claimed to and spread “misinformation”. Again, the Church that created the creeds and canonized Scripture, then spread false teaching (supposedly). Again, we call that Apostasy.

There’s a new book published by Catholic Answers called “the Apostasy that Wasn’t” by Rod Bennett. I haven’t read it yet, but the promotional blurb says:

Perhaps. But do you know many of these Churches actually confess these creeds on a regular basis? Would you say they agree on a apostasy in the 1st century? (I am not arguing all the way, just explaining). But then again historically, did Rome really go that wrong then? In my opinion, history makes it very difficult for Catholics. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was in his 50s during the end of His life. And that was a century of sacred tradition. And also, irenaeus would be the most likely quoted early Father??? And mostly against Protestants??? Makes one think???

But really, it goes beyond this. It’s not just “American Protestantism” but by simple logic in the either-or scenario - if the church to which Luther and Calvin belonged, did not teach falsely, then there would not have been any reason for them to start their own churches.

Again, they had no mandate from heaven to do so, and there was no Lutheran or Calvinist churches in existence prior to the time they started theirs. They were not part of a succession of belief, but actually claimed to re-create the true belief of the Christian church which supposedly had been lost for centuries.
Luther and Calvin were innovators of doctrine and practices that were nowhere found on earth prior to their creation of them. They were the founders of their respective churches.

Actually and this is not just you. I would like to know what is a Lutheran or Calvinist doctrine? This has been brought up so many times before. I want to ask, what do these “Churches” teach as a doctrine?

The bolded part again as I stated, assumes that EVERYTHING the Church in the time of TRENT was absolutely true. (Meaning they did not ERR in a single way, even all the Anathemas that was retracted?)

Actually ReggieM. I see your posts. Now they can contain what you think is true. And you can very much believe that. That is what we call faith. And never have I judged a person who takes a belief by faith. That is actually all we have.

I will try to answer the rest tomorrow.

God Bless

 

[reggieM]

Hi Michael,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Hi reggieM
I will answer or rather contribute to this post now. You asked a lot.

I’m sorry that was long-winded. I also admit that I can come across too vigorously sometimes and I meant my reply in a spirit of friendship so I’m grateful you read it that way.

You are first of all assuming an either-or-situation. One would need to assume the “Church” was actually taught to be as is the Catholic understanding.

Ok, I can see where you could be going with that. I do see evidence that the early Church was a well-defined body of believers, and that false teaching would actually get a person kicked out of it – but some might believe that the Church encompassed divergent beliefs, perhaps. I don’t see that as possible, historically, myself though.

But do you know many of these Churches actually confess these creeds on a regular basis? Would you say they agree on a apostasy in the 1st century? (I am not arguing all the way, just explaining). But then again historically, did Rome really go that wrong then?

One way to look at it, which seems reasonable to me, is that the Reformers and the churches that followed from them, accepted everything defined, all the creeds and the canon, etc. But they just wanted to make some modest changes, and then this spiraled into more than they expected. Actually, I think that might have been true for Martin Luther, at least early on.

In my opinion, history makes it very difficult for Catholics. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was in his 50s during the end of His life. And that was a century of sacred tradition. And also, irenaeus would be the most likely quoted early Father??? And mostly against Protestants??? Makes one think???

I don’t know where you’re going with this, but you could be saying “nobody really knew what the true teaching of Christ was or what the Church was” and perhaps something like we gradually all figured it out over time, and that Christianity can support multiple different teachings. Actually, I think some of that could fit Catholic teaching and other not.

Actually and this is not just you. I would like to know what is a Lutheran or Calvinist doctrine? This has been brought up so many times before. I want to ask, what do these “Churches” teach as a doctrine?

Sometimes I hear apologists say this kind of joking, that the only thing everybody agrees on is that the Catholic Church is wrong. But wouldn’t we say that there are some things that are specific to Lutheran belief and others to Calvin? I’m actually not that sure on that…

The bolded part again as I stated, assumes that EVERYTHING the Church in the time of TRENT was absolutely true. (Meaning they did not ERR in a single way, even all the Anathemas that was retracted?)

I fully agree that important reforms were needed and there were errors, that the Catholic Church has admitted and apologized to the Reformation Churches for making. There have also been very significant agreements between Lutheran and Catholic churches – so I don’t want to ignore or overlook that.

Actually ReggieM. I see your posts. Now they can contain what you think is true. And you can very much believe that. That is what we call faith. And never have I judged a person who takes a belief by faith. That is actually all we have.

Thanks, again Michael. I agree, we just have faith. There is no absolute proof – only indicators of direction and I appreciate your openness to my belief as I hope to be with yours and others.
God bless you also.

 

[Duane1966]

Would you say they agree on a apostasy in the 1st century? (I am not arguing all the way, just explaining). But then again historically, did Rome really go that wrong then? In my opinion, history makes it very difficult for Catholics. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was in his 50s during the end of His life. And that was a century of sacred tradition. And also, irenaeus would be the most likely quoted early Father??? And mostly against Protestants??? Makes one think

Actually, you have to really misread Irenaeus to come to the conclusion that he thinks Jesus was in his 50’s at the end of His life. Irenaeus does not. Here is his whole letter, in context, with commentary. From the website found here: philvaz.com/apologetics/a38.htm

First of all, Irenaeus’ point is that Jesus’ humanity identifies with human beings of every age:

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God --infants, and children, and boys, and ***youths***, and ***old men***. He therefore passed through ***every age***, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. ****So likewise He was an old man for old men****, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time ***the aged*** also, and becoming an example to them likewise."

So, is Irenaeus saying that Jesus became an “old man”??? Nope. But, first he continues…

"They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and ****robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable**** .... "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be ****thirty years old****, when He came to receive baptism; and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His ***thirtieth year*** He suffered, being in fact still a ***young man***, and who had by no means attained to ***advanced age***."

**So far, Irenaeus’ point is that some say that Jesus died at age 30 (as a “young man,” as opposed to an “elder”), that He was NO OLDER than 30. **And, he continues…

"Now, that the ***first stage of early life*** embraces ***thirty years*** (i.e. age 1 to age 30), and that this extends onwards to the ***fortieth year*** (31-40), every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth (i.e. 40 plus) year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, ***even as the Gospel*** and all the elders ***testify*** ..."

**Ah! Now what is Irenaeus’ point??? It’s that Jesus was OLDER than 30 when He died (i.e. 33 years old, to be precise --“EVEN AS THE GOSPEL …TESTIFIES” …that is, the Gospel of John ;-). His point is that Jesus lived past the first stage of life, and was in the stage of life between 31 and 50, which extends into “old age” (as they saw it in Roman times). In this, Jesus was qualified to be a teacher; since a Jewish rabbi had to be a “elder” in order to be a true teacher.

Think about it. Irenaeus says that the Gospel TESTIFIES to this. Does the Gospel ever say that Jesus was 40 or 50??? Of course not! Rather, John’s Gospel presents Jesus as thirty years old at the time of His Baptism, and then gives a 3-year narrative. And THAT is Irenaeus’ point.**

And, Irenaeus continues,

"But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,' they answered Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?' Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to  ****one who is only thirty years old****  it would unquestionably be said, 'Thou art not yet forty years old.' "

** Notice how Irenaeus is counting in 10’s here. Jesus is 33, so the Jews do not use “forty,” but “fifty.” Why? Because the Jews would only say “forty” if Jesus was 30-years-old or younger. Yet, he had entered into the next stage of life – the period between 31 and 50, as opposed to the period between 13 and 30.**

And Irenaeus then sums up his point, saying:

"He did not therefore preach ***only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.***  For the period included between the ***thirtieth and the fiftieth year*** can never be regarded as one year ...."

So, Irenaeus’ point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50. That is all he is saying. He is showing that Jesus had reached the age of a Teacher: 33 yrs-old, according to the Gospel of John.

So, you misinterpret Irenaeus, BECAUSE you did not read his statement IN CONTEXT, and because you did not read it with the cultural sensibilities of a 2nd century Greco-Roman Christian, but with your own, narrow, modernist sensibilities.

 

[Duane1966]

And from a well known Protestant author, who also says it is a complete misreading of Irenaeus to think he says Jesus was fifty.

*For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify… (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:5)
*
Many preterists claim that Irenaeus was saying here that Jesus lived into his fifties before being crucified. Perhaps if some of this text was wrenched out of its context then it would appear that Irenaeus did make such a profound mistake. However, let us ask ourselves what Irenaeus’ point was here? Irenaeus explains that Jesus had reached the age of a master (teacher). He further explains that the first stage of life lasts until the age of thirty. It is after this that the second phase of life begins. One needed to reach this second phase in order to be an “elder,” and thus able to teach. When Irenaeus writes, “…which our Lord possessed…” he is speaking to the fact that Jesus did indeed live into this second phase of life. He is surely not referencing “…and fiftieth year…”

Admittedly, such a mistake could be made by the modern person who assumes that an ancient writes in the same way that he does. However, it is clear that the context tells us that Irenaeus is simply explaining what the second phase of life entails. Jesus only had to begin the second phase of life for Irenaeus to be correct in his teaching. - Michael Ervin

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Then wouldn’t they have to reject Nicaea?

Can you expound on this? I’ve listened to him on youtube and some of his debates. I have heard him pretty much say that the Church “hijacked” its history somewhere in the 4th-5th century. Not sure what he means by that.

A good example:

youtube.com/watch?v=VMNYuxI7W5w

He takes the words of early church fathers who are very CLEARLY Orthodox Catholics and twist them in order to try and create these sort of pseudo-protestant Church fathers who, in actuality, do not exist.

I think it’s a deplorable tactic and therefore, respect the opinion of KJV-only more because at least they seem genuine in their opinion and attempt to give a somewhat plausible explanation.

Pax

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi ReggieM

We had some good posts. I like that and hope to keep it that way

Michael - one additional thought here.
There was a Church that existed at the time of Nicaea. That Church traced its continuity to the 1st and 2nd century. There is no evidence of a new Church having been founded anywhere during that time - only communions that were condemned as false teachings. The Reformers inherited the apostolic succession from that many centuries back, unbroken line of valid ordinations, with the line of pope traced back to that period.

Well first of all. I am not one of the reformers. So I cannot speak from them but what I know and experienced in my decades “on the other side” these Reformers did not seek these “other Churches”. If they existed or not, it doesn’t matter. Actually the Arian and Palagius times are just as much condemned by them as the Catholic Church does. They did not seek to join these as it wasn’t the point.

Anglicans and Lutherans claim Apostolic succession in some way. Maybe not the same as Catholics always but also this is not actually a Reformed view. Maybe a Lutheran or Anglican can correct me here.

On the unbroken line well, with all due respect I do have my reservations. A Catholic on here always asks Protestants to google “line of popes”. Well that is all good and well, but again, historically that puts many more question marks in my mind. No jokes, I have studied every single Papal election since “Peter”. It goes from a dove sitting on a shoulder to very obvious nepotism to noble families feuding to even a papal veto from strong Catholic Monarchs. The direct line of Peter to me is very flimsy.

Even if one were to claim that they were the successors of a previously condemned communion from the 1st century, we would need to have seen Calvin and Luther seeking to join those communions. But instead, they created their own - with no succession or communion with any existing church on earth at the time. They created denominations from nothing. Then later, people have tried to claim some linkage with exiled previously-condemned Christian groups of the past (as Waldensians did or the so called Trail of Blood does) - but even there, those communions no longer existed at the time of the Reformers. So, of those communions disappeared, the Church was lost and the only remaining people on earth calling themselves Christians were part of supposedly false sects.

But this is something that does not add up. The reformers or at least Luther did not want to “create” another Church or join a more pure one (As you said and I agree, it did not exist). They wanted to correct some obvious wrongs (at least to them at the time). These are one of those things we need to think when we teach our children. We would say "Stand up for what you believe in, but just not like Luther. ". The guy deserves a Nobel prize in my opinion. Under pain of the most excruciating death he stood by his beliefs (I would not have been able to under those circumstances). Not to join another “created” church but to help his most beloved church (I expect some defense here from other posters but in the end I hope you see my point).

Eventually, Protestantism proposed an invisible church so the idea of succession became meaningless.
In fact, the idea of Apostasy is meaningless in Protestantism today, since every individual believer can believe as they want and there is no standard of orthodoxy to measure against. There is no Reformed Church as a body of believers since one cannot know how to join it or how to be removed from it. The entire thing is based on subjective, individual belief where the individual is believed to have the infallible knowledge needed for the faith.

Again, some Anglicans or Lutherans help me here but do you consider succession meaningless?

The idea of having infallible knowledge is very foreign to a Protestant. You will get your few but they hardly declare that as a teaching (to use Catholic language). But to take this one step further. What would be an infallible Lutheran or Calvinist teaching/doctrine/dogma? I am really curious what? I can think of a few but those would be Catholic as well and it is in the Nicene Creed? So it is not a case of Protestants are declaring dogmas left right and centre. The core subjects that binds a Protestant (again, the normal ones), would bind a Catholic as well. So those arguments, I don’t really understand…

Luther and Calvin are not authorities at all - as I said, they were not appointed by God to be such.
With no leadership and divinely appointed authority, there can be no Church.

Luther and Calvin never sought or declared this honour as they did not think it. They never wanted/intended to start a new Church. They never declared themselves a “pope” in the first place. So a Church as “a body of believers” are still very much present from the 1st century up until now.

Thank you ReggieM
Hope to speak more. You seem like a good “talking buddy”

Regards
Michael

 

[MichaelP3]

Maybe just to simplify and improve my own understanding - perhaps taking it a little at a time …

Luther and Calvin established Christian communities. True?
Well, I think that’s true. They established Christian groups, they created rules and norms for governance. New leaders were appointed, local churches were established, practices and usages were set down for liturgy and finally, doctrinal norms were given to the faithful in those communities.

Those Lutheran and Calvinist groups were something new. They did not exist anywhere on earth at the time they were created.

Now, it could be said “no, they were merely continuing the already-existing true Church which had been condemned by Rome but which still existed”.

This is what I said before. They never intended to create a new Church, as the Church of the Nicene Creed has been there. They never retracted anything from it. Nothing.

Yes, that could be - but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Luther or Calvin sought to join that supposed already-existing Church. Did they seek out those supposed communities that had preserved the true Doctrine of the Faith?

As I see it, No, they didn’t do that. They created their own, entirely new, communities.

If I’m right, then there was no “true Church” existing at the time of Luther and Calvin, according to their own actions (since they had to create new churches).

Well there was a true body of believers. As have been always.

The Catholic Church traces itself back to the apostles. Apostolic succession is traced through the ordination of bishops in union with the See of Peter. That is pretty well documented even in the earliest days of the Christian Church. The bishops of Nicaea came from somewhere. The bishops that followed were successors. I don’t see where anybody disputed that at the time and for centuries after.

In my opinion history is not in the side of the succession. I said some of that in my previous post. This is/cannot be an assumed fact. It is very well documented but not in that way. Historically I have close to hundreds of things that just does mot add up.

To claim later that an entirely new hierarchy, with either Luther or Calvin at the head, was required - is to claim that there was a great Apostasy and the true Church of Christ did not exist at the time. It had to be re-created. This was done without divine mandate - it was entirely man-made.

Yes, but they never claimed to be the head or a “pope”

I think it’s important to contrast this with Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. I find that example more logical and reasonable, actually. Mr. Smith said there was a Great Apostasy of the Catholic Church (and then he included all Protestant Churches also) and that God had appointed him as a Prophet. So, he had a divine mandate to create a new Church.

Again, as I see it - that’s similar to what Luther and Calvin did in practice - they created new communions. However, those Reformers never said that God spoke to them, as He spoke to Moses and Abraham, for example. But in the end, they did the same as Joseph Smith - they created their own, new religions, that had no apostolic succession with any churches existing on earth at the time?

Comparing this to Mormonism to me is reaching a bit far. Any guy researching Mormonism will know history isn’t on their side either. And that is just 2 centuries.

I would appreciate learning about where I’m wrong on this.

Also, I would appreciate a time-line … when did the Catholic Church begin to exist? When did the ssuccession of valid Catholic bishop become false?

You are asking a lot here. I can give an opinion but expect many many responses to correct me.

Firstly you are basing your question on a premise that apostolic succession is a thing in the first place. We read that the Apostles were given the rights to bind and loose. But we also read they were given the power to heal the sick and drive out demons? So where does this stop for a Bishop (Being a direct descended of an Apostle) today? The unseen (That nobody can disprove) or the seen (Yea but they meant this and that). So that premise is also somewhat on the flimsy side.

A timeline. Some would say 1054. I would say 754 at the time of Peppin’s gift. I would however not say Apostasy, just one of those things were someone who can’t handle too much power started to get greedy. But in all honesty, Rome has very little, if any controversies in the first millennium.

Regards

 

[Duane1966]

But this is something that does not add up. The reformers or at least Luther did not want to “create” another Church or join a more pure one (As you said and I agree, it did not exist). They wanted to correct some obvious wrongs (at least to them at the time). These are one of those things we need to think when we teach our children. We would say "Stand up for what you believe in, but just not like Luther. ". The guy deserves a Nobel prize in my opinion. Under pain of the most excruciating death he stood by his beliefs (I would not have been able to under those circumstances). Not to join another “created” church but to help his most beloved church (I expect some defense here from other posters but in the end I hope you see

This is a fallacy. It most certainly was a new Church. Reform means to return to something that once was. What Luther, and the Reformers wanted, was a return to something that never existed in the Catholic Church. Alistair McGrath admits that one cannot find sola fide taught anywhere in the history of the Catholic Church. More importantly, Luther admitted he himself could not find the doctrine in any Church father. Yet he said that is what the Reformation stands or falls on.

Michael, how is it not creating another church, if what you are demanding the Church return to, the Church never taught?

From shamelesspopery.com:

Winsted’s and Crick’s accounts are almost diametrically opposed: Winsted claims that Luther was a devout Roman Catholic, in full agreement with Church teachings, like papal authority. Crick claims that he dissented from papal authority, and disagreed with Church teaching all over the board. (Both of these accounts are wrong). The one thing that Winsted and Circk, and virtually all Protestant authors, agree upon is that Luther didn’t want to break away from the Catholic Church.

What’s meant by this, exactly? Again, I’m not sure that the people who make this claim have given it a lot of thought.** In any case, by almost any reasonable standard, this claim is totally false.** The late historian Eugene F. Rice, Jr., in his book The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559, explained why the Reformation was never really a reform movement, at heart*:

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation, too, were sensitive to ecclesiastical abuses and wished to reform them. Yet the reform of abuses was not their fundamental concern. The attempt to reform an institution, after all, suggests that its abuses are temporary blemishes on a body fundamentally sound and beautiful.** Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin did not believe this. They attacked the corruption of the Renaissance papacy, but their aim was not merely to reform it; they identified the pope with Antichrist and wished to abolish the papacy altogether. They did not limit their attack on the sacrament of penance to the abuse of indulgences. They plucked out the sacrament itself root and branch because they believed it to have no scriptural foundation. They did not wish simply to reform monasticism; they saw the institution itself as a perversion. The Reformation was a passionate debate on the proper conditions of salvation. It concerned the very foundations of faith and doctrine. Protestants reproached the clergy not so much for living badly as for believing badly, for teaching false and dangerous things. Luther attacked not the corruption of institutions but what he believed to be the corruption of faith itself. The Protestant Reformation was not strictly a “reformation” at all. **In the intention of its leaders it was a restoration of biblical Christianity. **In practice it was a revolution, a full-scale attack on the traditional doctrines and sacramental structure of the Roman Church. It could say with Christ, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In its relation to the Church as it existed in the second decade of the sixteenth century, it came not to reform but to destroy.**

If the core issue was simply that many Catholic clerics weren’t living according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Luther could have been a reformer. There were countless who had gone before him who worked to clean up the Church, and several of these men were canonized.

But that wasn’t what the Reformation was about: Luther wasn’t trying to get Catholics to live up to Catholic teachings as much as he was denying Catholic teachings, and the foundations upon which they were built. Put simply, the Reformation was primarily about faith, not works.

Bear in mind, it’s not just modern historians who deny the whole narrative that Luther was a devout Catholic who got pushed out of the Church by the pope for asking too many questions or trying to clean things up. Luther’s own account explains his schism was due to his rejection of both the teaching authority and the teachings of the Catholic Church:…

Without a doubt, Luther and Calvin wanted to start a new church. Luther goes onto state, he could live with the pope as long as the pope taught the gospel, in it’s purity, i.e. the way that Luther interpreted it.

 

[MichaelP3]

This is a fallacy. It most certainly was a new Church. Reform means to return to something that once was. What Luther, and the Reformers wanted, was a return to something that never existed in the Catholic Church. Alistair McGrath admits that one cannot find sola fide taught anywhere in the history of the Catholic Church. More importantly, Luther admitted he himself could not find the doctrine in any Church father. Yet he said that is what the Reformation stands or falls on.

Michael, how is it not creating another church, if what you are demanding the Church return to, the Church never taught?

Well I can point out what I think are numerous fallacies but I prefer to talk

You are combining some things here. What is the Church, and even the “development” Rome had considering all this. A new Church well, is Sola Fide a Protestant Dogma? (I hope you are getting the point, I am trying to use Catholic language) Or did they just in the end recede to the basics as the Nicene Creed proclaims. Don’t take Luther’s word as an absolute authority. Please don’t, that doesn’t help much. Not even for a Lutheran.

From shamelesspopery.com:

Without a doubt, Luther and Calvin wanted to start a new church. Luther goes onto state, he could live with the pope as long as the pope taught the gospel, in it’s purity, i.e. the way that Luther interpreted it.

Yes and maybe even very true. Except you are assuming the Pope was teaching or even knowing the true gospel at the time (As we know, they barely read Latin/Greek or were even educated those years). So yea, you are assuming “The way Luther interpreted it” here. Actually a very good quote without the assumption!

 

[MichaelP3]

Actually, you have to really misread Irenaeus to come to the conclusion that he thinks Jesus was in his 50’s at the end of His life. Irenaeus does not. Here is his whole letter, in context, with commentary. From the website found here: philvaz.com/apologetics/a38.htm

And from a well known Protestant author, who also says it is a complete misreading of Irenaeus to think he says Jesus was fifty.

Well in all honesty I am still pondering that you claim I read anything into this. Looking back, you needed ALL YOU HAVE POSTED, while I just say " well he said that". (And he did)

Not sure I’m reading into much then. I find it somewhat concerning to need an explanation larger then the original post/statement in the first place. But maybe that is just me

 

[Duane1966]

Well I can point out what I think are numerous fallacies but I prefer to talk

You are combining some things here. What is the Church, and even the “development” Rome had considering all this. A new Church well, is Sola Fide a Protestant Dogma? (I hope you are getting the point, I am trying to use Catholic language) Or did they just in the end recede to the basics as the Nicene Creed proclaims. Don’t take Luther’s word as an absolute authority. Please don’t, that doesn’t help much. Not even for a Lutheran.

I am not taking Luther’s word, I am taking yours. You stated Luther and Calvin never wanted to start a new church, they wanted to correct a few wrongs. But their own actions and words prove this to not be true. Instead of correction, their own writings say they wanted elimination. So I’m sorry, my point still stands, Luther and Calvin did want to start a new church. Reform means to return to an earlier state. Luther and Calvin said the Mass is not a sacrifice, yet the *Didache *calls it a sacrifice. How is elimination of something that was part of Catholicism from the start a reform?

Yes and maybe even very true. Except you are assuming the Pope was teaching or even knowing the true gospel at the time (As we know, they barely read Latin/Greek or were even educated those years).

Oh really? Please give some links backing this claim, as I have read that Leo X received the finest education that was available in Europe.

So yea, you are assuming “The way Luther interpreted it” here. Actually a very good quote without the assumption!

Actually, I never stated, or assumed that the pope was teaching the true gospel at the time. You have read something into my post that is not there, just as you have done with Irenaeus. Nor am I making an assumption about Luther. Luther’s statement begs the question, what is the pure gospel? Who makes the decision that what is being taught is the pure gospel? He had already rejected the Church’s interpretation of passages, so whose interpretation was he using to state the pope was not teaching the pure gospel? It is an incredibly stupid quote, as I have heard divergent viewpoints being taught as the pure gospel. To paraphrase Newman: All the heresies that have ever been taught, were taught by men who believed they were teaching the pure gospel.

 

[Duane1966]

Well in all honesty I am still pondering that you claim I read anything into this. Looking back, you needed ALL YOU HAVE POSTED, while I just say " well he said that". (And he did)

You best reread the quote. Irenaeus never says Jesus was in his fifties.

I can give you many more Protestant scholars who say you are taking Irenaeus out of context.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You best reread the quote. Irenaeus never says Jesus was in his fifties.

I can give you many more Protestant scholars who say you are taking Irenaeus out of context.

Very common misconception. James White again with his half truths.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for a great reply, MichaelP. I’ve enjoyed your discussion and yes I hope we keep it that way also.

Anglicans and Lutherans claim Apostolic succession in some way. Maybe not the same as Catholics always but also this is not actually a Reformed view. Maybe a Lutheran or Anglican can correct me here.

I think you’re right. In fact, there are some Anglicans who accept apostolic succession and validity of orders 100% the same as Catholics. Their clergy is validity ordained by Eastern Orthodox, for example. But really – these Anglicans aren’t part of the Reformer’s group. They’re like Henry VIII - who wasn’t a Reformer, he just wanted to separate himself and actually keep Catholic teaching.

On the unbroken line well, with all due respect I do have my reservations. A Catholic on here always asks Protestants to google “line of popes”. Well that is all good and well, but again, historically that puts many more question marks in my mind. No jokes, I have studied every single Papal election since “Peter”. It goes from a dove sitting on a shoulder to very obvious nepotism to noble families feuding to even a papal veto from strong Catholic Monarchs. The direct line of Peter to me is very flimsy.

With succession - it is the laying on of hands. A power is communicated and a new bishop consecrated who is head of the Church, the pope.
Jesus, for example, established 12 apostles. He laid His hands on them, gave them power. One of those, as we know, was a very bad guy. He betrayed the Lord. But Judas was still an apostle. He received the same power. His sinfulness did not nullify Jesus’ gift. The same with popes. Some are bad. They’re still popes. Some might have been chosen by a bad process (nepotism). But they still are validly consecrated in the line of Peter.

But this is something that does not add up. The reformers or at least Luther did not want to “create” another Church or join a more pure one (As you said and I agree, it did not exist). They wanted to correct some obvious wrongs (at least to them at the time). These are one of those things we need to think when we teach our children. We would say "Stand up for what you believe in, but just not like Luther. ". The guy deserves a Nobel prize in my opinion. Under pain of the most excruciating death he stood by his beliefs (I would not have been able to under those circumstances). Not to join another “created” church but to help his most beloved church (I expect some defense here from other posters but in the end I hope you see my point).

I see your point and I will go along with it 80% ? of the way. Luther had a lot of courage. He was right about many things. He was treated unjustly in many ways, by the Church (for which forgiveness was asked and the Church had to admit that). If the situation was handled better - Luther may never have gone as far as he did.
But … it’s where he went too far that is the problem. Actually, the good news is that I think both Catholic and Lutheran are realizing problems on both sides and seeking to find more agreement, and that is a very great thing, in my opinion.

The idea of having infallible knowledge is very foreign to a Protestant. You will get your few but they hardly declare that as a teaching (to use Catholic language). But to take this one step further. What would be an infallible Lutheran or Calvinist teaching/doctrine/dogma? I am really curious what? I can think of a few but those would be Catholic as well and it is in the Nicene Creed? So it is not a case of Protestants are declaring dogmas left right and centre. The core subjects that binds a Protestant (again, the normal ones), would bind a Catholic as well. So those arguments, I don’t really understand…

I actually came across this in a book I’m reading (not an internet search!) which is a nice coincidence. But for Calvin, I think the infallible teaching he tried to proclaim was T.U.L.I.P.
Total depravity. Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved). I honestly don’t know what these mean, except the first and last – we are supposedly totally bad. And that once you are saved nothing will stop you from getting to heaven. Also, I think one of those is that God picked some for heaven, some for hell.
Those are all Calvin’s doctrine - which conflict with the Catholic Church.
The strange thing (for me to discover) is that Calvin got all of those from St. Augustine, a great Catholic teacher but St. Augstine’s views there were all wrong and the Church had to correct him (so even great Catholics can get it wrong on their own - the Church is the final decider).
Lutherans, I think - for Martin Luther’s time, believed sola fide. Faith alone. No works.
But honestly, I think Lutherans have changed that since the Reformation.

Luther and Calvin never sought or declared this honour as they did not think it. They never wanted/intended to start a new Church. They never declared themselves a “pope” in the first place. So a Church as “a body of believers” are still very much present from the 1st century up until now.

How did those churches get started then? I’m not challenging, I really don’t know the history that well.

Thanks, Michael!

 

[reggieM]

This is what I said before. They never intended to create a new Church, as the Church of the Nicene Creed has been there. They never retracted anything from it. Nothing.

That is true and some Protestant groups adhere to this teaching more than others.
I think the #1 thing the Reformers taught was that each person could decide for themselves. We don’t need the Church to define the doctrine. But this goes against the Nicene Creed which came from the Council, not just an individual who wanted to believe that.

In my opinion history is not in the side of the succession. I said some of that in my previous post. This is/cannot be an assumed fact. It is very well documented but not in that way. Historically I have close to hundreds of things that just does mot add up.

I think we succession from the time of the apostles. Judas died and was replaced.

Comparing this to Mormonism to me is reaching a bit far. Any guy researching Mormonism will know history isn’t on their side either. And that is just 2 centuries.

True, but what I meant was, the founder of the Mormon Church claimed that God directly told him to do it.

A timeline. Some would say 1054. I would say 754 at the time of Peppin’s gift. I would however not say Apostasy, just one of those things were someone who can’t handle too much power started to get greedy. But in all honesty, Rome has very little, if any controversies in the first millennium.

Ok, I think a big challenge here then would be to look at what existed for those 700 or 1000 years in Christianity. There were Popes through that time. There was a lot more that I don’t think the Reformers accepted or that Protestants accept today. Like the Sacraments - a very important thing.

 

[FatherSebastian]

I posted a while back in this thread thinking that I might be able to offer some help but didn’t hear anything back. Since I posted, I have been getting notices of the subsequent posts and so have been following this conversation and its direction. Can I recommend another approach for everyone involved? I suggest listening to these three Bible Studies on our website on Sola Scriptura, Tradition, and the Apostolic Fathers. It may take you all a few minutes, but I promise that the conversation will be much more efficient and clear from that moment forward. The three studies can all be found here steliasmelkite.org/educational-resources/bible-study/

In Christ,
Fr. Sebastian
steliasmelkite.org

 

[reggieM]

Thank you, Father. And God bless you for all of your good work! (May He continue to foster the beautiful Melkite communion also!!!)

 

[lanman87]

Hi, lanman!

So, let me ask you a question: you seem to use the word ‘tradition’ in a couple of different ways… and neither of them in the way that Catholics mean when they speak of “Sacred Tradition.”

So… what do you intend to mean when you write “tradition”? What do you understand Catholics to mean when we use the term “Sacred Tradition”?

Thanks!

I’ve taken a month or so away from posting on this board for various reasons. I’ve lurked some but haven’t been an active participant since I started this thread. I’m starting to have more time available to ponder these types of questions which is why I’m just now posting a reply to your question.

What I mean by Tradition is really made of two parts. One is the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Basically, the Gospel message. The Gospel message is unchangeable and to add or take away from it is to distort the essence of Christianity.

The second part of what I would call traditions is customs that developed over time. Customs are changeable due to any variety of reasons.

What Catholics believe is Sacred Tradition is what I’m trying to figure out. From my purely Baptist background and what research I’ve done it seems that Sacred Tradition is whatever the Catholic church says it is.

 

[lanman87]

I echo an agreement on this very thoughtful and good post. I hope it’s not your last!

First, this process of weeding was not done on the basis of human scholarship alone. It was the power of God - given to the apostles and successors, that told them infallibly what the inspired Word of God actually is. There is simply no other way to determine which writings are Inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are not. An Inspired Book is one written by the invisible power of God. No amount of human bra(name removed by moderator)ower (unaided by God’s divine gift and promise of certainty) can “find” this aspect of Inspiration. The Holy Spirit is not reducible to human intelligence. To declare that something is God’s Word – to declare that “this is Infallibly what God Wants” – must come from God, not from man. The Prophets of old gave God’s word not by scholarship, but by Divine command. The same is true of the New Testament authoritative teachers - they have God’s promise to rightly understand the true Word. Only they (the Church magisterium) has this power.

I answered this above. Sacred Doctrine, meaning, “What God Wants” - is not the product of scholarship. It can only come from a Divine Origin. The Church has this power. A Pope or Council may not even be that intelligent or informed. For example, does the Council that established the New Testament canon have more biblical knowledge than the best 21st century scholars have today? No- obviously, we know a lot more (in human scholarship terms) than they did in the 4th century. But the Council had the power of the Holy Spirit - not human intelligence - to determine the Canon. Today, most Protestants still accept that ruling and no amount of scholarship enables anyone to claim that a particular book should be added or deleted.

You are correct. I should have worded what I meant differently. The basic premise I’ve been taught is that God gave us the canon and he used the faithful to deliver it. However, from a purely historical perspective, it seems the faithful had strict criteria in how they chose what writings to use as authoritative. This criteria is what I meant by scholarship.

I have never seen that, but I think it’s a bit confused. It’s not that “written scriptures are the only way we can determine correct doctrine and practice” – since if that was true, we never would have had the correct doctrine in the first place. I would change the word “determine” – to “preserve”. All the doctrine is preserved in the written Word - the doctrine received orally first. The development of that Doctrine creates nothing new - it only enhances it in certain ways.

If this happened, then this would be the supposed great apostasy and there would be nothing left of Christ’s Church today - which if Protestantism was correct, would actually be true because there is no Church of Christ in the Protestant communions. There is just fragmentary and contradictory ideas of what Christianity really is. If the very standard of orthodoxy itself (the Church) was lost - then nothing can recreate it. Because that standard was not created by men, but by God.

But no Protestant leaders actually ever claim (I guess a rare few do) that they are equivalent to the Prophets like Moses and Isaiah - and God commanded them to re-create the True Church of Christ. If so, where are these new Prophetic Writings where God spoke from heaven declaring to someone that they had to start a new Church of Christ. Where did God say that the Catholic Church went into apostasy and none of the saints and teachers that came after for centuries ever said anything about it? I guess the only one who comes close to this is Joseph Smith and Mormonism. But he’s on the right track - he had to proclaim himself a new Prophet, with new Revelations, creating an entirely new Church. None of the Protestant leaders dared to make that kind of claim. They’re the ones who used human tradition to create their own “Denominations”. Where did God speak from heaven and say He wanted a “Calvinist Church”? Or a Lutheran, etc? Nobody ever says that God did that – those denominations are all of human origin.
The Catholic Church itself says that it is of Divine Origin - not of man but of Jesus. No Pope ever said he was creating a Church. It already existed and was handed down from Christ to the apostles.

If that Church was lost somewhere in time - nobody could bring it back again.

It’s like Jews, deciding on their own, without a Prophet or without Revelation, to build a Temple somewhere. That would be totally false. The same would be of trying to build a Christian Church after the True Church was supposedly lost. If the Catholic Church apostatized, then it is gone forever. No minister or reformer could create one on their own.

I was never taught that the Catholic church was apostate. I think this is a difference in how Baptist (and most protestants) understand the answer to the question: What is the church? To the parts of Protestantism I’m familiar with, to be wrong about doctrine doesn’t make a church apostate. The only thing that make a church apostate is deny the clear teachings of the Gospel. That is the reason Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God, Presbyterian and so forth all consider each other part of “the church” and as brothers and sisters in Christ. It is because we all agree on the message of the Gospel and the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

 

[MichaelP3]

I’ve taken a month or so away from posting on this board for various reasons. I’ve lurked some but haven’t been an active participant since I started this thread. I’m starting to have more time available to ponder these types of questions which is why I’m just now posting a reply to your question.

What I mean by Tradition is really made of two parts. One is the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Basically, the Gospel message. The Gospel message is unchangeable and to add or take away from it is to distort the essence of Christianity.

The second part of what I would call traditions is customs that developed over time. Customs are changeable due to any variety of reasons.

What Catholics believe is Sacred Tradition is what I’m trying to figure out. From my purely Baptist background and what research I’ve done it seems that Sacred Tradition is whatever the Catholic church says it is.

Hi lanman

The bolded part you took right out of my mouth for the past almost 2 years I have been on here.

I also took some time of after I experienced a very distraught poster saying some very non-Christian things. Sorry ReggieM (You are not the poster I am referring to, although I still hope some Catholics on here would correct his behaviour when the need arise) but I actually forgot about this thread and didn’t reply.

But to this post you bring up a point I have never come to terms with. What exactly is Sacred Tradition? Surely it still needs to be found somewhere if it was deemed important for salvation? OR, is it just a free pass for the Catholic Church to declare what the Catholic Church deems worth believing “for salvation”?

Another one I wonder about is the Magisterium? What exactly is that? And historically where have this body declared stuff “worth believing”? Other than Ecumenical Councils if that was what it is? (But then that would open another debate altogether)

Regards