What Do Protestants Believe About the Early Church?

[JonNC]

=Jon S;13491879]My understanding is the church does not decide on dogmayic issues until they are challenged.

The church follows Matt 18 on this.

Who in the Catholic Church challenged the Assumption around the time of 1950?
Why was it not a point of challenge long before, as even the Orthodox teaching of Dormition is not exactly the same?

So one could say during the council of Nicea, “why the need to define this after 350 years!”

But it was disputed and needed clarity and the church was called upon to act.

Called upon at the time of the challenge.

Similarly after Protestantism increasingly rejected issues of Mary and these issues posed threat to future Catholics, the Pope (himself in this case as a council would be unanimous) declared the dogma clearly so future generations would not be led astray.

Did the CC not consider the Orthodox teaching as a threat? The fact is, Jon, no Catholic was required to believe it, until 1950. The Lutheran practice remains what the Catholic practice was, prior to 1950. I am free to, and actually do believe that the Blessed Virgin was assumed to Heaven, probably after her death. Where else would she be than with her Son?

So I really don’t see it as coming out of no where or as some arbitrary thing.

I don’t see it as arbitrary or coming out of nowhere either. Luther believed the Assumption, in a reasonable way, long before it was required. The teaching has always been there. That’s not the point. The teaching has actually changed now. Now the conscience of the Catholic believer is bound to it, even though it never before was an article of faith.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

The Marian dogmas drew on the tradition of faith of Christian peoples going back.

Also Pope Pius XII extraordinarily directed the Church in such terrible times. All we can say is it was the Holy Spirit Who moved Pius to work to defining this dogma. And he could not do so without the full consent of the bishops in communion with him.

The Orthodox believe in the Dormition of Mary.

The Assumption is just that. Because Mary did not sin, we assume she was gloriously taken up to heaven but we don’t know how. I don’t see how such a dogma can challenge the Orthodox position of Mary. I see it as looking at the event from a different cultural background. But both Churches essentially see Mary as not deserving the wages of sin, which is death.

But beyond this, the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into heaven is a dogma of faith. As a Catholic this was the one difficult for me, also for my mother. But when I began to study asceticism by Drs of the Church, primarily SS Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila regarding union with God, then I could see Mary’s route to the divine was different than ours because we are sinners and deserve death.

Contemplating on the Assumption of Mary into heaven takes away the edge of me deserving death for my sins. She is my advocate. She is our advocate.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t see it as arbitrary or coming out of nowhere either. Luther believed the Assumption, in a reasonable way, long before it was required. The teaching has always been there. That’s not the point. The teaching has actually changed now. Now the conscience of the Catholic believer is bound to it, even though it never before was an article of faith.

Jon

“The teaching has always been there”

But you claim the teaching is changed because now the Church says “you must believe this teaching that has always been there”

I don’t see that as a change, I see that as saying "In light of all the protestant sects (perhaps all but Lutherans) that are attacking Mary and accusing us of idolatry, I must firmly and clearly state that this teaching, that has always been taught, is in fact a dogma of the faith. "

If it was always taught, it was a dogma whether it was “declared” or not.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christians have always believed Mary’s passing was not like ours.

To define a dogma, it is based on the long held tradition of faith held by believers. It is the Holy Spirit Who inspires the pope. The timing in 1950…There is the feast of the Transfiguration August 6 where we have a foretaste of Christ’s coming divine ministry from heaven.

Then the atomic bomb is dropped on Japan and it is said that many of the Catholics in Nagasaki were gloriously taken up to heaven. The bomb dropped over the church of St. Mary when Japanese Catholics were waiting in line for confession. Ironically the two bombs, the other over Hiroshima, had names, ‘Trinity’ and ‘Fat Boy’. And Nagasaki was not a target, but all the targets had cloud cover, and when the sky cleared, the bomb was dropped over Nagasaki.

The atomic bomb changed the world…and even though the world was now free of Naziism and Japanese imperialism, the world now felt even less safe with the atomic bomb. I had to get under my desk at school so that doing so, I would be protected from an atomic bomb and knew such a thing did no good.

So then the war ended in mid August. But the image that we could be taken up in fire…having the feast day of the Assumption August 15 is a consolation to us that believe.

 

[JonNC]

“The teaching has always been there”

But you claim the teaching is changed because now the Church says “you must believe this teaching that has always been there”

I don’t see that as a change, I see that as saying "In light of all the protestant sects (perhaps all but Lutherans) that are attacking Mary and accusing us of idolatry, I must firmly and clearly state that this teaching, that has always been taught, is in fact a dogma of the faith. "

If it was always taught, it was a dogma whether it was “declared” or not.

If it was not required, then Catholics were free to bind to it, or not. What Protestants taught was irrelevant. Well, it was irrelevant for 400 years until 1950. Then, suddenly, Catholics needed to be required to believe it.
I might add that few Protestants “attack” Mary.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

If it was not required, then Catholics were free to bind to it, or not. What Protestants taught was irrelevant. Well, it was irrelevant for 400 years until 1950. Then, suddenly, Catholics needed to be required to believe it.
I might add that few Protestants “attack” Mary.

Jon

You cannot answer for me why someone should not be bound or believe something that has always been taught.

Why would anyone do that? Why should they?

 

[JonNC]

You cannot answer for me why someone should not be bound or believe something that has always been taught.

Why would anyone do that? Why should they?

What I am saying is that someone should not be bound to believe something that was not a required belief since the beginning in the Church. The Church for 1900 years did not see fit to require it, to make it an article of faith.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

What I am saying is that someone should not be bound to believe something that was not a required belief since the beginning in the Church. The Church for 1900 years did not see fit to require it, to make it an article of faith.

Jon

But the nice be creed was not required in the beginning. So are you saying it’s ok to deny that. That Arians or Mormons or whoever do not need to be bound to that to be Christian?

It seems like you are moving goal posts to make your position.

 

[JonNC]

What I am saying is that someone should not be bound to believe something that was not a required belief since the beginning in the Church. The Church for 1900 years did not see fit to require it, to make it an article of faith.

Jon

I need to rephrase this. The CC can determine it appropriate to bind its members to a belief if it chooses. What seems strange to me is criticism of other communions that choose to continue to allow its members the same liberty the Church had allowed for 1900 years

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But the nice be creed was not required in the beginning. So are you saying it’s ok to deny that. That Arians or Mormons or whoever do not need to be bound to that to be Christian?

It seems like you are moving goal posts to make your position.

The Nicene Creed was determined at a truly ecumenical council, and it is about true faith. I also think the Church reveals the how dramatically more important the doctrine of the Trinity is, as expressed in the creeds.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

I need to rephrase this. The CC can determine it appropriate to bind its members to a belief if it chooses. What seems strange to me is criticism of other communions that choose to continue to allow its members the same liberty the Church had allowed for 1900 years

Jon

Ok that’s a more understandable perspective. I think it comes from a feeling the church is truly Catholic (universal) and should not be fractured into denominationalism with countless doctrinal positions.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Nicene Creed was determined at a truly ecumenical council, and it is about true faith. I also think the Church reveals the how dramatically more important the doctrine of the Trinity is, as expressed in the creeds.

Jon

Curiously, didn’t Luther bind his followers to various positions, one of which was a new teaching of sola scriptura, and others such as Marian doctrines he defended?

 

[JonNC]

Ok that’s a more understandable perspective. I think it comes from a feeling the church is truly Catholic (universal) and should not be fractured into denominationalism with countless doctrinal positions.

I would agree with that. I think this would be the reason for insisting on truly ecumenical councils.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Curiously, didn’t Luther bind his followers to various positions, one of which was a new teaching of sola scriptura, and others such as Marian doctrines he defended?

Sola scriptura is not a teaching. It is a practice, and not a doctrine. The Marian doctrines Lutherans are bound to are the same ones from the early Church and scripture: The Holy Theotokos, and the Virgin Birth. Even the belief in the perpetual virginity is justified under the teachings on the Person of Christ.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

What I am saying is that someone should not be bound to believe something that was not a required belief since the beginning in the Church. The Church for 1900 years did not see fit to require it, to make it an article of faith.

Jon

There are many dogmas that fit this category, the Trinity not the least. Hypostatic union, Theotokos, etc. The Nicean Creed was not developed for centuries.

These things belong to the Once for All Divine Deposit of faith, whether they were defined more exactly later, ,or not. One cannot say that, since the term “Trinity” was not used by the Apostles or the Scriptures, it was not an article of the faith.

I need to rephrase this. The CC can determine it appropriate to bind its members to a belief if it chooses. What seems strange to me is criticism of other communions that choose to continue to allow its members the same liberty the Church had allowed for 1900 years

Jon

I think what you are calling a “liberty” is more of a responsibility. It is the duty of the Church to hold, protect, defend and promulgate the faith. When it is questioned/attacked she must provide clarity to the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

The Nicene Creed was determined at a truly ecumenical council, and it is about true faith. I also think the Church reveals the how dramatically more important the doctrine of the Trinity is, as expressed in the creeds.

Jon

I can’t argue on the “truly ecumenical council point”. I have the same concern.

But it is still about the true faith, and the Church is revealing how dramatically important the doctrine is.

Sola scriptura is not a teaching. It is a practice, and not a doctrine. The Marian doctrines Lutherans are bound to are the same ones from the early Church and scripture: The Holy Theotokos, and the Virgin Birth. Even the belief in the perpetual virginity is justified under the teachings on the Person of Christ.

Jon

When I was in seminary, SS was introduced as a doctrine. However it is characterized, it is certainly something Luther taught and defended. It was a significant innovation that resulted in the fracturing of Western Christendom.

I remember reading that Calvin thought Luther was too contaminiated by Catholicism, and that is why he never “got over” all those Marian doctrines. I wish I could remember where I read that. I have also read that Calvin embraced these Marian doctrines, but I don’t thik he prayed the Rosary like Luther did.

 

[JonNC]

guanophore;13495639]There are many dogmas that fit this category, the Trinity not the least. Hypostatic union, Theotokos, etc. The Nicean Creed was not developed for centuries.

3 centuries, not 19. But more importantly, all three of the mentioned dogmas are about Christ. And while the assumption of the Blessed Virgin is indirectly about Christ, it simply doesn’t fall into the same category. and think that is an important point when looking at those 3 centuries compared to 19.

These things belong to the Once for All Divine Deposit of faith, whether they were defined more exactly later, ,or not. One cannot say that, since the term “Trinity” was not used by the Apostles or the Scriptures, it was not an article of the faith.

I disagree. The Assumption, etc., were obviously not considered significant enough to dogmatically declare by the early Church, even into the 1500’s, the 1800’s. Catholics had the liberty to believe or not. It was, in many ways, a pious belief that was permitted, perhaps even encouraged.

I think what you are calling a “liberty” is more of a responsibility. It is the duty of the Church to hold, protect, defend and promulgate the faith. When it is questioned/attacked she must provide clarity to the faithful.

I asked this earlier: who in Communion with the Bishop of Rome questioned it leading up to 1950? It seems unreasonable to say it was some protestants, because some protestants rejected it long before 1950. Further, the doctrine lacks clarity, in that is doesn’t state whether or not she was assumed before or after death. Orthodox Dormition is clearer in this regard.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;13495656]I can’t argue on the “truly ecumenical council point”. I have the same concern.

But it is still about the true faith, and the Church is revealing how dramatically important the doctrine is.

Guan, 1900 years after Christ’s assension, the Church decides to reveal how important it is? Can you understand why even I, who in general terms agrees with the teaching, am skeptical?

When I was in seminary, SS was introduced as a doctrine. However it is characterized, it is certainly something Luther taught and defended. It was a significant innovation that resulted in the fracturing of Western Christendom.

I certainly do not speak for other communions. Some will say I don’t speak well for my own, but I’ve never been told that a Christian must hold to the practice.

I remember reading that Calvin thought Luther was too contaminiated by Catholicism, and that is why he never “got over” all those Marian doctrines. I wish I could remember where I read that. I have also read that Calvin embraced these Marian doctrines, but I don’t thik he prayed the Rosary like Luther did.

Chemnitz, too, never got over them, 50 years later. But neither thought the conscience of the faithful should be bound to it.

Jon

 

[commenter]

Guan, 1900 years after Christ’s assension, the Church decides to reveal how important it is? Can you understand why even I, who in general terms agrees with the teaching, am skeptical?

Jon

I think you mean to write “1900 years after Mary’s Assumption, the Church …”

In earlier posts, you question why the urgency to defend a teaching not under apparent attack by Catholics in 1950.

I hear your argument. I accept the pope’s definition, though it is hard for me to see why he felt it was important to be done, at that time. But then, if you look at earlier doctrinal formulations, in hindsight it is obvious** to us** why they were needed, but likely not obvious at the time they were explicitly defined to the people living then, or why this or that particular fort needed to be bolstered. People in the future may well look at the definition of the Assumption and necessity/timeliness of it, in a different way.

In 1950, nobody could have foreseen that in a couple decades some Catholic theologians would have tried to **extremely **demote Mary, to make her just a role model for assertive women. In 1950, few could have foreseen the deemphasis on the supernatural role, the uniqueness of Christ that liberal Catholic and Protestant writers and in some cases denominationals would take. In 1950 a liberal minister was someone who didn’t believe in a literal Hell, now to be considered liberal you have to deny the existence of a literal Christ.

In 1950 no one foresaw the rise of the New Age movement within the borders of most denominations, or a whole zoo full of movements to make Jesus just a political liberal, or perhaps not really any one “person” at all but just a literary symbol for a religious movement, a community that flourished in the Middle East around 1900 to 2100 years ago, just as “GI Joe” does not mean any one specific literal person.

Defining the Assumption, he raised to an extraordinary level a belief that reinforces the very crude physical reality of Jesus’ birth - bolstering against one kind of heresy powerful today- but also reinforcing the supernatural character of Jesus - the tabernacle that carried him for 9 months - and God’s willingness to use supernatural power, as He chooses. This bolsters against the opposite threat, also in fashion today.

It’s too soon to say Pius was prophetic. It is not too soon to call him prudent.

 

[JonNC]

I think you mean to write “1900 years after Mary’s Assumption, the Church …”

In earlier posts, you question why the urgency to defend a teaching not under apparent attack by Catholics in 1950.

I hear your argument. I accept the pope’s definition, though it is hard for me to see why he felt it was important to be done, at that time. But then, if you look at earlier doctrinal formulations, in hindsight it is obvious** to us** why they were needed, but likely not obvious at the time they were explicitly defined to the people living then, or why this or that particular fort needed to be bolstered. People in the future may well look at the definition of the Assumption and necessity/timeliness of it, in a different way.

In 1950, nobody could have foreseen that in a couple decades some Catholic theologians would have tried to **extremely **demote Mary, to make her just a role model for assertive women. In 1950, few could have foreseen the deemphasis on the supernatural role, the uniqueness of Christ that liberal Catholic and Protestant writers and in some cases denominationals would take. In 1950 a liberal minister was someone who didn’t believe in a literal Hell, now to be considered liberal you have to deny the existence of a literal Christ.

In 1950 no one foresaw the rise of the New Age movement within the borders of most denominations, or a whole zoo full of movements to make Jesus just a political liberal, or perhaps not really any one “person” at all but just a literary symbol for a religious movement, a community that flourished in the Middle East around 1900 to 2100 years ago, just as “GI Joe” does not mean any one specific literal person.

Defining the Assumption, he raised to an extraordinary level a belief that reinforces the very crude physical reality of Jesus’ birth - bolstering against one kind of heresy powerful today- but also reinforcing the supernatural character of Jesus - the tabernacle that carried him for 9 months - and God’s willingness to use supernatural power, as He chooses. This bolsters against the opposite threat, also in fashion today.

It’s too soon to say Pius was prophetic. It is not too soon to call him prudent.

I see and understand your point.

Thanks.
Jon