Where did reformers get the authority to leave the Catholic Church?

[gurneyhalleck1]

He didn’t say it to Jon, gurney, but all the same it’s inappropriate.

I stand corrected. You’re absolutely right. It was not directed at Jon. I got my wires crossed. You are also correct that it’s still a garbagy way to talk in here!

 

[Michael007]

The problem is that we are not allowed to create our own beliefs. One of the main themes of the Old Testament is that we are to follow heavenly beliefs and not world beliefs. The Catholic Church did have problems and needed reforming from within but its theology (teachings about God) were correct. The church had its theology for 1500+ years. If someone comes along and changes that theology because they think the Bible says something else than how are they any different than David Koresh? (Disregarding the blashemy he did on making himself Jesus.) We are not to add or subtract from the Bible (aka book of Revelations. We have a movement in the last century by Protestants to create new beliefs on the end times. And there are how many different beliefs on this?

Someone mentioned how the church gained the authority to become the main voice in a change from the Patriarchs. There was no change. The New Testament is full of examples of Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles in correcting other churches. If there was no authority then they would not have been able to do this. That same authority passed down to the Church in Rome where both Peter and Paul died. Rome was the center of the world at that time in Europe. Peter was the only Apostle to be given the keys to heaven. Jesus created a church modeled on the old church of the Hebrews with the High Priest. This High Priest is the Pope who is the successor to the Rock who is Peter. If there were not successors then Judas would not have been replaced. As the church grew it had to change its organization ranks. The Apostles became the Bishops and the Apostle of Peters seat was called the Pope. Rome was the only city to never fall to the Islam armies. I find that an interesting fact.

For Protestant beliefs to be legitament they have to be from 33 B.C. Not 1800s like the beliefs on the end times. Those are beliefs created by man (world). If the reformers beliefs are not from then than they have created their own beliefs which they didn’t have the authority to do.

Thus now we have so many beliefs out there on the Eurcharist, Baptism, marriage, divorce, etc. That is the main point I’m trying to get at. There has to be one main authority in the world to say what is right and what is wrong. When you have as many different churches as we have then you have confusion. Because not everyone is right.

 

[SSTeacher]

The problem is that we are not allowed to create our own beliefs.

I’m uncertain as to the implication that lurks above but I suspect that there’s a subjective premise in the background with which I probably disagree.

One of the main themes of the Old Testament is that we are to follow heavenly beliefs and not world beliefs. The Catholic Church did have problems and needed reforming from within but its theology (teachings about God) were correct.

I daresay that’s an opinion shared by many Catholics but I think it’s one that’s probably quite difficult for some non–Catholics to endorse. Ideas have consequences. There is a direct connection between what we believe and how we act, surely?

The church had its theology for 1500+ years. If someone comes along and changes that theology because they think the Bible says something else than how are they any different than David Koresh?

Theology appears to change within the Catholic Church depending upon which theologian is making the utterance. And Catholic doctrine is officially “developed.” To an outsider, this seems to suggest that some change at least can be discovered within the Catholic Church. Well, if it’s generally accepted in the West that change of some sort is inevitable then it seems to me that the argument between Catholics and non–Catholic Western Christians is really only about the degree of change that is permissible and the parameters within which such change ought to be allowed.

We are not to add or subtract from the Bible (aka book of Revelations. We have a movement in the last century by Protestants to create new beliefs on the end times. And there are how many different beliefs on this?

It’s true that non–Catholic Western Christians have developed different ideas about the end times but as nobody has been forcibly required to endorse any of these ideas under pain of excommunication from the movement, perhaps we can rest easy?

Someone mentioned how the church gained the authority to become the main voice in a change from the Patriarchs. There was no change.

What do you mean?

The New Testament is full of examples of Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles in correcting other churches. If there was no authority then they would not have been able to do this. That same authority passed down to the Church in Rome where both Peter and Paul died. Rome was the center of the world at that time in Europe. Peter was the only Apostle to be given the keys to heaven. Jesus created a church modeled on the old church of the Hebrews with the High Priest. This High Priest is the Pope who is the successor to the Rock who is Peter. If there were not successors then Judas would not have been replaced. As the church grew it had to change its organization ranks. The Apostles became the Bishops and the Apostle of Peters seat was called the Pope. Rome was the only city to never fall to the Islam armies. I find that an interesting fact.

This sounds like a theme that anybody with Catholic sympathies would find comforting. But those without Catholic presuppositions cannot help but see difficulties – not, I suggest, because they have a predilection for creating their own beliefs but because they are very uneasy about the jump from “Peter was the only apostle to be given the keys to heaven” to the doctrine of papal infallibility that became compulsory belief for Catholics over 1800 years later.

For Protestant beliefs to be legitament they have to be from 33 B.C.

This doesn’t seem to be a particularly compelling argument. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t promulgated in 33 BC, was it? It was promulgated 1887 years later in 1854 AD. Yet Catholics still accept that doctrine as “legitimate.”

Not 1800s like the beliefs on the end times.

The doctrine of papal infallibility wasn’t promulgated until even later in 1870 AD yet Catholics still believe it.

Those are beliefs created by man (world).

Not necessarily. I respectfully suggest that these beliefs may legitimately be classified under the heading of “development of doctrine.”

If the reformers beliefs are not from then than they have created their own beliefs which they didn’t have the authority to do.

I propose that the Reformers didn’t create their own beliefs. They developed their doctrines just as Catholics see fit to do.

Thus now we have so many beliefs out there on the Eurcharist, Baptism, marriage, divorce, etc. That is the main point I’m trying to get at.

I don’t believe there’s any disagreement about the fact that there is disagreement.

There has to be one main authority in the world to say what is right and what is wrong.

That sounds like a nice thought. It could even be developed into a wish. How about:

How nice it would be if there existed on earth an Authority that commanded universal recognition.

When you have as many different churches as we have then you have confusion.

No, you don’t. You have disagreement.

Because not everyone is right.

I agree. By the way, I agree with this statement not because I’m confused about it but because I understand it. I disagree on a similar basis.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Lutheranteach]

Asking where reformers got the authority to leave the Catholic Church is like asking African-Americans where they got the authority to demand civil rights. After all slavery had it roots in tradition as well as in the Bible, and Jim Crow was the duly passed law of the land.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5866566:

Would you care to be a little more specific?

Cordially,
Mick

The joyous worship of the Early Church which seemingly was lost during medieval times when worship was gloomy and heavy and clergy virtually celebrated amongst themselves as if on a stage in front of the faithful.

I’m still not getting it. What do you mean by “joyous worship of the Early Church”? And what do you mean by “during medieval times when worship was gloomy and heavy”? Are you referring to the Tridentine Mass?

Much originality came from the Reformation including the absence of papal supremacy (which was never a part of the Early Church) and infallibility which didn’t become Catholic doctrine until the late 1800’s.

When you assert, “Much originality came from the Reformation,” are you agreeing with the notion that the Reformers “created their own beliefs,” which is being argued on this thread?

Peace,
Mick

 

[mark42]

This thread isn’t going anywhere good. You have your church, we have ours. Just leave it alone. People have been arguing this for 500 years and where has it gotten us?

It has gotten us somewhere between 33 and 40 thousand or so Christian divisions that think they all are interpeting the Bible correctly yet all have thier differences. Jesus prayed that the His Church would remain one. Many non-Christians can’t take Christainity seriously because of so many splits. God does not get in the way of our free will. Read what the bible says.

 

[Justy90]

I’m still not getting it. What do you mean by “joyous worship of the Early Church”? And what do you mean by “during medieval times when worship was gloomy and heavy”? Are you referring to the Tridentine Mass?

 

[agiosotheos]

Where did the “Catholic Church” get the authority to leave the Orthodox Church?

 

[kempo1]

the awsome thing about catholicism is i can go to any catholic church in the world on sunday and know that all the other churches(catholic) will be in agreement and teaching on the exact same scriptures all being in agreement. go to any given protestant church and all are not in agreement.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Protestants have certain key things we do almost all believe in. But there are amny issues that are open to interpretation, and is that a bad thing?

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is when they teach completely opposite things - the Holy Spirit and the Church are not contradictory…

 

[kempo1]

the open to interpretation thing for catholics is solved through the wisdom of the magesterium. we have no problem trusting in them because we believe they are lead by the holy spirit

 

[kempo1]

my wife was raised asembely of god and i a catholic. I visited her churches many times in the past some were okay and some not because they were so different from one another. I want to thank catholic answers for reaffirming Holy Mother Church as being the True Church for me in a time of my life when i needed it. very sorry to others if i brought you off of topic

 

[agiosotheos]

Protestants have certain key things we do almost all believe in. But there are amny issues that are open to interpretation, and is that a bad thing?

No, I don’t think Protestants have enough agreement in what I consider the fundamentals.

 

[agiosotheos]

The Popes authority gets questioned.

The Protestants were not the first to question the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[agiosotheos]

There was one church in the Old Testament.

:ehh:

The Church didn’t even exactly exist in the Old Testament.

 

[agiosotheos]

I think one of the biggest mistakes in church history was not adopting Hebrew and or Ariamic as the offical language of the church with everyone having to learn these languages.

Why did we translate the Bible into our own languages and forcing it to conform to us instead of us conforming to the Bible and learning the language Jesus spoke? How then could we disagree as to the truth?

Actually, Greek was pretty much the official language of the Church for the first couple hundred years.

 

[agiosotheos]

Tyranny? He wanted to get divorced so he could remarry and thus sin which is something Jesus talked about. Most Americans want to violate what Jesus taught? That Queen did nothing wrong to deserve a divorce. Did she cheat on him? If so that was considered treason and he would have had her beheaded. Which we know he did to his other future wives.

What should the church have done? Should they have allowed him to divorce someone so he could remarry someone else? What would this have done to society had they done this? He should have chosen another successor and accepted God’s will that he would just never have a son. Sometimes we have to live with our pain. Thus we grow. He had no authority to make a sin something just.

The fact that you don’t realize that you are speaking to a Lutheran rather than an Anglican, and that thus the controversy over the divorce of Henry VIII is irrelevant, shocks me.

 

[agiosotheos]

I guess one could ask, where did Rome get the authority to schism from the other Patriarchs? Where does Rome get the authority to claim universal jurisdiction and infallibility, when they were not granted in the early councils?

 

[jmcrae]

Where did the “Catholic Church” get the authority to leave the Orthodox Church?

Which of the seven Orthodox Churches did we actually “leave”?