Do you have an example of me randomly quoting a Father out of context? If not, why are you accusing me of such? I think I have a reputation here of engaging in dialogue in good faith.Sorry, but taking a random quote out of context won’t cut it. Protestant historians will fabricate anything to create an illusion of history that’s not there.
A few examples:
Baptist claim apostolic succession through Cathars and Waldo
Lutherans claiming apostolic succession through similar methods
The trail of blood committed by the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church started in the 4th century via Constantine
The bible was randomly collected instead of the Catholic Church defining criteria for inspiration, making the decisions on inspiration, and serving as the bible’s custodian
Luther and Calvin and Wesley (maybe Wycliffe) didn’t originate Protestant doctrine
There was not an authoritative magisterium since the beginning of Christianity
By this logic, the Catholic phrase, “faith and works” does not work either.St Paul wrote of Love, Faith, and Hope. He said of all these Love is the greatest not Faith. So Faith alone does not work
-On the authoritative magisterium at the beginning of Christianity:My point both RC and " Protestant " historians try to be honest and accurate, disagree with them if you wish , but don’t slander them .
- Baptists don’t accept ap at all , Many Lutherans truly have AS , whether Rome recognizes it or not is of no consequence
- The trail of blood is puesudohistory held to only by fringe non denominationalists
3.All credible " Protestant " historians reject that idea- No Lutheran , Calvinist , Anglican etc believes this
- They didn’t , and there’s no such thing as a Protestant
6 . Tradition is authoritative , a magisterium is debatable
-On the Baptist Church creating their own apostolic succession, similar to the method used by Lutherans to create the same:My point both RC and " Protestant " historians try to be honest and accurate, disagree with them if you wish , but don’t slander them .
- Baptists don’t accept ap at all , Many Lutherans truly have AS , whether Rome recognizes it or not is of no consequence
- The trail of blood is puesudohistory held to only by fringe non denominationalists
3.All credible " Protestant " historians reject that idea- No Lutheran , Calvinist , Anglican etc believes this
- They didn’t , and there’s no such thing as a Protestant
6 . Tradition is authoritative , a magisterium is debatable
My point both RC and " Protestant " historians try to be honest and accurate, disagree with them if you wish , but don’t slander them .
- Baptists don’t accept ap at all , Many Lutherans truly have AS , whether Rome recognizes it or not is of no consequence
- The trail of blood is puesudohistory held to only by fringe non denominationalists
3.All credible " Protestant " historians reject that idea- No Lutheran , Calvinist , Anglican etc believes this
- They didn’t , and there’s no such thing as a Protestant
6 . Tradition is authoritative , a magisterium is debatable
-On the Protestant belief, albeit mostly Baptists, Evangelicals, and nondenominationals, about the RCC’s trail of blood:My point both RC and " Protestant " historians try to be honest and accurate, disagree with them if you wish , but don’t slander them .
- Baptists don’t accept ap at all , Many Lutherans truly have AS , whether Rome recognizes it or not is of no consequence
- The trail of blood is puesudohistory held to only by fringe non denominationalists
3.All credible " Protestant " historians reject that idea- No Lutheran , Calvinist , Anglican etc believes this
- They didn’t , and there’s no such thing as a Protestant
6 . Tradition is authoritative , a magisterium is debatable
My point both RC and " Protestant " historians try to be honest and accurate, disagree with them if you wish , but don’t slander them .
- Baptists don’t accept ap at all , Many Lutherans truly have AS , whether Rome recognizes it or not is of no consequence
- The trail of blood is puesudohistory held to only by fringe non denominationalists
3.All credible " Protestant " historians reject that idea- No Lutheran , Calvinist , Anglican etc believes this
- They didn’t , and there’s no such thing as a Protestant
6 . Tradition is authoritative , a magisterium is debatable
-Catholic Church as custodian of scripture continued:My point both RC and " Protestant " historians try to be honest and accurate, disagree with them if you wish , but don’t slander them .
- Baptists don’t accept ap at all , Many Lutherans truly have AS , whether Rome recognizes it or not is of no consequence
- The trail of blood is puesudohistory held to only by fringe non denominationalists
3.All credible " Protestant " historians reject that idea- No Lutheran , Calvinist , Anglican etc believes this
- They didn’t , and there’s no such thing as a Protestant
6 . Tradition is authoritative , a magisterium is debatable
Just FWIW, I posted this on another thread:The quicker folk on “both sides” of this issue realize that is not what is going on with either side, the quicker we brothers and sisters can quit snipping at each other and really start hammering out what each side means and why. Just MHO.
Peter_J said:I was just thinking. There used to be a show on EWTN called “Not By Faith Alone”, and there’s an article on their website that says we are justified by faith alone. I don’t want to make more of this than it is – in particular, I’m confident that it isn’t a problem for perspicacious viewers/readers – but I have to admit that it may cause difficulty for some, vis a vis steido’s post above.
Jimmy Akin on those who claim the RCC started with Constantine:My point both RC and " Protestant " historians try to be honest and accurate, disagree with them if you wish , but don’t slander them .
- Baptists don’t accept ap at all , Many Lutherans truly have AS , whether Rome recognizes it or not is of no consequence
- The trail of blood is puesudohistory held to only by fringe non denominationalists
3.All credible " Protestant " historians reject that idea- No Lutheran , Calvinist , Anglican etc believes this
- They didn’t , and there’s no such thing as a Protestant
6 . Tradition is authoritative , a magisterium is debatable
And do you think this is laughable?A laughable accusation
Yes, John Chrysotom, as though he has any linkage to the apostles in creating apostolic succession or authority to create new doctrine. This is a similar to the method used by Baptists to create apostolic succession:Do you have an example of me randomly quoting a Father out of context? If not, why are you accusing me of such? I think I have a reputation here of engaging in dialogue in good faith.
The reason I am reluctant to bring the Church Fathers is because they would not have had a knowledge of the disagreement between our communions regarding the soteriology. But certainly they speak rather often about the fact that faith justifies.
Jon
Yet the Reformers had a disdain for neither works , nor the sacraments , blaming them for wat secular humanism has done IS very laughable, and shows a lack of concern for actual historyAnd do you think this is laughable?
crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought
The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.
The Reformers’ stress on sola scriptura sought to close the gap between Christian preaching and practice. But it failed at that, while opening a Pandora’s Box of new problems. Competing interpretations of Scripture actually intensified the confusion. Lutherans read Scripture one way, Calvinists another, with varieties of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, and Quakers veering off into options beyond counting.
With varying degrees of self-awareness, when the Reformers dismembered the sacraments, they changed the way Western culture perceived nature and the whole material world.
As an example: even today, to the extent Catholics are formed by the sacraments, we live in a world infused with God’s presence. For both the medieval and modern Catholic, the material environment is a medium for divine grace. But the Reformers’ disdain for works and sacraments inevitably made faith a more inward, abstract experience…The great Western marriage of faith and reason—the shared confidence that faith is personal but also communal, that reason isn’t against faith but extends it—that is what the Reformation cost us.
No Lutheran , Calvinist , Zwinglian , Anglican , Westlyan , or Anabaptist believes that nonsense and " Protestant " historians reject it as well , for that reason and more Jimmy Akin I don’t regard as very credible .Jimmy Akin on those who claim the RCC started with Constantine:
catholic.com/video/did-the-emperor-constantine-found-the-catholic-church
and these polemics have never wholly ceased. It is true that Chrysostom has some strange passages on our Blessed Lady (see Newman, “Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teachings”, London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore private confession to a priest, that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope. But it must be remembered that all the respective passages contain nothing positive against the actual Catholic doctrine. On the other side Chrysostom explicitly acknowledges as a rule of faith tradition (XI, 488), as laid down by the authoritative teaching of the Church (I, 813). This Church, he says, is but one, by the unity of her doctrine (V, 244; XI, 554); she is spread over the whole world, she is the one Bride of Christ (III, 229, 403; V, 62; VIII, 170). As to Christology, Chrysostom holds clearly that Christ is God and man in one person, but he never enters into deeper examination of the manner of this union. Of great importance is his doctrine regarding the Eucharist. There cannot be the slightest doubt that he teaches the Real Presence, and his expressions on the change wrought by the words of the priest are equivalent to the doctrine of transubstantiation (see Naegle, “Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Joh. Chry.”, 74 sq.).Yes, John Chrysotom, as though he has any linkage to the apostles in creating apostolic succession or authority to create new doctrine. This is a similar to the method used by Baptists to create apostolic succession:
newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm
Again, ****]at the time of the Reformation ****there arose long and acrid discussions as to whether Chrysostom was a Protestant or a Catholic,
How???Love causes worksBy this logic, the Catholic phrase, “faith and works” does not work either.
Jon
Lutherans continued AS using similar methods as the Orthodox and the RCC , NOT the methods of fringe baptists-On the Baptist Church creating their own apostolic succession, similar to the method used by Lutherans to create the same:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism
Baptist successionism (also known as “Baptist perpetuity”) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches. The tenet of the theory is that there has been an unbroken chain of churches since the days of John the Baptist, who baptized Christ, which have held similar beliefs (though not always the name) of current Baptists. Ancient anti-paedobaptist groups, such as the Montanists, Paulicians, Cathari, Waldenses, Albigenses, and Anabaptists, have been among those viewed by Baptist successionists as the predecessors of modern-day Baptists.[1]
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num3.htm
James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history for Cedarville College in Ohio, a Baptist himself and expert especially in Protestant Reformation history, wrote a book refuting the “baptist successionism” thesis, held fully or believed implicitly by many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals today,** most of whom have never checked any of the primary source documents but rely strictly on secondary sources and books by other anti-Catholic Fundamentalists.
**
I didn’t say anything about the canon in my quote , I’ll say what is true they weren’t randomly collected-Catholic Church as custodian of scripture continued:
We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists—that with them is the word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it. - Martin Luther
Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate serves as the official scripture (bible) used for the next 1,200 years:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
The Vulgate (/ˈvʌlɡeɪt, -ɡɪt/) is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church’s officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible.
The translation was largely the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina (“Old Latin”) collection of biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church. Once published, it was widely adopted and eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina and, by the 13th century, was known as the “versio vulgata” [1] (the “version commonly-used”) or, more simply, in Latin as vulgata or in Greek as βουλγάτα (“Vulgate”).
For over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate was the definitive edition of the most influential text in Western European society. Indeed, for most Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered. The Vulgate’s influence throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into the Early Modern Period is even greater than that of the King James Version in English; for Christians during these times the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture.
The Catholic Church made it its official Latin Bible as a consequence of the Council of Trent (1545–63).
The Vulgate has a compound text that is not entirely the work of Jerome.[2] Its components include:
Jerome’s independent translation from the Hebrew: the books of the Hebrew Bible, usually not including his translation of the Psalms. This was completed in 405.
Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome: The three additions to the Book of Daniel; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon.
The Song of the Three Children was retained within the narrative of Daniel, the other two additions Jerome moved to the end of the book.
Translation from the Septuagint by Jerome: the Rest of Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the book of Esther.
Translation from the Hexaplar Septuagint by Jerome: his Gallican version of the Book of Psalms.
Jerome’s Hexaplaric revisions of other books of Old Testament continued to circulate in Italy for several centuries, but only Job and fragments of other books survive.
Free translation by Jerome from a secondary Aramaic version: Tobias and Judith.
Revision by Jerome of the Old Latin, corrected with reference to the oldest Greek manuscripts available: the Gospels.[3]
Old Latin, more or less revised by a person or persons unknown: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 3 Esdras,[4] Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse.
Old Latin, wholly unrevised: Epistle to the Laodiceans, Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina
Vetus Latina (“Old Latin” in Latin), also known as Vetus Itala (“Old Italian”), Itala (“Italian”) [n 1] and Old Italic, is the collective name given to the biblical texts in Latin that existed before the Vulgate, the late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that later became the Catholic Church’s standard Latin Bible. As the English translation of Vetus Latina is “Old Latin”, they are also sometimes referred to as the Old Latin Bible,[1] although they are written in the form of Latin known as Late Latin, not that known as Old Latin. The old latin manuscripts that are preserved to day are dated from 350 CE to 1400 CE.