What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[Padrej]

No, it refers to a certain concept of the liturgy. Nothing disrespectful. (Coming, Dear, right away).

GKC

I think it does have a bit to do with the liturgy and how it is performed. Most of the Anglo-Catholics or high church tend to use the “Anglican Missal” which is very close to the old Tridentine ritual in format. I have been in one Anglo-Catholic parish that actually did use the old Tridentine Liturgy. The High church liturgy also tends to “add” prayers to the liturgy not normally printed in the prayer book that would be in the hands of the people. Some examples would be prayers to Mary, The “Lord I am not worthy to come under thy roof…” and the Anglican Missal also adds “secret prayers” that are said only by the priest rather in silence at certain times during the service. They would uses the aspergis, incense, bells, deacons, sub-deacons all vested in liturgical garb.

A middle church would be one that incorporates SOME of the elements like the sanctus bells, and incense periodically say more at Easter and Christmas. the bells may be rung at most other consecrations. Maybe an occasional Morning and Evening prayer as the off service. I have found that many Middle church persons love to say they are high church but choke at the smell of the incense and moan that it is causing them to have sinus problems when the church is full of fragrant flowers like Easter lilies.

Low church tends to be less Eucharist focused and more morning and evening prayer focused with and occasional Eucharist thrown in for periodically. Many low church do not even wear a chasuble but rather just an alb and stole or cassock and surplice and stole many times a tippet. The focus here being more on the preaching rather than the communion service.

I am sure GKC may not agree with all I have said, but this has been my observations in fairly simplistic terms.

 

[tweetymom]

Tweetymom, then your parish is “low”. Seriously I don’t like the smell of incense. I do remember though when I was younger in my RC parish we had the early morning low Mass and the high Mass was the one where the entire Mass was sung.

I am with you on the incense, it makes my sinus go crazy.

 

[GKC]

I think it does have a bit to do with the liturgy and how it is performed. Most of the Anglo-Catholics or high church tend to use the “Anglican Missal” which is very close to the old Tridentine ritual in format. I have been in one Anglo-Catholic parish that actually did use the old Tridentine Liturgy. The High church liturgy also tends to “add” prayers to the liturgy not normally printed in the prayer book that would be in the hands of the people. Some examples would be prayers to Mary, The “Lord I am not worthy to come under thy roof…” and the Anglican Missal also adds “secret prayers” that are said only by the priest rather in silence at certain times during the service. They would uses the aspergis, incense, bells, deacons, sub-deacons all vested in liturgical garb.

A middle church would be one that incorporates SOME of the elements like the sanctus bells, and incense periodically say more at Easter and Christmas. the bells may be rung at most other consecrations. Maybe an occasional Morning and Evening prayer as the off service. I have found that many Middle church persons love to say they are high church but choke at the smell of the incense and moan that it is causing them to have sinus problems when the church is full of fragrant flowers like Easter lilies.

Low church tends to be less Eucharist focused and more morning and evening prayer focused with and occasional Eucharist thrown in for periodically. Many low church do not even wear a chasuble but rather just an alb and stole or cassock and surplice and stole many times a tippet. The focus here being more on the preaching rather than the communion service.

I am sure GKC may not agree with all I have said, but this has been my observations in fairly simplistic terms.

And why would you think that?

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Padrej]

And why would you think that?

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Nothing disrespectful, sometimes we don’t always agree on things; I just yanking your chain a bit. I think what I put almost describes what has been put forth, if not I am sure you would correct me.

 

[GKC]

Nothing disrespectful, sometimes we don’t always agree on things; I just yanking your chain a bit. I think what I put almost describes what has been put forth, if not I am sure you would correct me.

What you said seems reasonable to me, as far as it goes. I would say much the same. I would also make the point that these descriptions are focused on churchmanship; how one worships, and is properly labeled low/high. To focus on doctrine, what is affirmed in the worship, is to look at the Anglo-Catholic/reformed dimension. You can slice Anglicans many ways. And some of them should be.

I do note that I am more accustomed to hear “Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof”.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[ASojourner]

By “our Bible” you mean “the Bible seen through specific theological lenses.” Not everyone sees these doctrines in the Bible. You see them there because of theological contributions (or more negatively, innovations) by Protestants.

Edwin

I don’t look at Holy Scripture as ‘doctrine.’ I look at it as “the Word of God.” Doctrine is a belief, or a set of beliefs, that is taught. But, okay…

A nun, in my Catholic grade school, taught us that if we ever doubted any teaching, we should hold it next to the Word of God because it was Truth and it was God breathed. I’ve never forgotten that, and I admit, I have a holy addiction to God’s Word! :extrahappy:

I responded to him that way because of what God’s Words says in:

Rom. 11:6
Eph. 2:8-9
2 Thess. 2:13
Eph. 1:4
Rom. 10:9-10 & 13
2 Tim. 3:16
1 Tim. 2:5

It is what it is. That’s all. I didn’t mean to make you mad or defensive.

 

[Padrej]

Edwin,

Since it was asked about, wouldn’t we have to say the critical text has been largely a Protestant contribution?

According to the notes in my Orthodox Study Bible, the Orthodox Catholics only use the Received or Majority text, so in my mind continuing to use the Critical text would be keeping a Protestant break open. The New King James does notate where the Critical text varies so it would seem that it would be one of the better translations to have if you are going to want to see where the two versions differ. I am sure there are others out there that do notate this, but I happened to have my NKJV next to me when writing this.

 

[Contarini]

Padrej,

Your recent reference to the critical text made me realize that I never responded to one of your posts, which raised a couple of important points, including this one about the critical text:

Then why use it other than a passing reference to say, “this is not in the critical text” if the text indicates using the Majority in the first place?

I probably should respond to this, since you misunderstood me. A critical text, by definition, tells you what the various manuscript readings are. Ideally it would give you all the variations, but in the case of the NT there are just so many that most critical texts make some kind of selection, leaving out the ones that are completely trivial and/or have no serious support. Obviously the majority text is always going to be indicated in the notes, as part of the critical apparatus. But the reading chosen for the text itself (as opposed to the footnotes) generally follows the “Alexandrian” textual tradition. My point is that by using a critical text, you can easily see what the Majority text is. It gives you that choice. That’s what a critical text does, by definition. There’s no reason in principle why one couldn’t have a critical text that gave the Majority Text as the preferred reading, while indicating the other readings in footnotes. But for some reason the folks who argue for the Majority Text never seem interested in letting you know what the alternatives are

NOW NOW, Asbury compared to say Drew is VERY conservative,

Indeed. So is Duke.

Duke tends to be swinging liberal.

The university, not the Divinity School. At least not by my standards. I would say that the Div School is middle-of-the-road. By conservative standards it’s somewhat liberal (though not intolerably so, by and large), but by the standards of other mainline seminaries it’s quite conservative (certainly the folks at Drew scratch their heads over what they see as Duke’s weird love affair with Christian tradition). I suspect that you are either judging the Div School by the standards of the University or basing your estimate of the Div School on outdated evidence. When I first went to Duke (1995) it was already committed to orthodoxy in a way that many other mainline seminaries were not, but it was quite a bit more liberal than it is not. Greg Jones, who became dean the late 90s and has recently announced his resignation, has made a big difference by hiring quite conservative faculty (again, I mean conservative by mainline standards–by your standards they would probably be liberal, but not so liberal that you couldn’t find some common ground–more or less like me!). Just before I moved to NJ, in 2003, the Div School published a code of conduct for the students which explicitly indicated that unmarried students were expected to be celibate (yes, I know that this seems obvious, but again, I’m comparing Duke to other mainline seminaries). Many of the gay students became quite upset and said that Duke was becoming intolerant.

(I agree) I like to tease some of the Methodist Clergy friends who went to Duke about the article that came out about the “sex toy class” being approved as an elective and the only denomination in the area to raise a fuss was the Roman Catholics

I don’t know about this article, and you will understand that I am rather afraid to Google it. Again, is this the Div School or the university? The Div School enjoys a good deal of autonomy within the university, and you cannot apply what you hear about the university to the Div School.

IMO Duke is failing as a Christian institution.

Again, the university isn’t “failing” as a Christian institution, because it isn’t trying to be one. The Div School is, in my opinion, a fine model of a Christian institution.

 

[Contarini]

I cannot see that as a legitimate contribution to any form of higher learning.

Duke University as a whole, while clearly a basically secular institution with some Christian influence left in the form of the Chapel and the Div School, makes plenty of contributions to higher learning. You surely do not think that only Christian institutions can contribute to higher learning, do you? Many departments at Duke are (or were in my time) dominated by postmodern “theory” to an unhealthy degree (speaking academically–one of my fellow grad students in 1995 complained that a class supposedly on Roman poetry was really all about Lacan, and that kind of thing was all too common). But there remained many people who were doing very solid work, and even postmodern theory does have some contributions to make. Apart from the Div School professors with whom I took classes (David Steinmetz, Grant Wacker, Susan Keefe–I also was a teacher’s assistant for Warren Smith, and sat in on a basic theology class taught by Geoffrey Wainwright, and I regret not taking more classes with Wainwright and with other Div School professors such as Hauerwas and Hays), I did coursework with Liz Clark and Kalman Bland in the religion department, Fr. Ed Mahoney in the philosophy department, Tom Robisheaux and Ron Witt in the history department, and David Aers in the English department (Aers was cross-listed in the religion department, and also in the Div School for a while). All of these except Clark and Bland would have made at least some claim to be Christian. Witt was a Presbyterian elder; Mahoney a Catholic priest; Aers an Anglican layman. Robisheaux attended an Episcopal church although he was certainly not an orthodox Christian. Bland was a Reform Jewish rabbi. Liz was an ex-Christian feminist scholar of early Christianity, the most stereotypically postmodern and anti-Christian of all my professors. But she is nonetheless a splendid scholar and always treated me with respect and generosity. I learned a lot from her–her commitment to postmodern theory and her bitterness against Christianity did not prevent her from making fair and judicious judgments about the material she studied. I go into some detail about this to substantiate my claim that Duke was in my time a wonderful place to get a graduate education and (even outside the Divinity School) a place where one could find not only solid scholarship but even a good deal of scholarship informed by Christianity. (Mahoney was quite a conservative Catholic; Aers’ Christianity clearly shaped his scholarship, though in ways of which I’m sure you would disapprove and with which I did not always agree–for instance, he was a universalist and tended to find universalism in Middle English texts perhaps more often than the evidence clearly warranted; Witt’s Christianity wasn’t directly obvious in his teaching except in his sympathetic and understanding treatment of Christian texts, and I don’t know much about his theology or piety, but he was a very old-fashioned scholar and embodied what people used to mean by the phrase “Christian gentleman”).

My students are doctoral level, so they already know the Christian side, so I broaden their minds with the Jewish thoughts. In doing so they get an even broader meaning. They already have the basics of what you already describe, I want them to get the Jewishness of the scriptures that Jesus would have known. After this then tie in the types and shadows, For example you really cannot understand the 7 “I Am” statements of John’s Gospel without understanding the types and shadows of the Hebrew tabernacle.

I see what you are saying, and I think it’s important. But my concern would be that if you are teaching a “Jewish” interpretation as the foundation for a “types and shadows” approach, then you aren’t teaching what Jews today would recognize as a Jewish interpretation. The practice of taking bits of Jewish interpretation and using them to support Christian interpretation is an old Christian practice (particularly common in the Renaissance/Reformation–at least that’s the period I know best), and in my opinion a legitimate one. But what you have when you do that is not Jewish interpretation at all, but a Christian interpretation informed by Jewish elements.

Not knowing exactly how you do this, I obviously am not offering a direct criticism of your practice. But I think this is where some of the other posters are coming from as well. If your interpretation is compatible with Christian doctrine, it’s not Jewish in a way that religious Jews of any period since the fall of the Temple would probably recognize.

I try and get the Old Testament to dovetail the New.

An excellent approach for a *Christian *interpretation. But by definition this isn’t a Jewish approach (if by “Jewish” we mean the religious tradition that came out of the fall of the Temple and has always defined itself in part over against Christianity–part of the problem is that “Jewish” can mean a lot of things).

Edwin

 

[Jolly_Joe]

According to the notes in my Orthodox Study Bible, the Orthodox Catholics only use the Received or Majority text, so in my mind continuing to use the Critical text would be keeping a Protestant break open. The New King James does notate where the Critical text varies so it would seem that it would be one of the better translations to have if you are going to want to see where the two versions differ. I am sure there are others out there that do notate this, but I happened to have my NKJV next to me when writing this.

Not sure what “Orthodox Catholics” means in that context, doesn’t the NAB use the critical text? The Orthodox Study Bible uses the Septuagint text for the Old Testament and the Majority Text for the New, so maybe they are just refering to themselves as Orthodox Catholics. Does it have an impramatur?

And it should be noted that the so called Received and the Majority texts differ significantly. As can be seen if one compares the English Majority Text Version with the King James.

Of the translations that follow the critical text, you can pretty easily in most cases see the variations. Often the Received text variation is given in a footnote.

Computers make it really easy to compare translations.

 

[Padrej]

Not sure what “Orthodox Catholics” means in that context, doesn’t the NAB use the critical text? The Orthodox Study Bible uses the Septuagint text for the Old Testament and the Majority Text for the New, so maybe they are just refering to themselves as Orthodox Catholics. Does it have an impramatur?

And it should be noted that the so called Received and the Majority texts differ significantly. As can be seen if one compares the English Majority Text Version with the King James.

Of the translations that follow the critical text, you can pretty easily in most cases see the variations. Often the Received text variation is given in a footnote.

Computers make it really easy to compare translations.

The Orthodox Study Bible is designed for use by Eastern Orthodox Christians. The OT portion was compiled by the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology. The Bishops involved were Basil, Joseph, and Kallistos. The NT uses the Majority and Received Texts. The NT portion had been released in 1993, this latest complete is 2008.

 

[Padrej]

I see what you are saying, and I think it’s important. But my concern would be that if you are teaching a “Jewish” interpretation as the foundation for a “types and shadows” approach, then you aren’t teaching what Jews today would recognize as a Jewish interpretation. The practice of taking bits of Jewish interpretation and using them to support Christian interpretation is an old Christian practice (particularly common in the Renaissance/Reformation–at least that’s the period I know best), and in my opinion a legitimate one. But what you have when you do that is not Jewish interpretation at all, but a Christian interpretation informed by Jewish elements.

Not knowing exactly how you do this, I obviously am not offering a direct criticism of your practice. But I think this is where some of the other posters are coming from as well. If your interpretation is compatible with Christian doctrine, it’s not Jewish in a way that religious Jews of any period since the fall of the Temple would probably recognize.

 

[FrJohnB]

Padrej:

Quote by Contarini: But my concern would be that if you are teaching a “Jewish” interpretation as the foundation for a “types and shadows” approach, then you aren’t teaching what Jews today would recognize as a Jewish interpretation.

Seems to me when I took my seminary courses and a Jewish Rabbi came in (he was reformed) he knew of the “types and shadows” that spoke of a coming savior. Could you explain Contarini what you mean that one of today’s Jews would not know as a “Jewish interpretation.” It almost sounds like you are saying that because Jews do not believe in Jesus they do not recognize the types and shadows scriptures nor do they recognize the prophesy verses. I am not say that this is the case but that is how your post came across.
Knowing the courses laid out at Georgetown University that PadreJ is speaking of I think he is on the money so to speak that today’s seminarians are getting a double blessing in that they are being taught by a Jewish person from a Jewish perspective who then shows Christian scriptures from a Jewish perspective so that you can see how we get some of the clearer meaning behind the Jewishness of Jesus. It seems that this is what PadreJ is attempting in his classes as well.

 

[FrJohnB]

Padrej:

Quote by Contarini: But my concern would be that if you are teaching a “Jewish” interpretation as the foundation for a “types and shadows” approach, then you aren’t teaching what Jews today would recognize as a Jewish interpretation.

Seems to me when I took my seminary courses and a Jewish Rabbi came in (he was reformed) he knew of the “types and shadows” that spoke of a coming savior. Could you explain Contarini what you mean that one of today’s Jews would not know as a “Jewish interpretation.” It almost sounds like you are saying that because Jews do not believe in Jesus they do not recognize the types and shadows scriptures nor do they recognize the prophesy verses. I am not say that this is the case but that is how your post came across.
Knowing the courses laid out at Georgetown University that PadreJ is speaking of I think he is on the money so to speak that today’s seminarians are getting a double blessing in that they are being taught by a Jewish person from a Jewish perspective who then shows Christian scriptures from a Jewish perspective so that you can see how we get some of the clearer meaning behind the Jewishness of Jesus. It seems that this is what PadreJ is attempting in his classes as well.

In my mind the idea of a Jew knowing the New Testament is not foreign just as it is not foreign for me to know the Old testament. If you read any of Rabbi Harold Kusher’s books he will often quote the New testament; Often I might add with fresh insight on many things.

 

[Padrej]

Seems to me when I took my seminary courses and a Jewish Rabbi came in (he was reformed) he knew of the “types and shadows” that spoke of a coming savior. Could you explain Contarini what you mean that one of today’s Jews would not know as a “Jewish interpretation.” It almost sounds like you are saying that because Jews do not believe in Jesus they do not recognize the types and shadows scriptures nor do they recognize the prophesy verses. I am not say that this is the case but that is how your post came across.
Knowing the courses laid out at Georgetown University that PadreJ is speaking of I think he is on the money so to speak that today’s seminarians are getting a double blessing in that they are being taught by a Jewish person from a Jewish perspective who then shows Christian scriptures from a Jewish perspective so that you can see how we get some of the clearer meaning behind the Jewishness of Jesus. It seems that this is what PadreJ is attempting in his classes as well.

In my mind the idea of a Jew knowing the New Testament is not foreign just as it is not foreign for me to know the Old testament. If you read any of Rabbi Harold Kusher’s books he will often quote the New testament; Often I might add with fresh insight on many things.

I have many of Rabbi Kushner’s books and love his writing style. His book on the 23rd psalm is particularly inspiring and he quotes a fair amount of NT in it. I don’t know if it would be safe to put Kushner in the category of “Protestant” but I would say he would be a Jew that has certainly put forth a great deal of understanding to theology from the Jewish side of the spectrum.

 

[Padrej]

Seems to me when I took my seminary courses and a Jewish Rabbi came in (he was reformed) he knew of the “types and shadows” that spoke of a coming savior. Could you explain Contarini what you mean that one of today’s Jews would not know as a “Jewish interpretation.” It almost sounds like you are saying that because Jews do not believe in Jesus they do not recognize the types and shadows scriptures nor do they recognize the prophesy verses. I am not say that this is the case but that is how your post came across.
Knowing the courses laid out at Georgetown University that PadreJ is speaking of I think he is on the money so to speak that today’s seminarians are getting a double blessing in that they are being taught by a Jewish person from a Jewish perspective who then shows Christian scriptures from a Jewish perspective so that you can see how we get some of the clearer meaning behind the Jewishness of Jesus. It seems that this is what PadreJ is attempting in his classes as well.

In my mind the idea of a Jew knowing the New Testament is not foreign just as it is not foreign for me to know the Old testament. If you read any of Rabbi Harold Kusher’s books he will often quote the New testament; Often I might add with fresh insight on many things.

Knowing Rabbi White also from when he was a local Rabbi close to me I know that he would be as you call it a “double blessing to the seminarians.” He was educated at a Wesleyan seminary as I recall. I am trying to model my program after his.

 

[jmtosh]

Earlier than that–see Romans 6, John 3, etc. Even if you think the Catholic interpretations of these passages are unconvincing, the fact is that there is not one shred of evidence for anything *other *than a salvific view of baptism–so this example is not an example of change at all.
What of thepenitent thief on the crossin Luk’e gospel chapter 23? He was saved without baptism. The Philippian jailor in Acts 16 asked what must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt bsaed and your house. Thereafter he was baptised. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the gospel. In Mark 16 (if you even believe that this is Holy scripture at all!) our Lord Jesus declares that all who believe and are baptised shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned. The emphasis for salvationis on belief in the Lord Jesus Christ - this belief will inevitably result in the obedience of baptism. In 1 Peter 3 the Apostle explains that baptism is a symbol that saves us not by washing away sins but by the answer of a good conscience to God.
Therefore baptism is an act of obedience y somebody who already believes. The rite of baptism itself cannot save.

Tertullian’s On Baptism, which refers to the practice disapprovingly but with no indication that it was a new one, probably dates from closer to 200. So we can be quite confident that the practice predated 200.

Agreed.
One could put the shoe on the other foot and ask for the first evidence of the children of Christians being baptized in adulthood or adolescence (rather than infancy). I am not aware of any such evidence before the fourth century. The evidence we have is fully compatible with the theory that Christian children were always baptized as infants, with Tertullian representing a growing discontent with the practice, which culminated in the post-Constantinian era in a widespread habit of delaying baptism. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between–probably both practices can be found quite early. But there’s no way to be sure in the present state of the evidence.

Thank you for alluding to primary sources for evidence. I do appreciate this.

Whatever the heck an “elaborate sacramental sacrifice” is. Have you even bothered to think about these terms you are using, or did you just copy this list from somewhere? This one is too vague even to address. But if you are claiming that the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice only started then, you have to deal with the clear parallels 1 Clement draws between OT sacrifices and Christian worship.

An elaborate, etc - read Rite / elaborate ceremony offering to God. May I presume that you are referring to the Epistle of 1 Clement chapter XVIII? It is not clear that this refers specifically to the Eucharist although it mentions offerings and ministers thereof which he compares to the O.T. priesthood. It is In Chapter VIII citing David Clement declares that the sacrificesof God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart O God You will not despise.

The martyrdom account of Perpetua, written around 200, describes prayer for the dead. This is assuming that the prayer for Onesiphorus found in 2 Timothy is not a prayer for the dead. Again, there’s no way to be sure either way. I think the language points toward Onesiphorus being dead, but I admit that this is highly speculative. The question here as with your other examples is: why assume that the practices you prefer must be the earlier ones? If you go into the evidence with that assumption, you will of course be able to make the evidence fit your assumptions.

It is possible but conjectural that Onesiphorus was dead when Paul wrote 2 Timothy as he refers to Onesiphorus in the past tense. Whether Paul expressing the heart felt desire that the Lord show him mercy on the great day of judgment is a prayer is doubtful as it is expressed / addressed to Timothy.

Tertullian refers to it, again around 200.

he point is not whether a Church Father (which were never unaminous) spoke of it but when itwas officially adopted as Church practice.

That is silly. Christians had been worshiping in Latin since about the second century. It’s as if Protestant propagandists forget that Latin was a living language!

Again, when this was promulgated as being an ordinanace to be observed by the Church.

I will not go through the rest of your examples, but you aren’t batting a very good average so far. You need better sources.

Edwin

 

[jmtosh]

When was this “usurpation”? Any date you can give (at least before the 11th century) will be arbitrary and will owe more to Protestant apocalyptic speculation (never mind that most Protestants have abandoned historicism–it still shapes the popular Protestant view of history) than to historical scholarship.
The Rev. H.N. Bate, erstwhile Dean of York, statesin his History of the Church to A.D. 325 Oxford Church Text book:
"The Church of Rome. From the beginning of Christanity down to the division of the empire by Diocletian (A.D. 284) Rome was the Capital of the cvilised world. This political fact was the chief cause of the importance which the Roman Church attained in the ante-Nicene period. In the 4th and 5th centuries, even whenthe tide o barbarian invasion was breaking up the western empire, a series of powerful popes succeeded in making good a claim to supreme ecclesiatical jurisdiction; among these were Leo the Great (440 - 461) and Gregory the Great (590 - 604), who were the creators of the modern Papacy…The ante- Nicene bishops of Rome did in some cases claim an authority proportionate to the digniy of the imperial city, but those claims were oly faint premonitions of the later papalism.
Though Gregory disclaimed the title of Supreme Bishop he was nonetheless responsible for building up the Roman Church as a supreme institution.
By the way I did not refer to an eschatological interpretations so why mention them, is it ecause you have already stereo typed me as a certain type of Protestant fundamentalist?
There’s no evidence that Patrick preached what modern Protestants would consider “the pure gospel of Christ.” This is Protestant fantasy.

*He preached the gospel and was not subordinate to the Church of Rome with its extra Biblical rites and dogmas. *

Henry’s invasion certainly led to stronger links with England and thus with the Continent, ecclesiastically as in other respects. But I am unaware of any documented historical evidence (as opposed to Protestant propaganda) that justifies your characterization of this year as the “subjugation” of a hitherto independent church (and bear in mind that Henry was no papal lackey–he tried to control the Church as much as possible himself)

*Here we dohave a document that eloquently shows that theIrsh Church was violently subjugated to Rome. The document is the Papal Bull Laudabiliter. The eminent historian W.L.Warren (Professor of Modern History and Dean of Theology at The Queen’s University of Belfast) quotes it in its entirety:
“Adrian the bishop, servant of thev servants of God, to his most dearly belved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, greeting and Apostolic benediction.
Laudably and profitably does your magnificence contemplate extending your glorious name on earth and laying up a reward of eternal happiness in heaven, inasmuch as you endeavour like a catholic prince to enlarge the boundaries of the Church, to expound the truth of the Christian faith to ignorant and barbarous peoples, and to root out the seeds of vice from the lord’s field; an for the better execution of this, you seek the advice and favour of the Apostolic See. In which work the more lofty the counsel and the greater the discretion with which you proceed,so much the more owe trust that by God’s help your progress may be fortunate therein, in that those things which have their beginning in ardent faith and love of religion always tend to work out to a happy end…
We therefore, supporting with due fervour your pious and praiseworthy desire, and granting our generous assent to your petition, are well peased to agree that, for the extension of the b oundaries of the Church, for the restraint of vice, for the correction of morals, and for the implanting of virtues and for the increase of the Christian religion, you may enter that island and perform therein the things that have regard to the honour of God and the salvation of that land. …If, therefore, you deem fit to carry through what you have in mind, strive to imbue that nation with good morals…that the Christian religion may be implanted and made to grow, and the things which pertain to the honour of God and the salvation of souls may be so ordered that you may deserve to obtain from God the crown of everlasting reward and on earth a name glorious throughout the ages.”
Warren points out that far from Henry having sent to the pope for a definite purpose the bull reads like an attempt to encourage a hesitant king. He explains how hitherto the Irish society was similar to the Anglo Saxon Bretwaldas with numerous tribal chieftains. Irish marriage laws were contrary to the catholic church.The Irish church was also tribalised and jurisdictions were not under bishops but vested in hereditary Abbots. The English church in contrast was Romanised. *
Could you define in one sentence or so what you consider the core truths of the Gospel, and then show these truths in Hus? He certainly did not believe in justification by faith alone, for instance.
*The gospel is defined by St. Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-3 as: Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures was buried and rose again according to the scriptures. Faith in this makes one a Christian. Although Hus may not have believed identically with what Luther and the subsequent reformers believed he did believe and preach this. Hus was strongly influenced byWyclif and thus renounced the elatively recent doctrine of transubstantiation as idolatry and believed in the authority of scripture andthe preaching of this in the vernacular. *

 

[jmtosh]

The idea that people just “read the Bible” and became Protestants is, again, fantasy rather than history. Lots of people were reading the Bible in the later Middle Ages. Some of them wound up dissenting from established Church doctrine, not all of them in ways that correspond with what modern Protestants believe.

*Accepted, my point is that these men saw that scripture taught what was very often contrary to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. It changed their lives and through these men people could hear the unadulteated word of God which is living and powerful and sharper than a two edged sword. *
Edwin

 

[jmtosh]

The Papal Bull Laudabiliter of circa 1155 was transcribed by Gerald of Wales into his Expugnatio Hibernica. It is cited by W.L.Warren, former Professor of Modern History and Dean of Theology at The Queen’s University, Belfast.