What Do Protestants Believe About the Early Church?

[guanophore]

Is it easy to explain why I, as a member of a heretical tradition, am not a heretic?

Jon

The CCC seems to explain it well.

The difference is that whoever is elected Pope has already served in the Bishopric for years, usually decades, has been a Cardinal, and is making completely informed choices when entering the office.

Members of non-Catholic ecclesial traditions were never in a position to embrace Catholic doctrine in the first place.

Maybe it would be a good analogy if someone was elected to the Papacy that had no prior knowlege, but that is never the case. They enter the office knowing that it is considered the office of the antichrist by our separated brethren.

 

[Micosil]

…]

You do acknowledge that your communion’s doctrines -]change/-] “develop” over time, don’t you? Augustine was not bound to believe that his salvation was dependent upon whether or not Mary was Assumed or whether the Pope was Infallible. Until those beliefs were made doctrines (relatively recently), it was perfectly acceptable for Catholic to hold different views. The same is true for Lutheranism. No Lutheran teaching is novel or invented; it has its basis in what was, in its time, perfectly acceptable Catholic opinion…]

There was already a devotion towards Mary much before the council of Ephesus which formally declared her Theotokos, since it was used in approximately 250 in the Sub tuum praesidium hymn. As far as the Pope being infallible in specific matters and conditions, while there probably wasn’t a very specific set of conditions and circumstances outlined since the very beginning, if you ready the early Church Fathers, they understood that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, had primacy/supremacy:

catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

More specifically, as a non-Catholic Christian, I assume you believe in the Trinity. Well, like these other doctrines, while it obviously has Biblical basis, the specific statement of the doctrine, that God is three consubstantial hypostases or Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, had to be fleshed out at specific councils. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Apostles didn’t have this more nuanced or specific understanding of the Trinity, even though they clearly understood that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is also God. They of course didn’t have time to sit around and rationalize it all, they were too busy evangelizing and spreading the faith!

What the development of doctrine does is that it takes the Apostolic teaching that they received from our Lord, and studies it, analyzes it, rationalizes it and takes it to logical conclusions, these conclusions being the formally pronounced doctrines and dogmas of either the multiple ecumenical councils throughout the centuries, or infallible pronouncements of the Pope.

So, yes, doctrines do develop, they don’t -]change/-] “develop”.

 

[guanophore]

 When I study what the early church teaches, I don't do it simply to spite the Roman Catholic Church and disagree with her; I do it to learn what the early Christians believed so that I can practice as close to that as possible.

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. - Newman

You do acknowledge that your communion's doctrines -]change/-] "*develop*" over time, don't you? Augustine was not bound to believe that his salvation was dependent upon whether or not Mary was Assumed or whether the Pope was Infallible. Until those beliefs were made doctrines (relatively recently), it was perfectly acceptable for Catholic to hold different views.

Actually, it was not. Augustine believed those things because he held divine and catholic faith. Doctrines are defined, or dogmas declared only when heresies or heterodoxies occur. This is like saying that the Scriptures were not scriptures before they were canonized, or that the Church did not believe in the Trinity until it was declared.

The same is true for Lutheranism. No Lutheran teaching is novel or invented; it has its basis in what was, in its time, perfectly acceptable Catholic opinion.

I think this is the difference. There were about as many opinions as there were Catholics, but only the Church defined doctrine. Lutheranism has gone outside of the doctrines of the faith, reached out for opinions, and built upon those. The defense of Sola Scriptura by cherry picking from the Fathers is a good example of this.

Once the teaching authority put in place by Christ was replaced, fragmentation and division has continued to occur.

 

[KathleenGee]

Great point, Guanaphore.

We have an in law who is a follower of tv evangelists and had a recent slip of tongue putting down a Lutheran service because they were reciting the Nicene Creed. And the Lutherans did not ‘know the Lord’.

 

[guanophore]

Great point, Guanaphore.

We have an in law who is a follower of tv evangelists and had a recent slip of tongue putting down a Lutheran service because they were reciting the Nicene Creed. And the Lutherans did not ‘know the Lord’.

One can only fervently pray that such individuals come to the knowlege of the Truth, and in the meantime, that they are invicibly ignorant.

 

[JonNC]

The CCC seems to explain it well.

The difference is that whoever is elected Pope has already served in the Bishopric for years, usually decades, has been a Cardinal, and is making completely informed choices when entering the office.

Members of non-Catholic ecclesial traditions were never in a position to embrace Catholic doctrine in the first place.

Maybe it would be a good analogy if someone was elected to the Papacy that had no prior knowlege, but that is never the case. They enter the office knowing that it is considered the office of the antichrist by our separated brethren.

They also know what Lutherans mean by that: that we consider the specifically mentioned doctrines regarding the power of the papacy to be opposed to Christ’s teaching. I don’t believe for a moment that Pope Benedict thought we considered him THE Antichrist - the end-times beast of Revelations. And any Lutheran who does consider the Pope of Rome that way doesn’t understand the teaching.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;13488806]
Actually, it was not. Augustine believed those things because he held divine and catholic faith. Doctrines are defined, or dogmas declared only when heresies or heterodoxies occur. This is like saying that the Scriptures were not scriptures before they were canonized, or that the Church did not believe in the Trinity until it was declared.

I don’t believe that was Don’s point. Luther believed most of the Marian teachings, but wasn’t required to. Cardinal Cajetan believed the DC books to not be canonical, and he was allowed to. The point I think is that there are some Catholic teachings that may have always been there, but the conscience of the believer was not bound to them.

I think this is the difference. There were about as many opinions as there were Catholics, but only the Church defined doctrine. Lutheranism has gone outside of the doctrines of the faith, reached out for opinions, and built upon those. The defense of Sola Scriptura by cherry picking from the Fathers is a good example of this.

Cherry picking? You yourself posted two posts filled with cherry pickings on the topic

Once the teaching authority put in place by Christ was replaced, fragmentation and division has continued to occur.

That disagreement over the teaching authority began long before the Reformation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Great point, Guanaphore.

We have an in law who is a follower of tv evangelists and had a recent slip of tongue putting down a Lutheran service because they were reciting the Nicene Creed. And the Lutherans did not ‘know the Lord’.

Perhaps you should show your inlaw this

Jon

 

[ALoveDivine]

Protestants have an entirely different view of what the Church is. The Church is, in the common protestant view, synonymous with the elect. The Church is the “called out ones”, those who are regenerated and are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The Church consists of individuals who fellowship at a wide variety of different small-c churches. Individual catholics, orthodox, presbyterians, baptists, methodists, and many others, all those who are indwelt by the spirit of God, regardless of denominational affiliation, together compose the Church, the body of Christ. Even Catholics admit that many protestants can and will be saved, so the Catholic Church is in effect saying that the elect exist across denominational boundaries, and not just in the RCC. Protestants just go one step further and say that this “elect” is the same thing as the Church. The Church is not an institution or a building or a hierarchy of leaders, it is the elect. The gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ’s elect, his sheep, those of whom he said, “they shall never perish…” (John 10:28).

So like all institutional churches that exist, protestants tend to view the “early church”, which was not nearly as uniform as Catholics and Orthodox assume, as a mixed bag of good theology and holy elect believers, as well as bad theology and lost sinners. There has always been tares among the wheat. Yet Christ has had his elect people from the very beginning and still does today.

Catholics and Protestants seem to talk past each other because a radically different ecclesiology divides the two. One is institutional and sacramental, the other is mystical and covenental. Catholics view sacraments as physical mediums that infuse supernatural grace, (reformed) Protestants view sacraments as signs and seals of the New Covenant. On a reformed protestant view, baptism parallels circumcision in the Old Covenant. Both are signs and seals of a divine covenant. Catholics believe there are 7 sacraments, (reformed) Protestants believe there are 2. The two ecclesiologies could not be any more different.

The real question is, who is right? That is for each person to decide for themselves. There are very good arguments on both sides of that debate.

 

[guanophore]

The point I think is that there are some Catholic teachings that may have always been there, but the conscience of the believer was not bound to them.

OIC

Cherry picking? You yourself posted two posts filled with cherry pickings on the topic

I notice I never got any response either, trying to refute that it was “novel”.

That disagreement over the teaching authority began long before the Reformation.

Tipping point, I suppose.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

That is the type of framing I see a lot that projects personal opinions on Augustine.

He would have been a Calvinist
He would have been a baptist, a Pentecostal, a whatever I am.

No he was Catholic

This is a bit random, but I can’t help thinking of ’ “I belong to Paul” … “I belong to Apollos” … “I belong to Peter”.’

 

[steido01]

There was already a devotion towards Mary much before the council of Ephesus which formally declared her Theotokos, since it was used in approximately 250 in the Sub tuum praesidium hymn.

Marian devotion is a fine example of personal Christian piety; I don’t argue with that. And Lutherans have always considered her Theotokos, Mother of God. My beef was with the dogmatization of her Assumption. That wasn’t required belief in the Roman Church until 1950. Up until then, it was fine for Catholics to believe in her Assumption, or her Dormition, or anything else that pointed to her being currently in heaven. The means did not matter. To quote Luther;

“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.”

Another example is Transubstantiation, which wasn’t officially declared the only non-anathematized way to describe the truth of the Real Presence until Trent (1551). Lutherans, instead, stick closer to St. John of Damascus’s explanation:

“[T]he bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out.”

Lutherans understand themselves to be old-old-old fashioned pre-Tridentine Catholics.

As far as the Pope being infallible in specific matters and conditions, while there probably wasn’t a very specific set of conditions and circumstances outlined since the very beginning, if you ready the early Church Fathers, they understood that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, had primacy/supremacy:

I agree that Primacy, in the first-among-equals sort of way, is clear. Supremacy, however, is much more nebulous. Many “Protestants,” including Lutherans and some Anglicans, align with the Orthodox on that matter.

More specifically, as a non-Catholic Christian, I assume you believe in the Trinity. Well, like these other doctrines, while it obviously has Biblical basis, the specific statement of the doctrine, that God is three consubstantial hypostases or Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, had to be fleshed out at specific councils. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Apostles didn’t have this more nuanced or specific understanding of the Trinity, even though they clearly understood that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is also God. They of course didn’t have time to sit around and rationalize it all, they were too busy evangelizing and spreading the faith!

I do understand your point, and it deserves some consideration. But what is the source of our understanding of the Trinity? Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture does not, however, say that Peter or his successors were infallible. Quite the opposite if we believe Paul and are to emulate his adventures in Acts.

What the development of doctrine does is that it takes the Apostolic teaching that they received from our Lord, and studies it, analyzes it, rationalizes it and takes it to logical conclusions, these conclusions being the formally pronounced doctrines and dogmas of either the multiple ecumenical councils throughout the centuries, or infallible pronouncements of the Pope.

What you describe, in general, is what Lutherans understand to be the teaching authority of the church, in general (excepting the infallible Pope bits, of course). The difference between our communions being that Lutherans won’t ‘develop’ any doctrine further than Scripture does. While individuals may hold to personal beliefs in certain matters that do not affect the faith (personal fasting, oaths of chastity, manner of worship, and --insofar as it does not detract from devotion to Christ-- Marian devotion, among other things), they are neither free to depart from Christian teaching nor add on to the faith as laid out in Scripture.

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. - Newman

I can actually agree with this sentiment, my friend. It’s why I consider myself an Evangelical Catholic, and “protestant” only so far as necessary. It’s likely the reason why Lutherans have always considered themselves to be the truest manifestation of the church catholic.

Actually, it was not. Augustine believed those things because he held divine and catholic faith. Doctrines are defined, or dogmas declared only when heresies or heterodoxies occur. This is like saying that the Scriptures were not scriptures before they were canonized, or that the Church did not believe in the Trinity until it was declared.

I don’t understand how you can say Augustine believed things that weren’t even thought of until hundreds of years later, much less made binding doctrine on the Christian?

 

[JonNC]

I notice I never got any response either, trying to refute that it was “novel”.

I think what a Catholic might consider novel is the claim that scripture alone is the final norm, and that Tradition is subject to it. But it is hard to argue with so many quotes from so many of the Fathers that scripture is the norm for them, maybe not the only norm, but the norm. IOW, it was a bushel basket full of picked cherries.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Protestants have an entirely different view of what the Church is. The Church is, in the common protestant view, synonymous with the elect. The Church is the “called out ones”, those who are regenerated and are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit…

For some Protestants, that’s probably true. That’s not quite it for Lutherans, however, who define the Church as:

Article VII: Of the Church.

Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t understand how you can say Augustine believed things that weren’t even thought of until hundreds of years later, much less made binding doctrine on the Christian?

Don’t be ridiculous Don! Augustine wrote about deferring to the successor of Peter, and the Assumption of the Theotokos was embraced as soon as it occurred.

 

[steido01]

Don’t be ridiculous Don! Augustine wrote about deferring to the successor of Peter, and the Assumption of the Theotokos was embraced as soon as it occurred.

I promise I’m not being ridiculous, guano!

Sure, one could read Augustine as either a pro-Primacy or pro-Primacy/Supremacy supporter, depending on one’s preexisting views. But he believed, without question, that Mary died naturally before being brought to heaven.

Augustine (d. 430) assumes that Mary died. He writes in De catechiwndis rudibus: "For being born of a mother who, although she conceived without being touched by man and always remained thus untouched, in virginity conceiving, in virginity bringing forth, in virginity **dying **…"4 In his Expositions on the Book of Psalms, he states: "For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary **died **to put away sin."5 In his Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John, Augustine tells us: “He commends His mother to the care of the disciple; commends His mother, as about to die before her, and to rise again before her death.”

Sources

Now should we consider St. Augustine to be a bad Catholic? Or does the development of certain doctrines not really affect the faith? If the latter, why should we bind the conscience of the believer? Especially when those smaller things could cause one to stumble and doubt the church in regard to the larger things?

 

[Peter_J]

Sure, one could read Augustine as either a pro-Primacy or pro-Primacy/Supremacy supporter, depending on one’s preexisting views. But he believed, without question, that Mary died naturally before being brought to heaven.

I agree with him.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with him.

P.S. But I prefer the term dormition.

 

[guanophore]

Sure, one could read Augustine as either a pro-Primacy or pro-Primacy/Supremacy supporter, depending on one’s preexisting views. But he believed, without question, that Mary died naturally before being brought to heaven.

This has not changed. In the East it has always been called the Dormition (falling asleep). The Church does not specify how exactly she got from this life to the next.

Now should we consider St. Augustine to be a bad Catholic? Or does the development of certain doctrines not really affect the faith? If the latter, why should we bind the conscience of the believer? Especially when those smaller things could cause one to stumble and doubt the church in regard to the larger things?

I think the development of doctrine does affect how we experience and understand the faith. The faith is One. We can’t pick and choose parts of it to accept and others to reject.

No, Christians who have an incomplete or skewed perception of the faith are not “bad”, their catechesis is not complete. They stand in the tradition of Apollos.

Acts 18: 24Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26*He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.

 

[Micosil]

Marian devotion is a fine example of personal Christian piety; I don’t argue with that. And Lutherans have always considered her Theotokos, Mother of God. My beef was with the dogmatization of her Assumption. That wasn’t required belief in the Roman Church until 1950. Up until then, it was fine for Catholics to believe in her Assumption, or her Dormition, or anything else that pointed to her being currently in heaven. The means did not matter.

Actually, the Assumption of the Virgin has quite a lot of history it. From Wikipedia:

Although the Assumption (Latin: assumptio, “a taking”) was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not,[10] apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 4th century. The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to it.[11] The earliest known narrative is the so-called Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary’s Repose), which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation.[12][13][14] Probably composed by the 4th century, this Christian apocryphal narrative may be as early as the 3rd century. Also quite early are the very different traditions of the “Six Books” Dormition narratives.[15] The earliest versions of this apocryphon are preserved by several Syriac manuscripts of the 5th and 6th centuries, although the text itself probably belongs to the 4th century.[16][17][18]

So, it isn’t like it was just forcibly introduced with no precedent – the belief has a long history.

Another example is Transubstantiation, which wasn’t officially declared the only non-anathematized way to describe the truth of the Real Presence until Trent (1551). Lutherans, instead, stick closer to St. John of Damascus’s explanation:

​

Lutherans understand themselves to be old-old-old fashioned pre-Tridentine Catholics.

I wouldn’t word it as strongly – for example, note that the Catholic Church considers valid the Eucharist celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, and these churches don’t have a “Transubstantiation” doctrine of themselves, though they do profess the reality of the change.

As for St. John of Damascus’s quote, yes, what he seems to be saying is that we can afffirm that the change occurs but it is ultimately a mystery, that is to say, the manner in which the substance of the bread and the wine change into the Body of Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity is the mystery, but not the fact that the substance changes.

I agree that Primacy, in the first-among-equals sort of way, is clear. Supremacy, however, is much more nebulous. Many “Protestants,” including Lutherans and some Anglicans, align with the Orthodox on that matter.

I do understand your point, and it deserves some consideration. But what is the source of our understanding of the Trinity? Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture does not, however, say that Peter or his successors were infallible. Quite the opposite if we believe Paul and are to emulate his adventures in Acts.

That’s an interesting observation – for that, if it’s OK with you, I’ll refer you to a blog post I did a while ago:

proselytizingpapist.blogspot.com.es/2015/05/there-aint-no-pope-in-bible.html

In there, I point out some scripture that seems to suggest a Papal office as we see now, so I am not sure it is fair to say that the Bible is totally mute on Peter or his successors being infallible.

What you describe, in general, is what Lutherans understand to be the teaching authority of the church, in general (excepting the infallible Pope bits, of course). The difference between our communions being that Lutherans won’t ‘develop’ any doctrine further than Scripture does. While individuals may hold to personal beliefs in certain matters that do not affect the faith (personal fasting, oaths of chastity, manner of worship, and --insofar as it does not detract from devotion to Christ-- Marian devotion, among other things), they are neither free to depart from Christian teaching nor add on to the faith as laid out in Scripture.

The Church is also similar in that way – personal devotions like the rosary, Stations of the Cross, etc. are personal and are not requirements to be a Catholic. However, you say that “Lutherans won’t ‘develop’ any doctrine further than Scripture does.” Let me ask, what of the Christians of the first centuries who didn’t even have a Bible? Where did they get their teachings from?