Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Contarini]

Excellent points, Edwin.

And I have not studied this subject as much as I should, and was in a way thinking out loud.

This is a very gracious response on your part, and it makes me ashamed of the long post I just finished. If I get the chance I might rewrite it–if I don’t get to that before you see it, please accept my apology for the tone. I see a lot of triumphalistic, overly simplistic Catholic apologetics on this forum, and I often overreact.

But can the Catholic claim that it can be historically proven that there is a lineage from the current Pope Benedict back to Peter? Catholic historians/theologians will answer that with a definitive “yes”. They must have convincing facts, also stating that this has always been the belief in the Catholic Church. Did Linus come after Peter? Did Cletus come after Linus? Did Clement come after Cletus? All the way down to today where Benedict follows John Paul?

That is not what most patristic scholars would say, including Catholic ones. Most of them think that these lists were formulated in the late second century to bring order to what was really a much messier, more chaotic situation, with a bunch of different leaders of house churches in Rome operating at the same time, possibly working together as a council of presbyters or possibly (in some scholarly accounts) more or less doing their own thing and even being at odds with each other. This needs to be taken with large grains of salt, because modern scholarship tends to emphase plurality and diversity and conflict. But that is in fact the picture you would get from contemporary scholarship on the second-century Roman church.

Edwin

 

[bobregan]

But you have absolutely no reason to think this except your ideological prejudice leading you to assume (without evidence) that any intelligent and reasonable person must recognize that Catholicism is true.

I know many learned church historians (to focus on my particular field and the one often cited by Catholics as leading people to Catholicism, as per the infamous quote from Newman) who show no inclination to convert to Catholicism. Their study of church history has confirmed their Protestantism, not challenged it. Any reasonable Catholic apologetics must take this into account.

Note that I am not one of these people. While the study of church history does make it hard to convert to anything (because as my advisor put it, “we know where the bodies are buried”), it has certainly caused me to think that the Reformation was one of the great disasters of human history and that if I had to be firmly one thing or the other on the basis of personal conviction I’d pick Catholicism over Protestantism in a heartbeat.

Edwin

Once again not being an expert, but could papal succession from Peter through Benedict be like the current discussion on the Catholic beliefs on abortion and birth control? That abortion and birth control being intrinsically evil were always the teaching, but because these teachings were not challenged much you’re not going to see much documentation on the belief historically? Possibly because papal succession and apostolic authority weren’t challenged much until the Protestant Reformation that the Catholic Church didn’t need to document historically on these teachings much in the previous 1500 years?

Thanks for the discussion, it really is enjoyable. I better get off-line for a couple of days, though. Getting behind on my work! Need a paycheck in this tough economy!

God Bless!

 

[bobregan]

This is a very gracious response on your part, and it makes me ashamed of the long post I just finished. If I get the chance I might rewrite it–if I don’t get to that before you see it, please accept my apology for the tone. I see a lot of triumphalistic, overly simplistic Catholic apologetics on this forum, and I often overreact.

That is not what most patristic scholars would say, including Catholic ones. Most of them think that these lists were formulated in the late second century to bring order to what was really a much messier, more chaotic situation, with a bunch of different leaders of house churches in Rome operating at the same time, possibly working together as a council of presbyters or possibly (in some scholarly accounts) more or less doing their own thing and even being at odds with each other. This needs to be taken with large grains of salt, because modern scholarship tends to emphase plurality and diversity and conflict. But that is in fact the picture you would get from contemporary scholarship on the second-century Roman church.

Edwin

So did Nicea and Constantine actually bring order and definitive leadership to the Church?

Once again, I better get going! this topic is very interesting…and addictive! But once again my job is getting in the way of my fun!

Take care, Edwin.

Bob

 

[bobregan]

This is a very gracious response on your part, and it makes me ashamed of the long post I just finished. If I get the chance I might rewrite it–if I don’t get to that before you see it, please accept my apology for the tone. I see a lot of triumphalistic, overly simplistic Catholic apologetics on this forum, and I often overreact.

That is not what most patristic scholars would say, including Catholic ones. Most of them think that these lists were formulated in the late second century to bring order to what was really a much messier, more chaotic situation, with a bunch of different leaders of house churches in Rome operating at the same time, possibly working together as a council of presbyters or possibly (in some scholarly accounts) more or less doing their own thing and even being at odds with each other. This needs to be taken with large grains of salt, because modern scholarship tends to emphase plurality and diversity and conflict. But that is in fact the picture you would get from contemporary scholarship on the second-century Roman church.

Edwin

No worries, Edwin! you’ve actually been helpful, and given me much to think about and read up on. i’ll be the first to admit I’ve got much to learn! I’ll try to get back to you in the future.

 

[Contarini]

Once again not being an expert, but could papal succession from Peter through Benedict be like the current discussion on the Catholic beliefs on abortion and birth control? That abortion and birth control being intrinsically evil were always the teaching, but because these teachings were not challenged much you’re not going to see much documentation on the belief historically?

Actually there is plenty of evidence that early Christians believed abortion and birth control were wrong. My secular, ex-Christian, radical feminist professor of early Christian history in grad school explicitly admitted this! The objection would be not that there is no evidence Christians thought these things were wrong, but that this was part of a generally anti-sex ascetic position which all Christians have revised to some extent and which should be revised more radically (or of course a non-Christian would just see this as more evidence that Christianity is “anti-woman” from the start). It is true that Christian theologians did not traditionally teach that the fetus was ensouled until some point after conception (although the Didache still refers to abortion as murder, I believe, as does Tertullian), and that’s something prochoice folks pick up on.

The kind of “argument from silence” you’re using can work in some cases. I think it may apply to infant baptism, for instance, given that it is first explicitly mentioned by someone who opposes it (Tertullian) in a manner that implies that it’s been going on for a while. But I don’t think it works in either of the cases you give.

Possibly because papal succession and apostolic authority weren’t challenged much until the Protestant Reformation that the Catholic Church didn’t need to document historically on these teachings much in the previous 1500 years?

Your premise that our documentation arises largely out of challenges is correct. Irenaeus and others came up with lists of bishops of Rome as part of an attempt to document the historicity of what we’d all now regard as orthodox Christianity (or in their terms, “Catholicism”) over against Gnosticism. Our records for the century or so before Irenaeus are quite spotty, so the fact that Irenaeus is the first to mention monarchical bishops in Rome isn’t the problem. The problem is that there are several early lists which give bishops in different orders; that earlier texts like 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius signally fail to mention a bishop of Rome (even when, in the case of Ignatius, he strongly advocates episcopal authority and makes a point of addressing bishops in his other letters); and that Hermas describes Clement as the presbyter in charge of writing letters to other churches. This last piece of evidence is tricky, because Hermas is an allegorical vision which has traditionally been dated to the late second century, so that it may not be very accurate as a description of what was going on in the early part of the century. However, some contemporary scholars argue that in fact Hermas should be dated earlier. As I said in a prevous post, they may have ideological reasons for doing this. But it’s a point worth taking seriously.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So did Nicea and Constantine actually bring order and definitive leadership to the Church?

Well, obviously the imperial church had to be (and could be) more tightly organized than had been the case previously. But by the late second century we see an emerging network of bishops around the Mediterranean, recognizing each other as orthodox and corresponding with each other frequently, with the bishop of Rome clearly playing a very important role (how important can be debated, as can the grounds for his importance). So what I’m talking about is late first/early second century vs. late second century, not anything later.

I also need to get to work. I have midterm grades to hand in!

Edwin

 

[GKC]

CHESTERTONRULES;4951807:

Surely you are not you suggesting the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life-everlasting cannot be supported Scripturally?

The basic doctrines of the Christian faith are summarized in the Apostle’s Creed, and supported in the Holy Scriptures. To truly be Christian means you believe in all these doctrines.

Now as for the “holy catholic church”…that phrase was not originally in the Creed we believe the Apostles gave us, but was added at a later time.

Close.

The earliest from of what we know as the Apostles’ Creed is known as the Old Roman Creed, and dates from around 340, as a baptismal confession of faith. It is recognizable, to us, and the line in question reads “the holy church”. So does the very similar Creed of Aquileia. There is a Gallican Creed, from around the early 6th century, which uses the term “holy catholic church”.

The Creed as we know now it dates from around 750, but all versions are quite similar.

GKC

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;4951807:

Surely you are not you suggesting the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life-everlasting cannot be supported Scripturally?

The basic doctrines of the Christian faith are summarized in the Apostle’s Creed, and supported in the Holy Scriptures. To truly be Christian means you believe in all these doctrines.

Now as for the “holy catholic church”…that phrase was not originally in the Creed we believe the Apostles gave us, but was added at a later time.

So do you believe in one Holy Church and the Communion of Saints?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

You know, you really are funny…

“But clearly you haven’t” provided a link to the official teaching of a legitimate Protestant church that teaches it.

Protestants don’t follow men, not Luther, not Calvin… we follow Jesus. Besides, how do I know that quote wasn’t taken out of content as I have seen done to Luther? Where’s the link I asked for?

Set the example yourself! Which Protestnat Churches use the entire Apostles Creed. Or, which use the abbreviated version you provided to us? As you have probably guessed, most of us on CAF are familiar with the Apostles Creed - (without your omissions) but, you failed to provide any documentation (as previously ask for by me) on who believes what. Merely saying this is it … is just not good enough…

I am confident that not only will you resist bullying by not being forced to defend what you do not believe in, but, you will set the example you want others to follow and show us where you got your own informaiton.

Att’a girl…just try a little harder…

God bless,

 

[Ginger2]

Hi, Ginger2,

Which Protestant Churches use the entire Apostles Creed. Or, which use the abbreviated version you provided to us?

I wasn’t providing a different version of the Apostle’s Creed.

I just didn’t write the whole thing out as I didn’t think it was necessary to make my point.

The point was the basic Christian doctrines found in Apostle’s Creed are based on Scriptures

sheesh!

Way to answering a question…by falsely accusing your adversary.

 

[kalt]

“But clearly you haven’t” provided a link to the official teaching of a legitimate Protestant church that teaches it.

Protestants don’t follow men, not Luther, not Calvin… we follow Jesus. Besides, how do I know that quote wasn’t taken out of content as I have seen done to Luther? Where’s the link I asked for?

This from SBC.net.

"All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. "

It is clear that the teaching is that the OSAS can sin without fear of losing their salvation.

 

[tqualey]

Once again, Ginger2, you failed to provide the requested reference. So, let me repeat the question so you can stay focused: “Which religions subscribe to the Apostle’s Creed as you orginally presented?”

I wasn’t providing a different version of the Apostle’s Creed.

I just didn’t write the whole thing out as I didn’t think it was necessary to make my point.

The point was the basic Christian doctrines found in Apostle’s Creed are based on Scriptures

sheesh!

Way to answering a question…by falsely accusing your adversary.

As usual, there is an obvsious difference between what is requested and what is delivered. There is no question about the Apostle’s Creed coming from scripture…and having come from the Catholic Church. The question was about all of those Protestant religions that you claim have united around the Apostle’s Creed as the basis for their belief.

There was nothing false in anything I have said.

God bless

 

[orange_man]

External evidence that Peter was founder of Catholic Church:

Scott Hahn

Marcus Grodi

Richard John Neuhaus

Francis Beckwith (former head of US Evangelical Theological Society)

And all other Protestant clergy, theologians, laity that once they have thoroughly researched the history and facts of early Christianity and the Apostles and found that the Catholic Church today is the one true Church and is the same Church started by Peter 2000 years ago, and then convert to Catholicism.

you still haven’t supplied a shred of evidence? The only thing we have any reasonable degree of certainty about (though there is some level of dispute over this) is that Peter anointed Ignatius (bishop of Antioch). There’s also a reasonably good amount of evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. However. that’s where it ends. The Roman Churches claim to rule over the Christian world is an internal claim with no apostolic basis … period!

There can be no evidence of Peter being the first leader (pope) of the Catholic Church from a Protestant perspective. How? If a Protestant theologian is to come out and state this, it basically nullifies his own Protestant church.

not true exactly … but once again Catholics have no support for their claims of rule over Christendom, but then we won’t agree here (and frankly I’m not too worried about what you guys think of us).

And like the above mentioned when confronted with the truth, have no choice but to become Catholic.

wow … buddy from now on, **just say NO **

Many Protestant theologians/writers (Oscar Cullman, A. Harnack, for example) are getting close and stating that in Matt: 16 the “rock” mentioned is Peter. I’m guessing that they stop there because the next logical question is to ask if Peter was the head of the Church. And the answer they might be afraid to discover (as many others have) is “Yes.” Beckwith (and I believe I’m spelling his name correctly) was the President of the Us Evangelical Theological Society made up of 1200 Protestant theologians. He researched the Fathers and the early Church, and announce a couple years ago at their national conference that he was stepping down as President of the organization because he was converting to Catholicism.

It seems you don’t understand this issue enough to have an insightful discourse with me?

In the USA here there are many interesting developments happening at Protestant/Baptist seminaries. The schools know they must teach on Church history prior to 1500. When the Protestant Professors they charge with the task of looking at the early Church, the Church Fathers, etc. research the history, they are finding that the Catholic Church is the only Church sitting on the shoulders of Peter. They are put in an uncomfortable position then if they are to teach this to their seminarians. There have been several instances where these Protestant Professors, after their research in to the early Church, have then converted to Catholicism. They have told their seminary presidents that they would still like to teach on this subjects, but only as a Catholic.

do really believe this stuff?

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Ginger2,

You know, you really are funny…

Set the example yourself! Which Protestnat Churches use the entire Apostles Creed. Or, which use the abbreviated version you provided to us? As you have probably guessed, most of us on CAF are familiar with the Apostles Creed - (without your omissions) but, you failed to provide any documentation (as previously ask for by me) on who believes what. Merely saying this is it … is just not good enough…

I am confident that not only will you resist bullying by not being forced to defend what you do not believe in, but, you will set the example you want others to follow and show us where you got your own informaiton.

Att’a girl…just try a little harder…

God bless,

You will never get an answer to your question. Ginger only talks to herself. If you do get a proper answer then I will be very surprised.

Let’s see…

 

[bobregan]

you still haven’t supplied a shred of evidence? The only thing we have any reasonable degree of certainty about (though there is some level of dispute over this) is that Peter anointed Ignatius (bishop of Antioch). There’s also a reasonably good amount of evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. However. that’s where it ends. The Roman Churches claim to rule over the Christian world is an internal claim with no apostolic basis … period!

not true exactly … but once again Catholics have no support for their claims of rule over Christendom, but then we won’t agree here (and frankly I’m not too worried about what you guys think of us).

wow … buddy from now on, **just say NO **

It seems you don’t understand this issue enough to have an insightful discourse with me?

do really believe this stuff?

I’m assuming, Orange Man, Christianity started when you became Pope?!

Considering there was no Protestant denominations for the first 1500 years of Christianity, what other evidence is there than from the Catholic Church? How about showing me evidence from the first century from a Protestant denomination??

And what does it matter, Orange Man? I could dump on this thread tons of evidence of the Catholic Church’s claims, but you still would turn a blind eye to it. It could be a bright, sunny day, the Pope could say to you “the suns out.”, and you some how would refute it.

Just admit it…you’re on this thread to bash the Catholic Church. Why waste your time and our time?

 

[bobregan]

you still haven’t supplied a shred of evidence? The only thing we have any reasonable degree of certainty about (though there is some level of dispute over this) is that Peter anointed Ignatius (bishop of Antioch). There’s also a reasonably good amount of evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. However. that’s where it ends. The Roman Churches claim to rule over the Christian world is an internal claim with no apostolic basis … period!

not true exactly … but once again Catholics have no support for their claims of rule over Christendom, but then we won’t agree here (and frankly I’m not too worried about what you guys think of us).

wow … buddy from now on, **just say NO **

It seems you don’t understand this issue enough to have an insightful discourse with me?

do really believe this stuff?

So tell me, Orange Man, did Christ start a visible Church through Peter?

And if not the Catholic Church, which one of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church started through Peter? I’m guessing you right now can show me a 2000 year lineage of Apostolic succession from your denomination back to Peter?

 

[bobregan]

you still haven’t supplied a shred of evidence? The only thing we have any reasonable degree of certainty about (though there is some level of dispute over this) is that Peter anointed Ignatius (bishop of Antioch). There’s also a reasonably good amount of evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. However. that’s where it ends. The Roman Churches claim to rule over the Christian world is an internal claim with no apostolic basis … period!

not true exactly … but once again Catholics have no support for their claims of rule over Christendom, but then we won’t agree here (and frankly I’m not too worried about what you guys think of us).

wow … buddy from now on, **just say NO **

It seems you don’t understand this issue enough to have an insightful discourse with me?

do really believe this stuff?

A link to J N D Kelley, Protestant historian:

lumengentleman.blogspot.com/2004/10/jnd-kelly-and-church-fathers.html

“cut and paste” from that web-site from Kelley:

hints begin to appear of the theory that the Church’s ministers, in virtue of their endowment with the Spirit, were the divinely authorized custodians of the apostolic teaching. Clement, for example, though not explicit on the point, seems to imply [Letter to the Corinthians, 42] that the hierarchy which succeeded the apostles inherited the gospel message which they had been commissioned to preach. The immense stress which Ignatius placed on loyalty to the episcopate finds its explanation in the fact that he regarded the bishop as the appointed guarantor of purity of doctrine. In 2 Clement [par. 17] strict obedience to the presbyters is inculcated on the ground that their task is to preach the faith, and that their instructions are identical with those of Christ Himself. (p. 35)

But where in practice was this apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? It was no longer possible to resort, as Papias and earlier writers had done, to personal reminiscences of the apostles. The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. Irenaeus believed that this was the case, stating [Against Heresies, Book V, pref.] that the Church preserved the tradition inherited from the apostles and passed it on to her children. It was, he thought, a living tradition which was, in principle, independent of written documents; and he pointed [ibid, Book III, cap. 4, 1 ff.] to barbarian tribes which ‘received this faith without letters.’ (p. 37)

Irenaeus makes two further points. First, the identity of oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. [Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 2, 2; Book III, cap. 3, 3; Book III, cap. 4, 1] Secondly, an additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message was committed to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. [ibid, Book III, cap. 24, 1] Indeed, the Church’s bishops are on his view Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’ (charisma veritatis certum) [ibid., Book IV, cap. 26, 2; Book IV, cap. 26, 5] (p. 37)

 

[bobregan]

you still haven’t supplied a shred of evidence? The only thing we have any reasonable degree of certainty about (though there is some level of dispute over this) is that Peter anointed Ignatius (bishop of Antioch). There’s also a reasonably good amount of evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. However. that’s where it ends. The Roman Churches claim to rule over the Christian world is an internal claim with no apostolic basis … period!

not true exactly … but once again Catholics have no support for their claims of rule over Christendom, but then we won’t agree here (and frankly I’m not too worried about what you guys think of us).

wow … buddy from now on, **just say NO **

It seems you don’t understand this issue enough to have an insightful discourse with me?

do really believe this stuff?

this is noce from an Anglican Church:

georgiachurch.org/scriptorum/succesion/ApostolicSuccession.pdf

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All
over the world, all validly consecrated bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the
time of the apostles, something that is not possible in the Protestant denominations, many
of which do not even recognize the office of Bishop. We need to clarify here. There are
many ministries and many ministers in God’s Church. God blesses His faithful people in
many ways. However, nothing else compares to the Apostolic pastoral and teaching
ministry of the Church, entrusted by Christ Himself to the Apostles, except the Apostles’
own continuation of their ministry through the Church’s Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
When we pronounce our belief in the “apostolic” Church, we are pronouncing our belief
in our Apostolic faith and Apostolic ministry. This is not an invention of the Early
Church Fathers at Nicaea. It is the standard given by the Holy Ghost on Pentecost. As it
states in the Acts of the Apostles:

 

[bobregan]

you still haven’t supplied a shred of evidence? The only thing we have any reasonable degree of certainty about (though there is some level of dispute over this) is that Peter anointed Ignatius (bishop of Antioch). There’s also a reasonably good amount of evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. However. that’s where it ends. The Roman Churches claim to rule over the Christian world is an internal claim with no apostolic basis … period!

not true exactly … but once again Catholics have no support for their claims of rule over Christendom, but then we won’t agree here (and frankly I’m not too worried about what you guys think of us).

wow … buddy from now on, **just say NO **

It seems you don’t understand this issue enough to have an insightful discourse with me?

do really believe this stuff?

So the Catholic Church can’t prove Apostolic Succession?? Once again, that statement is ridiculous…

Once again, can your denomination show Apostolic Succession (read my other links from Kelly and the Anglican pdf)?? How??

Do you refute the Scriptural evidence of the primacy of Peter amongst the Apostles?

 

[kalt]

You will never get an answer to your question. Ginger only talks to herself. If you do get a proper answer then I will be very surprised.

Let’s see…

She asked for proof of what a Protestant church teaches about OSAS. I provided it, and she has nothing to say.???