The Reformation...reforming to What?

[KathleenGee]

The Church attempted to reform through the Council of Florence but it failed because it was political…and there was movement of nationalization and politics as well embedded in so called Reformers.

The saints exhort us not to focus on scandal but keep our eyes on the Lord.

Furthermore, the tragedy of American fundamentalists is that they have lost all their roots, and cannot connect with our faith as Anglicans and Lutherans do because they have retained various roots. So it is very hard to build a platform of mutuality and trust between a Catholic and a fundamentalist because reason and commonality do not hold, and our practices are usually invalidated automatically.

Again, we are ecclesial deists and believe the Lord is big enough, strong enough, and God enough to have His church run by sinners, but nevertheless, chosen men, consecrated in Spirit and truth. Fundamentalists can only believe in the form of God in text.

The ancient Jews did not have a bible in their homes. Jesus did not pass out Bibles. All was based on the oral tradition. There was no printing press until the time of Luther…oh if he had listened to the angel of the Lord who advised him not to go forward…

So it is very hard for Fundamentalists to understand process, to see succession…to recognize Polycarp, Irenaeus, and others who took the next successive step after the Apostles to further define true belief about Christ for each succeeding generation. They do not want to study history. And yes, they and the Mormons believe some how and in some way the true faith disappeared some where.

Looking at the Church and its contribution to Western civilization, it was very much active and integrating the Good News of Jesus Christ not only to hearts and souls, but to the world around them. I did not mention the great architects, painters, musicians, philosophers, the foundations of the free market in economics, and providing us the foundation of international law. All this is Jesus at work, raising ALL men to Himself.

There is the big ‘T’ tradition of faith that comes to us from the Apostles. There is the little ‘t’ or small ecclesial traditions that bring the diversity we see in the universal Church.

But it is the Lord alone Who unites and nurtures us. If we look at the men at work in the Church, we will see contradictions and failures. But it is the Lord Who is at work, and the devout of us know the Shepherd and we know Him.

When it comes to understanding Catholicism, you have to be in its Spirit and heart, which is the Holy Spirit and the heart of Jesus, the place of Life drawn on the Lord alone. If you step outside this center of faith as a Catholic and fall into obsessing on others’ sins, you will lose your faith.

So the tool heretics have used are scandal to break Christians’ faith. This is also why Jesus warned those who cause scandal, for it is better they be dropped into the deepest sea with a millstone tied around their neck.

And so these anti-Catholic ‘ministers of the Lord’ spend part of the time, not building their followers up in Christ and faith, but indoctrinating them to be anti-Christian in their ongoing expose of Catholic Church scandals. We have had plenty of them, and as time goes on, I can assure you there are many more scandals to come. We have the chaff along with the wheat, and this is part of the test…we must maintain our faith and continue to draw on the Lord through His Word and Eucharist in the Cross.

It is scandal that destroys faith.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jose,

Good point!

Please note, however, I did identify the laity as the voting members…

But, now that you have ‘taken a bite out of the apple’ you need to come up with a response to what did St. Clement mean in the quote I provided. I’ve hit a wall on this one.

Of course this question is open to all. I am really looking for an authorative answer.

God bless

Hi Tom,

An argument can be made for this regarding Papal elections in 1059 AD:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/papal-elect1059.asp

It is my understanding that it wasn’t until 1139 with the 10th Ecumenical Synod (Lateran) that the decision for the Papacy was entirely given to the School of Cardinals and in 1179, it further specifies that the Cardinals must have 2/3 majority ruling for the candidate.

Peace,

Jose

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t mean to be blabby again…have lots to do in house and yard today, with my time off…

But I would also like to respond to Forevergrace’s comment…I don’t do copy and paste…have to learn that still…that the Church did not give to the poor. I find that so incredible but it shows how little they are taught the truth of our Church.

I want to add here Ch 9 from Dr Woods’ book, ‘How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization’.

‘In the early fourth century, famine and disease struck the army of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Pachomius, a pagan soldier in that army, watched in amazement as many of his fellow Romans brought food to the afflicted men and, without discrimination, bestowed help on those in need. Curious, Pachomius inquire about these people and found out that they were Christians. What kind of religion was it, he wondered, that could inspire such acts of generosity and humanity? He began to learn about the faith – and before he knew it, he was on the road to conversion.’

'This kind of amazement has attended Catholic charitable work throughout the ages. Even Voltaire, perhaps the most prolific anti-Catholic propagandist of the 18th century (note…this is 1200 years after Constantine), was awed by the heroic spirit of self-sacrifice that animated so many of the Church’s sons and daughters. “Perhaps there is nothing greater on earth,” he said, “than the sacrifice of youth and beauty, often of high birth, made by the gentle sex in order to work in hospitals for the relief of human misery, the sight of which is so revolting to our delicacy. Peoples separated from the Roman religion have imitated but imperfectly so generous a charity.”

Dr Woods goes on to say…"The Catholic Church invented charity as we know it in the West.

St. Cyprian rebuked the pagan population, who third century bishop and Early Church Father rebuked the pagan population in Carthage for not helping victims of the plague but preferring to plunder them…St. Cyprian summoned followers of Christ to nurse the sick and bury the dead…some of them the very people who had prior persecuted them.

‘In Alexandria, in third century, Bishop Dionysius, reported pagans would throw their sick loved ones, left them unburied, or tossed them on the roads half alive, treating them with utter contempt when they died. He reported many Christians did not spare themselves and went out to care for those with plague.’

‘Likewise, Martin Luther did carry on this same conviction, that a Christian minister was to remain by the side of his flock, attending to their spiritual needs until they died.’

'Contrary, King Henry the 8th at the time of the Reformation, suppressed the monasteries, confiscating them, distributing them at rock bottom prices to men of influence within his realm…The social consequences of the dissolution of the monasteries must have been substantial. The Northern Risings of 1536, a popular rebellion also known as the Pilgrimage of Grace, had much to do with popular anger at the disappearance of monastic charity, and a petitioner to the king observed two years later:

‘The experience which we have had by those houses that already be suppressed shows plainly unto us that a great hurt and decay is thereby come and hereafter shall come to this your realm and great impoverishing of many your poor obedient subjects, for a lack of hospitality and good householding that was wont in them to be kept to the great relief of the poor people of all the areas adjoining the said monasteries.’

Mexico was the center of Learning in the New World. Contrary to modern opinion, the Spanish conquistadors had great esteem and held the Aztec world in great wonder. Yes, they came there for profit…but there was indeed a clash of cultures along with Aztec sacrifice. It was our Lady of Guadalupe and the prayers of Bishop Zumarraga asking for roses in December, that helped turn things around. Universities were soon being built, and educated the native Indians, some of whom became university professors within a short time.

I have read a great number of interesting points in Professor Woods’ book who also drew on manuscripts regarding the work of the Church in helping surrounding populations, and the consquence of poverty and moral decay without the witness of those who gave all for the kingdom of Christ.

We have much to learn about our roots, and especially those going back to the Reformation. I believe the more we learn the truth of history and see the good intention, it is hoped, that this truth will lead us back into the communion of one faith and One Body.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Howdy Tom,

Hi, Jose,

Good point!

Please note, however, I did identify the laity as the voting members…


tqualey;9532985:

But, now that you have ‘taken a bite out of the apple’

:knight2:

…you need to come up with a response to what did St. Clement mean in the quote I provided. I’ve hit a wall on this one.

Of course this question is open to all. I am really looking for an authorative answer.

God bless

Is it from post # 184?

Thanks,

Jose

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t mean to be blabby again.

You just keep being blabby I want to hear what you have to say.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kbf1970060,

Every now and then we see eye to eye … ah, but you have a couple of items that are need of some extreme clarification …

Rome, as in the city (separate and apart from Vatican City) is now a democracy. with a mayor and council. But, what I think you mean is the government of Italy. In looking back over the past 2 centuries, I think that military dictatorship, or just plain dictatorship, or monarchy (papal) would probably be the three types of government occupying the longest time periods. Edwin is correct in his observations. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Italy

Actually, Luther’s revolt did bring about not only a reform but a counter-reformation (which probably should be called a counter-revolt). Any view of the activities of the 16th Century that does not include the reforms of the Council of Trent simply misses the boat. Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

Luther pointed out that indulgences were in fact being sold - and, you know, they were! Kathleen is correct in pointing out that this was truly a very localized problem that Luther was identifying - but, in fairness, given the state of communications, Luther did not know how wide-spread this abuse was. He was right to identify the problem, he was wrong to defy the Pope on matters of Faith.

From the time Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the church door (1522) until the Council of Trent began its first session (1545) about 23 years had passed - and a good portion of Europe was already ablaze with heresy. In the 18 years it took the Council to reach its decisions, another 18 years had passed - and the rest of Europe and England was totall
involved in this heretical madness. Here is an interesting link on Trent’s accomplishments: brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/30/the-council-of-trent-overview-of-its-importance-and-difficulties/

As i see it, Luther saw abuses (not just the selling of indulgences…) and yelled, “Fire!” but, instead of getting water - he got gasoline and became convinced that he could burn the Church of Christ down and build his own - a more perfect Church then God was able to effect with these abusive Catholics! Well, maybe this is a tad more colorful then necessary - but, it does capture the flavor of what was going on … at least in my mind.

God bless

The Reformation did not happen, but failed. The Church neither was, nor is, reformed by anything either Martin Luther, or John Calvin, ever did. Martin Luther at least, left the church, so to did John Calvin’s father through his rejection of The Eucharist, the most essential and pivotal sacrament, that Jesus instituted.

The Reformation never occured. A schism occurred. Heresies followed.

The apparent fact is a loss of political power. Europe neither is Catholic, nor is it Protestant any longer.

Americans typically regard America to be a Christian nation; although, at least since the 1980’s that is recognizably declining as opinions go among prominent representatives of Protestant / Reformed, leaders. (Prominent as quotes go in major news outlets go.)

The answer to the question is nothing. Nothing was ever reformed. Schisms and heresies have only since followed.

You can easily find definitions for the word “democracy”, which will qualify the extant government of Rome, and I agree: it is not one pure government form, but a hybrid; dependent upon the various levels from local, to global.

 

[KathleenGee]

Gary…OK,…Chatty Kathy…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jose,

I think 184 and 191 address the matter - all to the same link with St. Clement.

Thanks for your help.

God bless.

Howdy Tom,



:knight2:

Is it from post # 184?

Thanks,

Jose

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi, Jose,

I think 184 and 191 address the matter - all to the same link with St. Clement.

Thanks for your help.

God bless.

From I Clement:

earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

CHAPTER 38 – LET THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH SUBMIT THEMSELVES, AND NO ONE EXALT HIMSELF ABOVE ANOTHER.

Let our whole body, then, be preserved in, Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gift bestowed upon him. Let the strong not despise the weak, and let the weak show respect to the strong. Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor; and let the poor man bless God, because He has given him one by whom his need may be supplied. Let the wise man display his wisdom, not by [mere] words, but through good deeds. Let the humble not bear testimony to himself, but leave witness to be borne to him by another. Let him that is pure in the flesh not grow proud of it, and boast, knowing that it was another who bestowed on him the gift of continence. Let us consider, then, brethren, of what matter we were made, – who and what manner of beings we came into the world, as it were out of a sepulchre, and from utter darkness. He who made us and fashioned us, having prepared His bountiful gifts for us before we were born, introduced us into His world. Since, therefore, we receive all these things from Him, we ought for everything to give Him thanks; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

CHAPTER 39 – THERE IS NO REASON FOR SELF-CONCEIT.

Foolish and inconsiderate men, who have neither wisdom nor instruction, mock and deride us, being eager to exalt themselves in their own conceits. For what can a mortal man do? or what strength is there in one made out of the dust? For it is written, “There was no shape before mine eyes, only I heard a sound, and a voice [saying], What then? Shall a man be pure before the Lord? or shall such an one be [counted] blameless in his deeds, seeing He does not confide in His servants, and has charged even His angels with perversity? The heaven is not clean in His sight: how much less they that dwell in houses of clay, of which also we ourselves were made! He smote them as a moth; and from morning even until evening they endure not. Because they could furnish no assistance to themselves, they perished. He breathed upon them, and they died, because they had no wisdom. But call now, if any one will answer you, or if you will look to any of the holy angels; for wrath destroys the foolish man, and envy kills him that is in error. I have seen the foolish taking root, but their habitation was presently consumed. Let their sons be far from safety; let them be despised before the gates of those less than themselves, and there shall be none to deliver. For what was prepared for them, the righteous shall eat; and they shall not be delivered from evil.”

CHAPTER 40 – LET US PRESERVE IN THE CHURCH THE ORDER APPOINTED BY GOD.

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable to Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

CHAPTER 41 – CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

CHAPTER 42 – THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

CHAPTER 42 – MOSES OF OLD STILLED THE CONTENTION WHICH AROSE CONCERNING THE PRIESTLY DIGNITY.

And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, “a faithful servant in all his house,” noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister to Him. And when the morning was come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think you, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

CHAPTER 44 – THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

There is much more to read but Clement is talking about the spirit of service that Christ talked about regarding the Apostles talking about who is the greatest passage. At the same time Clement talks about the importance of having order and submitting oneself to the prescribed authority of others - military and presbyters, deacons and bishops.

I hardly see anything against authority outside the boundaries of the servitude in Christ to one another.

Clement also proposed:

CHAPTER 32 – WE ARE JUSTIFIED NOT BY OUR OWN WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.
CHAPTER 33 – BUT LET US NOT OWE UP THE PRACTICE OF GOOD WORKS AND LOVE. GOD HIMSELF IS AN EXAMPLE TO US OF GOOD WORKS.
CHAPTER 34 – GREAT IS THE REWARD OF GOOD WORKS WITH GOD. JOINED TOGETHER IN HARMONY, LET US IMPLORE THAT REWARD FROM HIM.

We can’t talk about Chapter 32 alone , hehe sorry couldn’t pass it up

Peace,

Jose

 

[JonNC]

Originally by Porknpie
The early church believed in his words, the Orthodox believed his words and the same Luther that you quote above believed in his words although he said the how the bread and wine turned into his body and blood were a mystery.

You need to refresh yourself on Luthers view of ‘real presence’. You might be surprised. But you are correct, that as a reformed Baptist I do not hold to real presence. I hold to the words that we are to take the bread and the cup in remembrance of Jesus and his sacrifice. It’s surely different that transubstantiation, but I believe it.

I wish you every blessing.

Actually, Porknpie expresses Luther’s belief in the real presence rather accurately. Luther might not have said “turned into” (he would have said the bread and wine ARE the body and blood), but essentially he is correct.

Jon

 

[ahs]

Gary…OK,…Chatty Kathy…

HAHA! For what it’s worth…I’m enjoying your repsonses as well.

@Edwin (Contarini) : I see your point. I’m familiar with the “spiral argument” model that Keating discusses. For me it works…historical sources (some being books that also happen to be included in something call the “Canon of Scripture” ) tell us about a man who claimed to be the Christ, He established a Church, etc…and this Church began to spread the Gospel and out of that came this Canon of Scripture. But, I also realize that I’m looking at that through a “Catholic” lens. I’ve tried looking at it objectively and still come up satisfied…but I don’t know that I can be certain that I still don’t have those “Catholic glasses” on.

I just find myself at a loss when trying to determine how we can claim the Bible (as we know it today) is really the Word of God without an Authority to tell us, infallibly, that it is truly the Word of God (vs. the Koran or Book of Mormon…which both claim to be the word of God). Without some Authority in place, the sense of a ONE Church also falls apart because there is not definitive Authority to resolve conflicting views.

That’s why I keep asking for folks to reveal this authority, and from whence this authority claims its Authority…because if there is no authority, then how can one person even object to what anyone else is doing? In other words, without a recognition of an Authority, the “reformers” would have had nothing to protest against…nothing to reform…because there would have been no authority by which, or through which, they could point to and say, “these things you are doing are wrong and corrupt and need to be changed”.

 

[1voice]

Hi, 1Voice,

I’ll be honest with you - I have some quick evasions - but, I think you have set a new record!

So… instead of addressing what the poster says, you ambush the name he picked and then attempt to tarnish the reputation of a saint? Quite a stretch!

In picking up the original poster’s (SaintPatrick333) statement:

Originally Posted by SaintPatrick333
If every protestant actually looked into their church history and studied theology then there wouldn’t be any protestants.

Have you had a chance to look at your church’s history?

Now, if you are reluctant to say what it is you only want to hint at, here is a rather comprehensive but not exhaustive bio on St. Patrick of Ireland: newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

God bless

Derision of other expressions of Christianity seems to be the norm here. It always makes me chuckle.

---

Roman Catholicism didnt enter Ireland until after the Saxon Invasion.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jose,

Thank you for your help.

God bless

From I Clement:

earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

There is much more to read but Clement is talking about the spirit of service that Christ talked about regarding the Apostles talking about who is the greatest passage. At the same time Clement talks about the importance of having order and submitting oneself to the prescribed authority of others - military and presbyters, deacons and bishops.

I hardly see anything against authority outside the boundaries of the servitude in Christ to one another.

Clement also proposed:

CHAPTER 32 – WE ARE JUSTIFIED NOT BY OUR OWN WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.
CHAPTER 33 – BUT LET US NOT OWE UP THE PRACTICE OF GOOD WORKS AND LOVE. GOD HIMSELF IS AN EXAMPLE TO US OF GOOD WORKS.
CHAPTER 34 – GREAT IS THE REWARD OF GOOD WORKS WITH GOD. JOINED TOGETHER IN HARMONY, LET US IMPLORE THAT REWARD FROM HIM.

We can’t talk about Chapter 32 alone , hehe sorry couldn’t pass it up

Peace,

Jose

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1Voice,

Ah, could this be yet another evasion?

Once you finish your chuckle - why not answer the question printed below for your convenience:

Originally Posted by SaintPatrick333
If every protestant actually looked into their church history and studied theology then there wouldn’t be any protestants.

God bless

Derision of other expressions of Christianity seems to be the norm here. It always makes me chuckle.

---

Roman Catholicism didnt enter Ireland until after the Saxon Invasion.

 

[septimine]

My problem reguarding the protestant movements is that there is little reguard for what the apostles were actually about. Most of the movements are based on American Ideals. Not that there’s anything wrong with American ideals, but that there’s no historical basis for saying that anything we take for granted in modern Christianity is really true about ancient christians. We place a great emphasis on the text, but it’s not necessarily the way a new convert would see things. Many were literally slaves, so they wouldn’t have a lot of possessions, nor would they have had the skill to read a book, let alone Paul. So we’re much more likely to emphasize “the book” as in our culture, almost everyone is literate. We grew up in a culture of democracy and egalitarianism, something that wouldn’t have existed in Rome. In Rome, there was a hierarchy of power. If you weren’t given Roman citizenship, you were nothing, and a citizen was less important than governors and praetors and military guys of all stripes. Why would a “priesthood of all believers” imply egalitarianism if there was no such thing in that world?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I think the major problem Luther introduced into this view is that he dismissed ordination and created the ‘priesthood of all believers’. I honestly can see why he would have to do something - you not throw out the Bishop of Rome, and all the ordained clergy and expect to have the Sacraments (but, then he threw out 5 of the 7, eh?) to administer.

As far as I can tell, Luther really did believe in the Real Presence. (He also had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary… but, that is for another thread) Unfortunately, Luther’s actions tied not only his hands but those of future followers that condemn the Church founded by Christ on Peter. Luther simply could not have it both ways - picking what he liked from the Church he was condemning.

Lutherans, unlike the Orthodox, do not have the power to consecrate common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Actually, none of the 16th Century Protestants have this power because they all renounced everything Rome said and intentionally broke from Apostolic Succession. It is this Apostolic Succession that separated the Early Catholic Church from the early heretics: thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/apostolic-succession.html

God bless

Actually, Porknpie expresses Luther’s belief in the real presence rather accurately. Luther might not have said “turned into” (he would have said the bread and wine ARE the body and blood), but essentially he is correct.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

I think the major problem Luther introduced into this view is that he dismissed ordination and created the ‘priesthood of all believers’. I honestly can see why he would have to do something - you not throw out the Bishop of Rome, and all the ordained clergy and expect to have the Sacraments (but, then he threw out 5 of the 7, eh?) to administer.

As far as I can tell, Luther really did believe in the Real Presence. (He also had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary… but, that is for another thread) Unfortunately, Luther’s actions tied not only his hands but those of future followers that condemn the Church founded by Christ on Peter. Luther simply could not have it both ways - picking what he liked from the Church he was condemning.

Lutherans, unlike the Orthodox, do not have the power to consecrate common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Actually, none of the 16th Century Protestants have this power because they all renounced everything Rome said and intentionally broke from Apostolic Succession. It is this Apostolic Succession that separated the Early Catholic Church from the early heretics: thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/apostolic-succession.html

God bless

Thanks, Tom. I know this is Catholic teaching, and as a Catholic you are responsible to profess it, and I respect that.

Jon

EDIT: I might add that I believe you overstate Luther’s view of the priesthood, but again, you are welcome to your opinion. Oddly, it seems to be at some variance to what the USCCB has said in dialogue, and what Cardinal Ratzinger has siad about our Sacrament, but you and I have been through that before.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Septimine,

You have an interesting point of view.

As I understand the 16th Century Protestants (at least the majority of them) they were essentially European - no American ideals were yet really developed … the ink was still wet on the Mayflower Compact of 1620 (mayflowerhistory.com/PrimarySources/MayflowerCompact.php/ ) But, really all of the early Protestant Church authority tended to look to England (or Europe) for guidance.

In the time that the Colonies were developing their own character and individuality (before the Revolutionary War) that I think one can claim distinct ‘American Protestants’ came into their own. Now, I confess … I am really no Protestant historian - but, this is as honest a job as I can do on the topic.

If the idea is to go back to the Apostles - the 12 men initially chosen by Chist - the last of these was St John who died about 100AD. The real issue, at least as I see it - since the Chruch continued (and I submit this is the Catholic Church) we must look at what was happening between 101AD and Luther nailing his 95 Thesis to the church door in 1522. From my experience, Protestants do not really talk about this time period too much - mainly because they are conspicuous by their absence. During the 16th Century there was this open revolt combined with the use of the latest invention - the printing press. And then there are a lot of historical accounts of what happened next. But, how was Christianity safeguarded until 1522 is a genuine topic of concern.

God bless

My problem reguarding the protestant movements is that there is little reguard for what the apostles were actually about. Most of the movements are based on American Ideals. Not that there’s anything wrong with American ideals, but that there’s no historical basis for saying that anything we take for granted in modern Christianity is really true about ancient christians. We place a great emphasis on the text, but it’s not necessarily the way a new convert would see things. Many were literally slaves, so they wouldn’t have a lot of possessions, nor would they have had the skill to read a book, let alone Paul. So we’re much more likely to emphasize “the book” as in our culture, almost everyone is literate. We grew up in a culture of democracy and egalitarianism, something that wouldn’t have existed in Rome. In Rome, there was a hierarchy of power. If you weren’t given Roman citizenship, you were nothing, and a citizen was less important than governors and praetors and military guys of all stripes. Why would a “priesthood of all believers” imply egalitarianism if there was no such thing in that world?

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;9534852]

If the idea is to go back to the Apostles - the 12 men initially chosen by Chist - the last of these was St John who died about 100AD. The real issue, at least as I see it - since the Chruch continued (and I submit this is the Catholic Church) we must look at what was happening between 101AD and Luther nailing his 95 Thesis to the church door in 1522. From my experience, Protestants do not really talk about this time period too much - mainly because they are conspicuous by their absence. During the 16th Century there was this open revolt combined with the use of the latest invention - the printing press. And then there are a lot of historical accounts of what happened next. But, how was Christianity safeguarded until 1522 is a genuine topic of concern.

God bless

Tom,
Briefly,
Luther nailed the Theses on the church door in 1517, not 1522.
More importantly, to say that, *From my experience, Protestants do not really talk about this time period too much * indicates either the type of protestant you have had experience with, or some limitations on that experience. Classic protestants do an remarkable amount of studying of the early Church up to a the Reformation.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Luther nailed the Theses on the church door in 1517, not 1522.
More importantly, to say that, *From my experience, Protestants do not really talk about this time period too much * indicates either the type of protestant you have had experience with, or some limitations on that experience. Classic protestants do an remarkable amount of studying of the early Church up to a the Reformation.

Jon

I find this to be true. Including yourself Jon . I can attest this to be true for several friends and acquaintances. Further, most (if not all) see the Church divided but alive. In that East, West, Oriental and Anglican are all part of the One Church but divided for now. Some of my friends eagerly wait for union, some don’t and are still rooted on old divisions…

Peace,

Jose