The Reformation...reforming to What?

[mark_a]

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.In light of what JonNC points out about Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements about Lutheran Eucharist, I often wonder how or even if this applies to anyone but Catholics since the Church was speaking from a Catholic pov. After all, how would an illiterate 16th century Joe Catholic know either way? He most likely would have gone to the same church building and participated in a very similar liturgy. It must have a very confusing time.

 

[1voice]

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

I type during breaks in my biz schedule. Short and sweet.

History indicates clearly that Christianity flourished and grew in leaps and bounds before The Saxon invasion.

Later on…
Catholics created the vacuum that… what came to be known as “Protestants” … filled.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I stand corrrected - it was 1517 that the 95 Theses was nailed to the door.

So, let me try that sentence again …

"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 1517. "

There are actually limitations in both areas, Jon - but, the invitation is open to discuss what has taken place between 101 and 1517. Would you like to bring up one of those Protestant studies about this period?

God bless

=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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mark a,

Is this the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Even a theology along the lines of the concept of apostolic succession, as is in force in the Catholic and the Orthodox Church, should in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in the Evangelical Lord’s Supper.”

As I understand it, this was part of a letter in 1993 to Lutheran Bishop of Bavaria, Johannes Hanselmann.

Unless there is something else, this statement does not give me the idea that Christ is physically present in a Lutheran service as He is after the words of consecration are said at Catholic Mass. Christ was clear that, “Whenever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst” (Matt 18:20) Additionally, this was essentially a private letter from a Cardinal who later has become Pope. Blessed John Paul II wrote an encyclical, Dominus Jesus, where he identified the realtiy for Apostolic Succession. Here is a link: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

I am honestly not aware of Pope Benedict XVI having made any official statments to the contrary. Are you aware of something different?

Concerning the ‘…illiterate 16th century Joe Catholic…’ being very confused by what was going on, I would say that he would be most concerned about fearing for his life. The term, "Cuius regio, eius religio " where the ruler of the area determined the religion that would be allowed in this area created for a lot of stress and uncertainty (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio ).

God bless

In light of what JonNC points out about Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements about Lutheran Eucharist, I often wonder how or even if this applies to anyone but Catholics since the Church was speaking from a Catholic pov. After all, how would an illiterate 16th century Joe Catholic know either way? He most likely would have gone to the same church building and participated in a very similar liturgy. It must have a very confusing time.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1Voice,

To the best of my knowledge, there were no Protestants in the time period prior to the Saxon invasion of England in 450AD thenagain.info/webchron/westeurope/AngloSaxon.html Or, did you have some other date in mind?

Maybe the next time you take a break from your biz schedule, you could explain how this and the vacuum you claim Catholics created actually answers the question - repeated below for a third time:

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

Unless I miss my guess, it appears that you have evaded this item still again. Are you able to answer or do you just want to play games?

God bless

I type during breaks in my biz schedule. Short and sweet.

History indicates clearly that Christianity flourished and grew in leaps and bounds before The Saxon invasion.

Later on…
Catholics created the vacuum that… what came to be known as “Protestants” … filled.

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

I stand corrrected - it was 1517 that the 95 Theses was nailed to the door.

So, let me try that sentence again …

"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 1517. "

There are actually limitations in both areas, Jon - but, the invitation is open to discuss what has taken place between 101 and 1517. Would you like to bring up one of those Protestant studies about this period?

God bless

Well, Tom. I didn’t go to seminary, but I know many pastors who have. They, and theologians such as Pelakin, Pieper, Piepkorn, etc, had/have a great deal of knowledge in this area.
I think you already know this, Tom, but it seems that for Lutherans, the troubles aren’t what happened from 101 to 1517, but more what happened from just prior to 1054 to 1517.
Looking at the confessions and what I have been taught, Lutherans and Catholics essentially agree about the faith through the first 7 councils. We also agree to use the Filioque. Where we disagree seems to be more on the areas that have divided the Church since before the Reformation - the power and primacy of the pope, the holding as articles of faith the Marian doctrines of IC, Assumption, and to a lesser extent sempre virgo, and Purgatory and the related indugences, etc. It is also true that many of these are related to our differing views of soteriology, though again, the last 60 years have given us greater convergence on that.
I guess my point it that the apolegetic argument about what protestants believe happened from Pentecost to 1517 doesn’t necessarily apply to Lutherans. We know what happened. We accept the early councils and creeds. We honor and recognize the ECF’s. We recognize the Catholic priesthood and your sacraments as valid. We recognize the great gifts we have received from the Catholic Church - the sacraments, the word of God, etc., and give thanks for them.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

As you may have guessed … I did not go to seminary, either… As it turns out, all the priests I know did graduate from seminary… but you knew that already…

Now are you sure about that date of 1054? (I messed up on a date, so I guess that others can make mistakes in that area, too.) Here are three items from before 1054 you may be interested in -

Beginning in 155 - Early Chuch Fathers - belief in Immacuate Concetion (staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm )

Beginning in 189 - Early Church Fathers - belief in Mary, Mother of God (catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god)

1031 - Purgatory was declared a matter of Faith by the Council of Florence (newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm)

But the Catholic Church did not stop at some arbirtrary date. Council decrees are made because a specific item that most Catholics have taken as a matter of Faith were being attacked. For example, the Arian and Nestorian teachings were at one time novel, they challenged the common belief, were reviewed by different Councils and held both beliefs to be heretical. But, challenges did not stop there.

Rather then continue on with post 1054 items declared to be a matter of Faith for Catholics, let me invite you to focus on any one of these three (that way, we give justice to a topic as we wrok out the details)

Let me know if you are interested.

God bless

Well, Tom. I didn’t go to seminary, but I know many pastors who have. They, and theologians such as Pelakin, Pieper, Piepkorn, etc, had/have a great deal of knowledge in this area.
I think you already know this, Tom, but it seems that for Lutherans, the troubles aren’t what happened from 101 to 1517, but more what happened from just prior to 1054 to 1517.
Looking at the confessions and what I have been taught, Lutherans and Catholics essentially agree about the faith through the first 7 councils. We also agree to use the Filioque. Where we disagree seems to be more on the areas that have divided the Church since before the Reformation - the power and primacy of the pope, the holding as articles of faith the Marian doctrines of IC, Assumption, and to a lesser extent sempre virgo, and Purgatory and the related indugences, etc. It is also true that many of these are related to our differing views of soteriology, though again, the last 60 years have given us greater convergence on that.
I guess my point it that the apolegetic argument about what protestants believe happened from Pentecost to 1517 doesn’t necessarily apply to Lutherans. We know what happened. We accept the early councils and creeds. We honor and recognize the ECF’s. We recognize the Catholic priesthood and your sacraments as valid. We recognize the great gifts we have received from the Catholic Church - the sacraments, the word of God, etc., and give thanks for them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;9537316]Hi, JonNC,

As you may have guessed … I did not go to seminary, either… As it turns out, all the priests I know did graduate from seminary… but you knew that already…

Now are you sure about that date of 1054? (I messed up on a date, so I guess that others can make mistakes in that area, too.)
Oh, Tom. I only corrected the date so that lurkers would not be misled. I know you are smart enough and learned enough to know the date. I meant to disrespect or condescention. My apology if you took it that way.

Remember I said as articles of faith.

Here are three items from before 1054 you may be interested in -

Beginning in 155 - Early Chuch Fathers - belief in Immacuate Concetion (staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

)
The dogmatic definition took place in 1950. It isn’t the teaching Lutherans object to - Luther believed it in a general way, and so do I - it is the making it an article of faith.

Beginning in 189 - Early Church Fathers - belief in Mary, Mother of God (catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

)
Lutherans accept the Holy Theotokos.

1031 - Purgatory was declared a matter of Faith by the Council of Florence (newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

)
What is the level of acceptance of of Purgatory and the Council of Florence amongst the Orhtodox? Is the doctrine accepted by the undivided Church?

But the Catholic Church did not stop at some arbirtrary date. Council decrees are made because a specific item that most Catholics have taken as a matter of Faith were being attacked. For example, the Arian and Nestorian teachings were at one time novel, they challenged the common belief, were reviewed by different Councils and held both beliefs to be heretical. But, challenges did not stop there.

The issue will be which councils are general councils of the entire Church, and that’s the point I was making.

Rather then continue on with post 1054 items declared to be a matter of Faith for Catholics, let me invite you to focus on any one of these three (that way, we give justice to a topic as we wrok out the details)

How about this; please talk about why Holy Theotokos is accepted by the undivided Church, but Purgatory is not.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I did not take any offense. I made a mistake and you brought it to my attention, and I corrected it. The matter is resolved… I not have tattooed 1517 on my arm … right next to “Muddar”

You made a statement about the undivided Church (before the Great Schism in 1054)accepting the Holy Theotokos but not accepting Purgatory. I have no knowledge that they do not accept Prugatory. So, kindly give me a link that supports this division.

Now you said something that caught my eye.

The dogmatic definition took place in 1950. It isn’t the teaching Lutherans object to - Luther believed it in a general way, and so do I - it is the making it an article of faith.

The material I provided was from Early Church Fathers - information availabe to Luther. His objection had nothing to do with a dogmatic definition in 1950. Luther was objecting to a non-dogmatically defined item. His real objections were with the ECF and Sacred Tradition and the actons of Church Councils.

To claim that Councils after 1054 are not universal because the Orthocox left is strange - it would esssentially have a major schism tie the hands of Christ’s Church as it held it captive demanding their way. This makes no practical sense to me.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;9537531]Hi, JonNC,

I did not take any offense. I made a mistake and you brought it to my attention, and I corrected it. The matter is resolved… I not have tattooed 1517 on my arm … right next to “Muddar”
You have Muddar tattoed on your arm??

You made a statement about the undivided Church (before the Great Schism in 1054)accepting the Holy Theotokos but not accepting Purgatory. I have no knowledge that they do not accept Prugatory. So, kindly give me a link that supports this division.

orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

Now you said something that caught my eye.

Originally Posted by JonNC
The dogmatic definition took place in 1950. It isn’t the teaching Lutherans object to - Luther believed it in a general way, and so do I - it is the making it an article of faith.

The material I provided was from Early Church Fathers - information availabe to Luther. His objection had nothing to do with a dogmatic definition in 1950. Luther was objecting to a non-dogmatically defined item. His real objections were with the ECF and Sacred Tradition and the actons of Church Councils.

Actually, Tom, he didn’t object to the Assumption. * “There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”*

To claim that Councils after 1054 are not universal because the Orthocox left is strange - it would esssentially have a major schism tie the hands of Christ’s Church as it held it captive demanding their way. This makes no practical sense to me.

Perhaps not to you, Tom. To me, it leaves open the question regarding authority and Tradition. Who is right?

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Beginning in 155 - Early Chuch Fathers - belief in Immacuate Concetion (staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm )

The use of a word meaning “spotless” or “immaculate” does not constitute belief in the Immaculate Conception.

The Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary never experienced original sin. To believe in it, you must believe in original sin. There wasn’t a clearly defined belief in original sin before Augustine, so you won’t find any testimony to the IC before then. Augustine himself left the matter open in at least one passage, saying something like “who knows what grace God gave Mary to overcome original sin.” But until the late 13th century (Duns Scotus) most of the big names in Western Catholic theology were against it (Aquinas, for instance).

Beginning in 189 - Early Church Fathers - belief in Mary, Mother of God (catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

That’s the traditional way of putting it, but the reality of doctrinal development is clearly more complicated. In many cases the belief is previously held only in a vague and implicit way.

Edwin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1031 - Purgatory was declared a matter of Faith by the Council of Florence (newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm)

Hi Tom,

Edwin is correct.

Council of Florence

SESSION 8 22 November 1439 [Bull of union with the Armenians]

When the aforesaid decree had been solemnly read out in our and the holy synod’s presence, straightaway our beloved son Narses, an Armenian, in the name of the said envoys, publicly recited the following in Armenian and thereupon our beloved son Basil of the order of friars Minor, the interpreter between us and the Armenians, publicly read it out in Latin as follows.

Most blessed father and most holy synod. Recently the whole of this holy decree, which has now been read out in Latin in your presence, was clearly explained and interpreted to us word by word in our language. It was and is completely acceptable to us. To disclose our understanding more fully, however, we repeat its contents in summary.

The following is contained in it. First, you give to our people of the Armenians the holy creed of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, to be sung or read within the mass in our churches at least on Sundays and greater feasts. Secondly, the definition of the fourth universal council of Chalcedon about two natures in the one person of Christ. Thirdly, the definition about the two wills and principles of action of Christ which was promulgated in the sixth universal council.

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees.

The 1031 is in reference to

(Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031)

, Gian Domenico Mansi, and my best guess is that 1031 refers to a column? or collection?.

Peace,

Jose

 

[mark_a]

"Even a theology along the lines of the concept of apostolic succession, as is in force in the Catholic and the Orthodox Church, should in no way deny the saving presence of the Lord in the Evangelical Lord’s Supper."I think this is the quote that JonNC used in his caf signature.

Unless there is something else, this statement does not give me the idea that Christ is physically present in a Lutheran service as He is after the words of consecration are said at Catholic Mass.

 

[Radical]

And who decides what is an already in-place doctrine that is unfolding, with God overseeing it…vs. what is a man-made doctrine?

the person(s) to whom the claim is addressed…one decides for oneself what it is that one will believe.

And is Tertullian the only ECF that get s voice here?

I wouldn’t suggest that

It seems he is the only one you want to use.

you had asked:
Are there writings that match the earliest of writings yet contradicts the later, yet still early, writings?
And I pointed to Tertullian and his views on Mary….by all means reference an earlier ECF to show the existence of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary…or reference later ones and then properly explain why Mary was given such little consideration prior to those later references and why those later references should not be seen as being part of a post-apostolic innovation.

I just want to know who decides what doctrines are man-made and which are already-in-place-Doctrines-that-are-unfolding.

well, in your case it would seem that you have decided that you will believe that they are the unfolding of doctrines.

And by whose standard are we measuring what constitutes the undergoing of changes?

I think it comes down to the study of history, the study of scripture and the application of sound reasoning

I can look at the words of Christ and the Apostles and see Apostolic Succession pretty clearly.

that is pretty impressive….how about providing your working definition of “apostolic succession” and then showing where the ideas behind that definition are clearly expressed in scripture.

So the ECF’s are less valuable as time goes by…so by what date, would you say, do they start to become less valuable? What would be the cut-off date to read extra-Biblical sources to find clarification on Christian Doctrine?

well, why don’t you tell me. I would suggest that for an addition, the following would be needed:

1. A fellow with enough pious imagination to come up with an idea;
2. That fellow to have the ego to put forward that idea; and
3. That fellow to have enough of a reputation for others to listen.

How much time is necessary for those things to fall into place?

So there is no ECF that says anything about the Church in this regard? I don’t recall Peter going to Scripture to determine if circumcision was necessary…

are you thinking about Acts 15 where the scriptures indicate that it was James who rendered the judgement?

… I believe he was able to recognize some other infallible source other than Scripture, no?

the letter that is sent out is from the apostles, elders and the congregation and they claim that the decision seemed good to the Holy Spirit. So it seems that we should be looking for the presence of the Holy Spirit, and as indicated before, the apostles backed up their claim to speak on behalf of God with signs and wonders….and it would seem that they also ran the decision passed the congregation. Is that the precedent that you would like to follow?

I said “…the Church that Christ promised would never fall to the gates of hell and which the Holy Spirit would guide in truth”. Are you saying Christ did not establish such a Church and that He did not protect it from the gates of hell and that He did not promise the Holy Spirit would guide it in truth? How is this a self-serving interpretation? Either Christ did or He didn’t.

Actually you said:
Why not go straight to the source that is infallible…teh Church that Christ promised would never fall to the gates of hell and which the Holy Spirit would guide in truth?
The self-serving bit would be:

a) Identifying the CC as the Church of Christ’s promise;

b) Then interpreting the promise to mean that the CC is infallible

“guiding into truth” could be understood to mean “providing with scripture”…interpreting it to mean “ensuring that the official teachings of the CC are kept free of error” is reading a whole lot between the lines to arrive at a subjective opinion. If you are going to insist that a passage establishes your claim, then the passage must actually make that claim in no uncertain words.

Again…THEY saw doctrine as being filled with error. For them to say doctrine was in error necessarily subjected the doctrine to someone’s opinions.

and why should one believe that the doctrine in question wasn’t just someone else’s opinions?

If there was no Authority that Christ put in place, how many opinions of how many people would make for how many different doctrines? That’s why, IMHO, Christ established Authority in His Church…why He promised the Holy Spirit to guide the ONE Church that He established in truth and why only one man was given the Keys of the Kingdom. It’s why He tells His Apostles, “whoever listens to you, listens to me…whoever rejects you, rejects Me…”

this seems to be your logic:

a) As per John 17:23 Christ desired unity for all who would believe in Christ through the apostles’ message

b) w/o an authority in place to define all doctrine, believer’s would be left with their subjective opinions to define the doctrine

c) with subjective opinions defining doctrine the inevitable result is numerous divisions (see the numerous protestant denominations as proof)

d) therefore, Christ for the sake of and to enable unity, established the needed authority(being the magisterium of the CC)

This reasoning, however, is really just your subjective opinion as to how God would work……and I don’t see how it is superior to this:

A) As per John 17:23 Christ desired unity for all who would believe in Christ through the apostles’ message(please note that it is unity for all those who believe in Christ)

B) an infallible teaching authority (ITA) could be the means of achieving the unity Christ prayed for.

C) an ITA could only effectively serve as the means of achieving unity if it was established by Christ in an irrefutable manner, otherwise the truth as to the identity of the ITA becomes subjective …and Christ would have known of this need and would have acted to fulfill it

D) conservative Catholics recognize the Catholic magisterium as being that ITA and, in contrast, far more than half of all believers in Christ do not recognize the magisterium of the CC as the ITA (see the Orthodox, Protestants and all those non-conservative Catholics who reject teachings from the Catholic magisterium as proof) establishing that the ITA was not established in an irrefutable manner; and

E) therefore, an ITA was not the means Christ employed to achieve the unity among all believers.

The above, of course, merely builds on what Contarini wrote:

The “spiral argument” popularized by Karl Keating (though it’s also found in the Catholic Encyclopedia) doesn’t work for two reasons: Its premises about what can be “proven” about Scripture based on historical evidence are clearly false, and more to the point here, its methodology is exactly the same as that of the Protestants. I.e., it assumes that one can engage in historical inquiry that reaches certain results and doesn’t need an a priori “authority” in order to do so. So if it were possible to prove historically that Jesus gave the keys to Peter and established an infallible Church (which it clearly isn’t–this is actually one of the clearest empirical instances of a point on which learned people of good will definitely disagree), that would disprove the general claim that one always needs “authority” to make such determinations.

And Christ did not make Truth or unity dependent upon lack of corruption or fallibility of men.

I haven’t claimed that truth is dependent on a lack of corruption…I said that from the evidence that we have (scripture) of how God works, we can see a very, very strong correlation between speakers of truth and a lack of corruption

When Peter denied Christ 3 times did Christ say, “sorry, this was an error…you are no longer going to be the sole holder of the keys…”? When Paul believed that Peter was in error, did Paul say, “you are wrong Peter and I’m not going to associate with you…”? I don’t think that’s quite how it happened is it?

again what you need to show is a period of corruption overlapping with a period where they were infallible/ kept from making errors

My argument is: Since Christ established only one Church and protected His Church from error and He called for unity, it is wrong to separate from that one Church…because in doing so one rejects Christ’s call for unity and separates himself from the Church that Christ established.

and a reformer’s argument is: The CC has diverged from the Church Christ founded by adding erroneous doctrine (including claiming an inappropriate authority for itself). Therefore, given that the CC refuses to eliminate the doctrinal error, to remain with the CC (and affirm that wrongly claimed authority) would be to reject the truth and embrace error

 

[mark_a]

D) conservative Catholics recognize the Catholic magisterium as being that ITA and, in contrast, far more than half of all believers in Christ do not recognize the magisterium of the CC as the ITA (see the Orthodox, Protestants and all those non-conservative Catholics who reject teachings from the Catholic magisterium as proof) establishing that the ITA was not established in an irrefutable manner; and

You do not help your position by comparing non-Catholics with lax Catholics.

 

[kbf1970060]

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. … 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 … we are ecclesial deists and believe the Lord is big enough, strong enough, and God enough to have His church run by sinners, … , chosen men, consecrated in Spirit and truth. … The ancient Jews did not have a bible in their homes. Jesus did not pass out Bibles. All was based on the oral tradition. … 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. … 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.

Thank you, I enjoyed reading your post: I am unfamiliar with The Council of Florence, and will look it up; I had not thought quite the same way about how Fundamentalists accomplished their goals, but I have thought similarly about them.

 

[kbf1970060]

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 …

… 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. … Luther’s revolt did bring about not only a reform … Luther pointed out that indulgences were in fact being sold … He was right to identify the problem, …

Thank you for providing the links, somewhere along the line, I became a little confused about the sale of indulgences: I came about to understanding it through a display of relics at church a few yrs. ago: the purchase not being for the relics themselves, but the containers and the like, which in the same time period, led to reading about indulgences, because I had thought, that The Reformation had done away with them; I was surprised to open a missal, and find the word “indulgences”. Maybe I imagined the sale of indulgences to be what can easily be a similar generalization: the parchment, the ink, the expenses covered, or further donations accepted to build The Bascilica, it was / is said, “Indulgences were sold.”.

I spoke a generalization about Rome being democratic, as a generalization; however much of a similarity does – The Devil is in the details: do I define “The Church” as Jesus? Well of course, but to argue “The Church” is Jesus alone: well then, I ought to become a Fundamentalist, though, they have their government structures as well. The body politic of The Church, is of course a vast network, hierarchical, and I can only speak to it as a lay person. The Pope doesn’t do much in my church, but we have three priests at just about any given time. The Bishop in Sacramento doesn’t do much in my church, either, but the three priests have among Holy Orders obedience to a bishop of one diocese, or another. There may not be much of anything particularly democratic about this at first sight, it resembles more greatly monarchical powers with their adherence to laws, local or global, of a diocese and of a Code of Canon Law. But there seems to be much that is democratic in so far as so many bodies of peoples, set in councils, like The Knights of Columbus for instance, which may or may not have its voting by-laws.

What was more on my mind, about the government of Rome, is the work of Christ through those republics, governors, both of Jesus day, and prior to … so many republics, senators, governors, etc… It’s a generalization. But I like thinking about it in terms of an empire which – yes – collapsed but seemingly more through conversion to catholicism, than through military defeat. The Vatican is not without its military, but … it’s somewhat of a digression. However much of it was more dictatorial than anything else, well, I’ll take your word for it: it looks similar enough to common views of communism, clearly democratic by way of structure, but clearly given over to despotism as well at times.

I don’t know how after so many wars, and the like, it could be: there was a Reformation. Neither Calvin, nor Luther, were in The Church, and the same with their followers. The Church countered not to the effect of reforming, but in loose terms, being ecumenical.

It’s difficult to see eye-to-eye: I have many changes through faith to undergo, and have undergone many as it goes, and I have to be a bit clumsy in how I communicate so many matters.

I’ve done some looking back at my family’s history as a Lutheran, and student in Fundamentalist schools, and my family’s involvement, too, with The Masons, and a path of sorts, rooted in India, through Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and really, it is amazing, that even when reading The Bible among Protestants, and Fundamentalists, so much is easily; to be kind: “missed”. I don’t mind so much all I have done and gone through as a Catholic since 1981, but wow! Some of the younger older people at my church, have passed along sayings of various sorts, and it’s like … well, to tweak a more familiar saying, “Give 'em an inch: they’ll take you a mile.”. Get that inch in The Church, and the length travelled across so many years may be quite a mile to go, and I do tweak that around to a more positive slant. Maybe parents as Catholics look at what they did raise their children, and seeing them off on their own as adults; they think; we gave 'em at least an inch, maybe they’ll make that mile: given their own way now with their own will.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mark a,

I think I have taken this really as far as I am capable - there are two centuries worth of documents concerning the Real Presence in the Catholic Church.

When I look at the preponderence of evidence - and compare a private letter from a Cardinal who later becomes Pope with the official documents of Catholic teaching, I just can not how see this private lettter negates what has gone before. Additionally, I do not think Pope Benedict XVI has made any further statements in the area of non-Catholics and the Real Presence that would contradict any of the previous teachings of the Catholic Church. In my personal opinion, this private letter can not trump the other documents.

Yes, I can see how you would conclude the meaning of ‘Evangelical Lord’s Supper’. It this were the only thing in print - I’d go for it, too. But, thre are other documents, and this requires serious attention. In light of this - just what is Benedict XVI telling us?

God bless

I think this is the quote that JonNC used in his caf signature.

“Evangelical Lord’s Supper” was understood by me to be not just a simple gathering of 2 or 3, but a Lutheran eucharist. Although it would not be for Catholics to partake, it seems we would wish only the best for Lutherans receiving their own eucharist. After all, it is my understanding they practice closed communion too.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kbf,

Good post!

Thanks for sharing some of your personal story.

Nothing is ever ‘easy’ - but many things can be made simple: keep you mind of following Chrit a all times.

God bless

Thank you for providing the links, somewhere along the line, I became a little confused about the sale of indulgences: I came about to understanding it through a display of relics at church a few yrs. ago: the purchase not being for the relics themselves, but the containers and the like, which in the same time period, led to reading about indulgences, because I had thought, that The Reformation had done away with them; I was surprised to open a missal, and find the word “indulgences”. Maybe I imagined the sale of indulgences to be what can easily be a similar generalization: the parchment, the ink, the expenses covered, or further donations accepted to build The Bascilica, it was / is said, “Indulgences were sold.”.

I spoke a generalization about Rome being democratic, as a generalization; however much of a similarity does – The Devil is in the details: do I define “The Church” as Jesus? Well of course, but to argue “The Church” is Jesus alone: well then, I ought to become a Fundamentalist, though, they have their government structures as well. The body politic of The Church, is of course a vast network, hierarchical, and I can only speak to it as a lay person. The Pope doesn’t do much in my church, but we have three priests at just about any given time. The Bishop in Sacramento doesn’t do much in my church, either, but the three priests have among Holy Orders obedience to a bishop of one diocese, or another. There may not be much of anything particularly democratic about this at first sight, it resembles more greatly monarchical powers with their adherence to laws, local or global, of a diocese and of a Code of Canon Law. But there seems to be much that is democratic in so far as so many bodies of peoples, set in councils, like The Knights of Columbus for instance, which may or may not have its voting by-laws.

What was more on my mind, about the government of Rome, is the work of Christ through those republics, governors, both of Jesus day, and prior to … so many republics, senators, governors, etc… It’s a generalization. But I like thinking about it in terms of an empire which – yes – collapsed but seemingly more through conversion to catholicism, than through military defeat. The Vatican is not without its military, but … it’s somewhat of a digression. However much of it was more dictatorial than anything else, well, I’ll take your word for it: it looks similar enough to common views of communism, clearly democratic by way of structure, but clearly given over to despotism as well at times.

I don’t know how after so many wars, and the like, it could be: there was a Reformation. Neither Calvin, nor Luther, were in The Church, and the same with their followers. The Church countered not to the effect of reforming, but in loose terms, being ecumenical.

It’s difficult to see eye-to-eye: I have many changes through faith to undergo, and have undergone many as it goes, and I have to be a bit clumsy in how I communicate so many matters.

I’ve done some looking back at my family’s history as a Lutheran, and student in Fundamentalist schools, and my family’s involvement, too, with The Masons, and a path of sorts, rooted in India, through Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and really, it is amazing, that even when reading The Bible among Protestants, and Fundamentalists, so much is easily; to be kind: “missed”. I don’t mind so much all I have done and gone through as a Catholic since 1981, but wow! Some of the younger older people at my church, have passed along sayings of various sorts, and it’s like … well, to tweak a more familiar saying, “Give 'em an inch: they’ll take you a mile.”. Get that inch in The Church, and the length travelled across so many years may be quite a mile to go, and I do tweak that around to a more positive slant. Maybe parents as Catholics look at what they did raise their children, and seeing them off on their own as adults; they think; we gave 'em at least an inch, maybe they’ll make that mile: given their own way now with their own will.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

I was beginning to wonder about the delay in your responses date…but, I see you have managed very wll!

As I see it, you are simply offering moral relativism as your answer. You are effectively dening not only the existence of objective truth… but that man can act on it. The criteria for moral relativism is, "Whatever I believe … today … is my belief. It has become obvious that you are only interestd in providing your opinion - and ths post is devoid of any references to back up your multiple statemtnts.

Equally obvious is your total reliance on Trrtulia because you rely on him most heroically to the exclusin of all of the other ECFs. Not many ECFs left the Catholic Church to join up with a heresy - could this be the reason for your interest i this man?

God bless

QUOTE=Radical;9540136]the person(s) to whom the claim is addresse

d…one decides for oneself what it is that one will believe.
I wouldn’t suggest that
you had asked:
Are there writings that match the earliest of writings yet contradicts the later, yet still early, writings?
And I pointed to Tertullian and his views on Mary….by all means reference an earlier ECF to show the existence of the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary…or reference later ones and then properly explain why Mary was given such little consideration prior to those later references and why those later references should not be seen as being part of a post-apostolic innovation.
well, in your case it would seem that you have decided that you will believe that they are the unfolding of doctrines.
I think it comes down to the study of history, the study of scripture and the application of sound reasoning
that is pretty impressive….how about providing your working definition of “apostolic succession” and then showing where the ideas behind that definition are clearly expressed in scripture.
well, why don’t you tell me. I would suggest that for an addition, the following would be needed:

1. A fellow with enough pious imagination to come up with an idea;
2. That fellow to have the ego to put forward that idea; and
3. That fellow to have enough of a reputation for others to listen.

How much time is necessary for those things to fall into place?
are you thinking about Acts 15 where the scriptures indicate that it was James who rendered the judgement?
the letter that is sent out is from the apostles, elders and the congregation and they claim that the decision seemed good to the Holy Spirit. So it seems that we should be looking for the presence of the Holy Spirit, and as indicated before, the apostles backed up their claim to speak on behalf of God with signs and wonders….and it would seem that they also ran the decision passed the congregation. Is that the precedent that you would like to follow?

Actually you said:
Why not go straight to the source that is infallible…teh Church that Christ promised would never fall to the gates of hell and which the Holy Spirit would guide in truth?
The self-serving bit would be:

a) Identifying the CC as the Church of Christ’s promise;

b) Then interpreting the promise to mean that the CC is infallible

“guiding into truth” could be understood to mean “providing with scripture”…interpreting it to mean “ensuring that the official teachings of the CC are kept free of error” is reading a whole lot between the lines to arrive at a subjective opinion. If you are going to insist that a passage establishes your claim, then the passage must actually make that claim in no uncertain words.
and why should one believe that the doctrine in question wasn’t just someone else’s opinions?
this seems to be your logic:

a) As per John 17:23 Christ desired unity for all who would believe in Christ through the apostles’ message

b) w/o an authority in place to define all doctrine, believer’s would be left with their subjective opinions to define the doctrine

c) with subjective opinions defining doctrine the inevitable result is numerous divisions (see the numerous protestant denominations as proof)

d) therefore, Christ for the sake of and to enable unity, established the needed authority(being the magisterium of the CC)

This reasoning, however, is really just your subjective opinion as to how God would work……and I don’t see how it is superior to this:

A) As per John 17:23 Christ desired unity for all who would believe in Christ through the apostles’ message(please note that it is unity for all those who believe in Christ)

B) an infallible teaching authority (ITA) could be the means of achieving the unity Christ prayed for.

C) an ITA could only effectively serve as the means of achieving unity if it was established by Christ in an irrefutable manner, otherwise the truth as to the identity of the ITA becomes subjective …and Christ would have known of this need and would have acted to fulfill it

D) conservative Catholics recognize the Catholic magisterium as being that ITA and, in contrast, far more than half of all believers in Christ do not recognize the magisterium of the CC as the ITA (see the Orthodox, Protestants and all those non-conservative Catholics who reject teachings from the Catholic magisterium as proof) establishing that the ITA was not established in an irrefutable manner; and

E) therefore, an ITA was not the means Christ employed to achieve the unity among all believers.

The above, of course, merely builds on what Contarini wrote:

I haven’t claimed that truth is dependent on a lack of corruption…I said that from the evidence that we have (scripture) of how God works, we can see a very, very strong correlation between speakers of truth and a lack of corruption
again what you need to show is a period of corruption overlapping with a period where they were infallible/ kept from making errors
and a reformer’s argument is: The CC has diverged from the Church Christ founded by adding erroneous doctrine (including claiming an inappropriate authority for itself). Therefore, given that the CC refuses to eliminate the doctrinal error, to remain with the CC (and affirm that wrongly claimed authority) would be to reject the truth and embrace error