the Church prior to Luther's Reformation

[Koineman]

[Obviously a dialoge agains Gnostics. So what?

The exact nature of the false teaching is not the point. In your earlier comments, you never made the claim that the NT never endorses excommunication to gnostics in particular. You just said it does not endorse excommunication on doctrinal grounds ***in general ***. That was your comment that I was responding to. The NT does, in fact, endorse excommunication on doctrinal grounds, so identifying the particular people John had in mind is irrelevant. But since you want to specify gnosticism, okay: Gnosticism was a set of doctrines, and John admonished his readers to have nothing to do with them because of their doctrine.

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned. (Titus 3)

Simply says to avoid controversy about doctrines. Just the opposite of what you assert as I see it. I see nothing in your quotes to suggest turning sincere christians away from communion.

I find it hard to believe that you actually missed the part of that passage that clearly indicates rejection on doctrinal grounds. The quarrels and arguments Paul refers to are doctrinal because they are “about the law,” and after instructing them to warn such people twice, he says, “After that, have nothing to do with them.” That is clearly rejection on doctrinal grounds. It is impossible to admit someone to communion while one is also “having nothing to do with them.”
[/quote]

 

[Prosmith]

That is hardly charitable way of describing this. The Mass - the greatest celebration of the Lord’s sacrifice - is always open to all to participate. However, it is Communion that is restricted only to baptised Christians in communion with the Church. It is the same in all apostolic churches, be it Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian. This is the tradition as handed down to us by the Apostles. There are certain standards set in place to ensure that those who receive are sincere and true believers. What is the point of receiving communion if you are ignorant of the church and the faith with which you are communing?

From our perspective, as God-fearing Christians, we are morally obligated to ensure that the Real Presence is not unwittingly defiled by unbelievers. Remember, God has given us his Real Presence in the Eucharist, and as his servants, we must take every care to ensure it is respected and honoured to the greatest degree. This is why we limit it to only baptised Catholics received into the Church. To give an extreme example, how can we knowingly give the Body and Blood of Christ to a Satanist who only wishes to defile and profane it? We do not want this precious gift to be defiled by those who do not appreciate its significance. This is why we have programs such as RCIA and catechesis to ensure that believers sincerely understand the entirety of the Christian faith, including the Real Presence, before they are received into the Church.

By the way, we have digressed a great deal from the OP.

Save me the rhetoric that I’ve heard for years. Scripture tells us what the Eucharist is and for those who believe that communion truly is what Jesus said it was at the Last Supper, then I truly doubt that he would neglect those who would wish to join themselves to him. It’s not a private club membership as you would outline in your response, especially in that what you explained is also absent from Scripture.

 

[7_Sorrows]

unfortunately before Luther, there was a lot of corruption in the Catholic church. the Catholic church had still done a lot of good before Luther, however.
at least once Luther came along and the Reformation took hold, it forced the Catholic church to have the counter-Reformation which was a good thing.
in the 16th century, times were changing. the printing press would be invented and Bibles would be able to be printed and people would finally be able to read the word of God for themselves.
king had power and the Popes had power. unfortunately, a power struggle evolved.
even though corruption was rampant around the time of Luther in the Catholic church it is important to remember all of the good the Catholic church did up until that time and after.

 

[Koineman]

Partaking of the body and blood of Christ is being in communion and fellowship with the church (Christ’s body). Therefore, to be in disagreement with that church while partaking of communion there is to attempt to be in communion with the body of Christ while not being in complete unity with that body. It would be disunity charading as unity.

 

[ChrissyB364]

If you’re looking for Church History from a Protestant point of view (much less biased than some I’ve read) you should check out Church History In Plain Language by Bruce L Shelley.

 

[submariner2]

Koineman;9392537]The exact nature of the false teaching is not the point. In your earlier comments, you never made the claim that the NT never endorses excommunication to gnostics in particular. You just said it does not endorse excommunication on doctrinal grounds ***in general ***. That was your comment that I was responding to. The NT does, in fact, endorse excommunication on doctrinal grounds, so identifying the particular people John had in mind is irrelevant. But since you want to specify gnosticism, okay: Gnosticism was a set of doctrines, and John admonished his readers to have nothing to do with them because of their doctrine.

No specific apporval for the use of excommunication.

I find it hard to believe that you actually missed the part of that passage that clearly indicates rejection on doctrinal grounds. The quarrels and arguments Paul refers to are doctrinal because they are “about the law,” and after instructing them to warn such people twice, he says, “After that, have nothing to do with them.” That is clearly rejection on doctrinal grounds. It is impossible to admit someone to communion while one is also "having nothing to do with them

Personal advice does not necessarily carry over to excommunication. Do you have nothing to do with protestants? Unless you do you have no leg to stand on.
You are using a scripture that you do not follow at all.

Rob

 

[Contarini]

unfortunately before Luther, there was a lot of corruption in the Catholic church. the Catholic church had still done a lot of good before Luther, however.
at least once Luther came along and the Reformation took hold, it forced the Catholic church to have the counter-Reformation which was a good thing.

From my perspective, the fact that the Reformation provoked the Counter-Reformation is one of the worst of the many bad things about it.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

From my perspective, the fact that the Reformation provoked the Counter-Reformation is one of the worst of the many bad things about it.

Edwin

Do you see any value arising from the Counter-Reformation at all?

Not a trick question.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Do you see any value arising from the Counter-Reformation at all?

Not a trick question.

GKC

Oh yes, lots.

I was being a bit hyperbolic. Perhaps too influenced by John Bossy.

I do think that when you compare Catholicism in the fifteenth century with Catholicism in the 17th, the losses of the intervening century far outweigh the gains. But there were certainly plenty of gains.

I suppose that really what I’m doing is comparing what happened with my ideal Catholic reform, which would have been more along the lines of Erasmus (though not entirely–Erasmus lacked an appreciation of popular piety), with Luther’s ideas about grace and faith being incorporated in a manner that didn’t break with the faith of the historic Church.

I recognize that change happens, that the late Middle Ages were far from perfect, and that it’s foolish to wish they could have just gone on.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: “The aspects of the Catholic Reformation most directly provoked by the Reformation (which I took to be implied in the term “counter-Reformation”) were those, on the whole, that I find most unfortunate; and the positive lessons that Catholics could have learned from the Reformation were those, on the whole, that they most steadfastly refused to learn.”

Edwin

 

[Koineman]

No specific apporval for the use of excommunication.

Excommunicating = putting someone outside the church = having nothing to do with them.

Personal advice does not necessarily carry over to excommunication.

It wasn’t personal advice; it was a command, an imperative. The text makes that all too clear.

 

[GKC]

Oh yes, lots.

I was being a bit hyperbolic. Perhaps too influenced by John Bossy.

I do think that when you compare Catholicism in the fifteenth century with Catholicism in the 17th, the losses of the intervening century far outweigh the gains. But there were certainly plenty of gains.

I suppose that really what I’m doing is comparing what happened with my ideal Catholic reform, which would have been more along the lines of Erasmus (though not entirely–Erasmus lacked an appreciation of popular piety), with Luther’s ideas about grace and faith being incorporated in a manner that didn’t break with the faith of the historic Church.

I recognize that change happens, that the late Middle Ages were far from perfect, and that it’s foolish to wish they could have just gone on.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: “The aspects of the Catholic Reformation most directly provoked by the Reformation (which I took to be implied in the term “counter-Reformation”) were those, on the whole, that I find most unfortunate; and the positive lessons that Catholics could have learned from the Reformation were those, on the whole, that they most steadfastly refused to learn.”

Edwin

I figured that, since this area in general is more your sandbox than mine, I could learn something. Such as the possible outlines of a reformed Catholicism.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I figured that, since this area in general is more your sandbox than mine, I could learn something. Such as the possible outlines of a reformed Catholicism.

GKC

Good question. I suppose a few hallmarks would have been:

Encouragement of vernacular Scripture, and openness to the vernacular in the liturgy (along the lines eventually called for by Vatican II, and perhaps now being slowly implemented by Benedict XVI’s “reform of the reform”);

Permission (on a local basis) for liturgical reform/experimentation in order to encourage greater participation, along the lines of Hermann von Wied’s liturgy in Cologne and the 1549 BCP interpreted in its most Catholic sense;

Perhaps permission for married men to become diocesan priests–certainly this was much discussed in reformist circles at the time;

Strengthening of the authority of local bishops as pastors (this is something that did happen, and one of the “counter-Reformation” phenomena that I regard as very much a good thing);

Further proliferation of lay devotional movements (including women’s movements/orders) with only minimal centralized control (as also for the previously mentioned liturgical developments);

A focus on the pastoral, spiritual aspect of the Church’s ministry, without simply surrendering authority to the state. This one is vague because it’s probably the most utopian–given the historical context, the conceivable options appear to have been (short of a situation of persecution) either assertion of Church power in a “political” sense or surrender of “external” functions to the state (indeed, this continues to be a difficult tension, as the current struggle over the HHS mandate). But I think probably there were moves that wouldn’t have been so completely in the wrong direction as the ones that were actually taken mostly were. It’s easy to point fingers from 500 years later, though.

Encouragement of more frequent lay reception of communion.

A dialogue with Protestants that did not proceed on the assumption that everything they said was vile (this was advocated by folks like Pole and Contarini–in the former case, combined with a support for persecuting Protestants who went into schism and attacked the Sacraments).

Rejection of persecution as a means of suppressing heresy (again, this one is a bit utopian and anachronistic, though Erasmus and the early Luther did make tentative moves in that direction).

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

From my perspective, the fact that the Reformation provoked the Counter-Reformation is one of the worst of the many bad things about it.

Edwin

I think I can see your point.

 

[Contarini]

I think I can see your point.

I would expect that you could, since it’s largely from looking at Orthodoxy that I see what Catholicism could have been if not for the “Counter-Reformation”!

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Good question. I suppose a few hallmarks would have been:

Encouragement of vernacular Scripture, and openness to the vernacular in the liturgy (along the lines eventually called for by Vatican II, and perhaps now being slowly implemented by Benedict XVI’s “reform of the reform”);

Permission (on a local basis) for liturgical reform/experimentation in order to encourage greater participation, along the lines of Hermann von Wied’s liturgy in Cologne and the 1549 BCP interpreted in its most Catholic sense;

Perhaps permission for married men to become diocesan priests–certainly this was much discussed in reformist circles at the time;

Strengthening of the authority of local bishops as pastors (this is something that did happen, and one of the “counter-Reformation” phenomena that I regard as very much a good thing);

Further proliferation of lay devotional movements (including women’s movements/orders) with only minimal centralized control (as also for the previously mentioned liturgical developments);

A focus on the pastoral, spiritual aspect of the Church’s ministry, without simply surrendering authority to the state. This one is vague because it’s probably the most utopian–given the historical context, the conceivable options appear to have been (short of a situation of persecution) either assertion of Church power in a “political” sense or surrender of “external” functions to the state (indeed, this continues to be a difficult tension, as the current struggle over the HHS mandate). But I think probably there were moves that wouldn’t have been so completely in the wrong direction as the ones that were actually taken mostly were. It’s easy to point fingers from 500 years later, though.

Encouragement of more frequent lay reception of communion.

A dialogue with Protestants that did not proceed on the assumption that everything they said was vile (this was advocated by folks like Pole and Contarini–in the former case, combined with a support for persecuting Protestants who went into schism and attacked the Sacraments).

Rejection of persecution as a means of suppressing heresy (again, this one is a bit utopian and anachronistic, though Erasmus and the early Luther did make tentative moves in that direction).

Edwin

I knew you could paint a picture.

I could live with a lot of that.

Thanks.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

No specific apporval for the use of excommunication.

The Church has always taught, since the beginning, that one must be in a state of grace to be admitted to the table of the Lord. The embracing of doctrine that is contrary to the Teachings we have received from the Aposltes is running after “a different gospel”. Such persons are described by the Apostle as already having separated themselves from communion.

1 Cor 11:27-32
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

2 Cor 13:5
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves.

The Apostle speaks only of ONE FAITH. Same doctrines, same confessions. There is no room for doctrines not committed to the Church by the Apostles.

1 Tim 1:3-4

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

This is the earliest Apostolic account of excommunication:

1 Cor 5:1-5
is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

3 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The Apostles taught that there is no salvation outside the Church, so when one was excommunicated, one was “delivered to satan for the destruction of the flesh”.

There is another reference to excommunication that has less detail:

1 Tim 1:19-20
By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

This excommunication also appears to be for moral reasons (blasphemy)

The Apostle John writes to the Church that certain persons have excommunicated themselves by departing from the faith, and their refusal to recognize the Apostolic Authority.

1 John 2:19-20
9 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

This refers to disciples who embraced non-Catholic doctrine, and are called “anticrhists”.

3 John 9-10

9 I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. 10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words. And not content with that, he refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church.

What authority does the Apostle have over the Church? Why did the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, think that the Apostles had passed this authority on to them?

1 Cor 11:18-22
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are** divisions **among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized…What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

The Gk. word here for “divisions” is schismata. Schismatics are those who take off on practices not approved by the Apostles, and deny the apostolic authority. Persons in schism have excommunicated themselves.
submariner2;9395142:

Personal advice does not necessarily carry over to excommunication. Do you have nothing to do with protestants? Unless you do you have no leg to stand on.
You are using a scripture that you do not follow at all.

Rob

I agree, but this is more than just “personal advice”. This is instructions to the Bishop. We can also find evidence of excommunication in Paul’s letter to Corinth.

When we encounter persons who have left the faith, or who have embraced heresies, we are to treat them like Pagans and Tax collectors. That means they are in the field of evangelism. They need to be won over again into the One Faith. Of course, there were no “protestants” in those days, there were schismatics, heretics, apostates…The faithful were forbidden to have communion with any of them.

You see, from the Apostolic point of view, communion was the symbol and entactment of unity with the Body of Christ. Those who had become separated by espousing heterodox beliefs or moral terpitude were no longer in unity. To celebrate an act of unity when one is not in a state of unity is to lie with one’s whole body. I am sure you are familiar with the consequences of this that are referenced in Corinthians.

 

[submariner2]

Excommunicating = putting someone outside the church = having nothing to do with them.

Koineman,

That would be for troublemakers. Paul never advises excommunication for sincere christians.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

Excommunicating = putting someone outside the church = having nothing to do with them.

Koineman,

That would be for troublemakers. Paul never advises excommunication for sincere christians.

Rob

Ahh, but there WERE no “sincere christians” that were not Catholic. Those who fancied themselves to be so, but were not Catholic were called heretics.

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9399487]The Church has always taught, since the beginning, that one must be in a state of grace to be admitted to the table of the Lord. The embracing of doctrine that is contrary to the Teachings we have received from the Aposltes is running after “a different gospel”. Such persons are described by the Apostle as already having separated themselves from communion.

We confess our sins through out the service, before and after communion. We are in a State of Grace.

The Apostle John writes to the Church that certain persons have excommunicated themselves by departing from the faith, and their refusal to recognize the Apostolic Authority.

Never heard of the theory of excommuniating oneself.

.

This refers to disciples who embraced non-Catholic doctrine, and are called “anticrhists”.

Are you saying we are anti Christs?

What authority does the Apostle have over the Church? Why did the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, think that the Apostles had passed this authority on to them?

Scripture does not mention successors as far as I can tell at least regarding authority.

When we encounter persons who have left the faith, or who have embraced heresies, we are to treat them like Pagans and Tax collectors. That means they are in the field of evangelism. They need to be won over again into the One Faith. Of course, there were no “protestants” in those days, there were schismatics, heretics, apostates…The faithful were forbidden to have communion with any of them.

Are you saying we are apostates and heretics?

You see, from the Apostolic point of view, communion was the symbol and entactment of unity with the Body of Christ. Those who had become separated by espousing heterodox beliefs or moral terpitude were no longer in unity. To celebrate an act of unity when one is not in a state of unity is to lie with one’s whole body. I am sure you are familiar with the consequences of this that are referenced in Corinthians.

Yes of course we agree it is a symbol of unity. We are unified with all christians and that is why we invite them to the Lords Table in my church. I am thinkful for that.

But getting back to the subject of this thread I think both of us have been showing the truth of how scripture is used to interpret scripture. It makes for fuller understanding of the meaning of a scripture verse.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

We confess our sins through out the service, before and after communion. We are in a State of Grace.

Yes, you confess to yourself, and forgive yourself, and are in a state of grace toward yourself. You are also all in communion with yourselves.

It is also possible that one may make a perfect confession, and be in a state of grace with God. It is possible that persons present may make a spiritual communiion with Christ.

Never heard of the theory of excommuniating oneself.

In that case, I am glad to know that you have learned at least one thing here at CAF. Persons who engage in certain activities cut themselves off from communion by doing them. My Latin brethren call it *latae sententiae excommunicatio *-- [The penalty of] “excommunication having been passed” The act in itself causes it.
.

Are you saying we are anti Christs?

No, that was the term used by the Apostles for those who embraced doctrine other than what they taught. It would not be possible for you to depart from the Apostolic faith, because you never had it.

Scripture does not mention successors as far as I can tell at least regarding authority.

I appreciate the way your worded this, Rob. It really comes across as a lot more open minded to discussion.

Are you saying we are apostates and heretics?

No, I was saying that, in the NT, those who embraced doctrines other than the One Faith that was taught by the Apostles were called those terms. You received a truncated version of the Gospel in the first place, so you cannot be said to have fallen away from what you never had. You can’t qualify as a heretic, either, because the heresies were passed down to you by your spiritual forefathers. You did not receive the unadulterated Gospel, to willfully depart from it.

Yes of course we agree it is a symbol of unity. We are unified with all christians and that is why we invite them to the Lords Table in my church. I am thinkful for that.

Then you and all you invite are united to one another. It is no wonder that you are so content with your fellowship.

It is of no consequence that it is separated from the Lord’s Table that the Apostles have invited us to attend.

But getting back to the subject of this thread I think both of us have been showing the truth of how scripture is used to interpret scripture. It makes for fuller understanding of the meaning of a scripture verse.

Rob

While it is true that the meaning of Scripture can be better understood when all of it is taken into account as a whole, text cannot “interpret”, because this is an activity that requires a person. In the end, it is always the reader doing the interpreting.