Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[spina1953]

I would like to say in response to what I read in a couple of posts is that not all priests are good at spiritual direction when one goes to confession. Often times it just make one more confused or at least unfulfilled after confession in doing what ever the priest says to do as penance. In some ways that is changing from what I hear but that it takes time to train one to understand and really help those in confession to feel better about themselves and understand that not everything we do or think is a sin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to say in response to what I read in a couple of posts is that not all priests are good at spiritual direction when one goes to confession.

Perhaps they need more practice *hearing *them.

(Let that sink in for a moment. )

 

[spina1953]

Perhaps they need more practice *hearing *them.

(Let that sink in for a moment. )

Hi Randy Carson: I agree. I understand that many are now learning how to be spiritual directors which will be a big help to those in need of one. However, many priest do not have the time to do real spiritual direction because of the many duties they have and in many parishes there is only one priest and so do not have the time because of the many other duties they have and can only do so much. So that is a problem I think some do not understand.

 

[guanophore]

The only thing that troubles me about what you’ve written is this: how many times have I as a parent tried to explain something to my kids (who are older) only to have them ignore me. Later, however, I find that when someone else told them the same things, they accepted it as if they had heard it for the first time. Well, in a sense, they did “hear” for the first time because they weren’t really listening all the other times that they were told the same things by me!

I’m happy for you that some Lutheran pastors have been helpful, but I am saddened that the consequence of that is that you are no longer Catholic. Jesus never intended for us to be separated as we are today.

This rings very true for me Randy. I thought I never “heard the Gospel” when I was growing up very Catholic. After having sojourned among my separated brethren for many years I found my way back through the Charismatic Renewal. Once I learned how to walk by the Spirit, and returned to the Sacraments, I realized that the Gospel had been there all along, I just was not 'getting" it. There are a variety of factors in this, but I am very fortunate that the HS does work through such ecclesial communities so that I could return to the the fullness of the faith.

 

[Tomyris]

Back to the OP, sort of. The Protestants were right along side the Catholics. It was only at Trent that some beliefs were rejected as Catholic, meaning that up until then it was perfectly fine to be Catholic and believe things that Trent rejected, where they were officially addressed for the first time. Protestant thought did not spring out of a vacuum but had been developing for a long time inside the church.

When was the second Council of Orange? 529 AD? And Trent? 1549 or so? That is over a millenium in which the Church did not officially promulgate anything on justification, to name one issue. A whole lot happens in a thousand years.

 

[benhur]

Why is it that your sets of belief didn’t even exist before ‘Reformers’ like Martin Luther were born?

As others have said, they were in the 14 th century and the 13 th and, well, from the beginning. The real question is what made it necessary for such a big reformation and why did it succeed where smaller ones failed ?

 

[benhur]

How could people be protestant in earlier times and believe in sola scriptura when most could not get their own copy of the Bible to read for their self and most could not read?

So was Barnabus wrong in the early church to write and exhort to keep all the precepts of the Lord, “as many as are written” ? Was Augustine wrong when writing of the superior authority of Holy Writ and how it is “accessible to all” and "easy to read " ? So if you can’t read you can’t hear by the Word of God ? When it is spoken it is no longer solo scriptura ?

 

[benhur]

That’s not possible. That bible that you rest your faith solely upon didn’t even exist until the 4th century when the Catholic Church sorted and settled those writings as canon.
Jesus Christ did not found a “biblical” church. He founded an Apostolic Church.

Apostolic is as apostolic does… Holy writ has existed way before the 4th century. Joshua did not say we have no holy writ because Psalms has not been written yet. David did not say we have no holy writ because Daniel has not been written yet and Daniel didn’t wait for Malachi to be written. Get my drift ? But just in case, did the Corinthians say we have no Holy Writ because John has not written Revelations yet, or we will wait a bunch of centuries to see if it stands the test of time or is authorized by a council, but hang in there Paul, sooner or later we will declare your letters “inspired and Holy”… The apostles, even Jesus, did not wait till OT was “canonized” to quote it as authoritative.

 

[benhur]

And now comes the interesting part of the thread where we ask that famous question:
Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

Actually the advantage goes to the one defining just what SS is.

Near as I can tell, Scripture does not say Scripture alone. There is a superiority about Scripture - “All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching” - but no one would say it operates* alone*.

See, you just defined SS as “operating alone”. You win, for whatever that means ("operating alone’’), at face value no one would say that.

So you, too, my friend, being a good, orthodox Lutheran, subscribe to Tradition, just like us Catholics. You do not adhere to “sola scriptura”.

You just defined SS again, as in nor room for tradition. You win, but only in your own defined paradigm.

 

[benhur]

I believe the Apostles were the first. They wrote what they believed. They didn’t believe anything outside of the letters they wrote, which once compiled, became the Bible.

If they believed what they wrote, did they believe anything outside of it? If so, why wasn’t it recorded? I believe the Apostles were the fist ‘Bible only’ believers! Why because that which was written was what they believed.

Ahh, but you forgot the key to pandoras box, the scripture that says that if they wrote everything possible, there would be no end to our bible. Again, he who defines the meaning of that scripture has the advantage.
I like your definition, as in just cause they could have written more does not mean they left anything important out.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Actually the advantage goes to the one defining just what SS is.
See, you just defined SS as “operating alone”. You win, for whatever that means ("operating alone’’), at face value no one would say that.
You just defined SS again, as in nor room for tradition. You win, but only in your own defined paradigm.

So sola doesn’t really mean sola…

These forums are bleeding postmodernism…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Could the question be better asked, “If protestants were to claim a group of communion before Luther, Calvin and the protestant enterprise in general. What church would that be?”

For instance, a Catholic might say they would attend the church of Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp and Iraneaus. Orthodox would say that as well and would likewise claim full communion with those venerable men and the churches they lead or were in communion with themselves.

 

[jmcrae]

Could the question be better asked, “If protestants were to claim a group of communion before Luther, Calvin and the protestant enterprise in general. What church would that be?”

For instance, a Catholic might say they would attend the church of Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp and Iraneaus. Orthodox would say that as well and would likewise claim full communion with those venerable men and the churches they lead or were in communion with themselves.

Those who reject Mary would have to find an organization that originated from the Apostles, but separated from the Catholic Church, prior to the Council of Ephesus, which continues to exist until now.

I don’t think such an organization has ever existed, myself.

 

[Cathoholic]

In post 40, St. Irenaeus was attempted to be put forth as teaching sola Scriptura.

If what was meant, is the material sufficiency of Scripture, I will not object. But if what was meant is the formal sufficiency of Scripture, I will take issue.

Here is the quote that was given from St. Irenaeus . . . .

ST. IRENAEUS “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

The “ground and pillar of our faith” was "the plan of salvation”, not “the Scriptures”.

This “plan of salvation” was certainly “handed down” through “the Scriptures”, but NOWHERE does St. Irenaeus say or imply this “plan of salvation” was handed down “handed down ONLY through the Scriptures”. There is a big difference here.

• The plan of salvation to be the ground and pillar of our faith—check
• This was learned “through the Gospel”—check. (Incidentally. St. Irenaeus does not reduce “the Gospel” down to the printed page: “For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.”—Book 3 Against Heresies).
• The Gospel was handed down through the Scriptures—check

Notice what was NOT said by St. Irenaeus . . . .

• The Bible alone is the ground and pillar of our faith—NO check
• This was learned only “through the written Gospel”—NO check.
• The Gospel was handed down ONLY through the Scriptures—NO check

ST. IRENAEUS We have learned . . . .the plan of our salvation, . . . .to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Here is more context from the same quote (that was NOT given) . . . .

ST. IRENAEUS We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

St. Irenaeus tells us the Apostles (not merely the Scripture-writing Apostles) . . .

ST. IRENAEUS For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

Yes some of the Apostles wrote to be sure, but not all of them.

Also what was NOT quoted in post 40 also shows the alleged sola Scriptura jig is up when more of what St. Irenaeus says in the same document . . . .

ST. IRENAEUS But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. . . . .

To read post 40, you would think St. Irenaeus said:

**
NOT ST. IRENAEUS (Phantom imaginary Irenaeus quote)** But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the Bible only. And only the Bible is the ground and pillar of our faith.

Here is what St. Irenaeus really said about preserving Apostolic truth . . . .

ST. IRENAEUS But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches . . .

None of the Early Church Fathers taught or believed in sola Scriptura.
None of the Early Church Fathers taught or believed in the formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.

Thus sola Scriptura demands a type of bending of history that accepts the tradition of sola Scriptura first, and then work backwards and try to jam history into this tradition.

 

[JonNC]

ST. IRENAEUS “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

The “ground and pillar of our faith” was "the plan of salvation”, not “the Scriptures”.

This “plan of salvation” was certainly “handed down” through “the Scriptures”, but NOWHERE does St. Irenaeus say or imply this “plan of salvation” was handed down “handed down ONLY through the Scriptures”. There is a big difference here.

• The plan of salvation to be the ground and pillar of our faith—check
• This was learned “through the Gospel”—check. (Incidentally. St. Irenaeus does not reduce “the Gospel” down to the printed page: “For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.”—Book 3 Against Heresies).
• The Gospel was handed down through the Scriptures—check

Notice what was NOT said by St. Irenaeus . . . .

• The Bible alone is the ground and pillar of our faith—NO check
• This was learned only “through the written Gospel”—NO check.
• The Gospel was handed down ONLY through the Scriptures—NO check

ST. IRENAEUS We have learned . . . .the plan of our salvation, . . . .to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Here is more context from the same quote (that was NOT given) . . . .

ST. IRENAEUS We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

St. Irenaeus tells us the Apostles (not merely the Scripture-writing Apostles) . . .

ST. IRENAEUS For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

Yes some of the Apostles wrote to be sure, but not all of them.

Also what was NOT quoted in post 40 also shows the alleged sola Scriptura jig is up when more of what St. Irenaeus says in the same document . . . .

ST. IRENAEUS But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. . . . .

To read post 40, you would think St. Irenaeus said:

**
NOT ST. IRENAEUS (Phantom imaginary Irenaeus quote)** But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the Bible only. And only the Bible is the ground and pillar of our faith.

Here is what St. Irenaeus really said about preserving Apostolic truth . . . .

ST. IRENAEUS But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches . . .

None of the Early Church Fathers taught or believed in sola Scriptura.
None of the Early Church Fathers taught or believed in the formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.

I actually think you make some good points here, in that it is difficult to use Irenaeus and the Fathers to defend (or refute) either position in a disagreement they would have no knowledge of.

Thus sola Scriptura demands a type of bending of history that accepts the tradition of sola Scriptura first, and then work backwards and try to jam history into this tradition.

With all respect, you are describing here something quite similar to the way Catholics project papal supremacy back into the early Church.

Jon

 

[benhur]

So sola doesn’t really mean sola…

These forums are bleeding postmodernism…

And saved by grace and not of works doesn’t really mean…

 

[adrift]

And saved by grace and not of works doesn’t really mean…

James 2
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[benhur]

James 2
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

It is still faith that is king and works is a desriptor of proper saving faith. It is faith that is made perfect. Not sure the reverse is true, that faith makes works perfect. Otherwise we are contradicting Paul.

 

[Contarini]

So sola doesn’t really mean sola…

These forums are bleeding postmodernism…

That may be one of the craziest things I’ve seen on these forums, and that’s saying something.

So reading with nuance, in context, is now “postmodern”? You really want to build your religion on wooden literalism?

Cause that will work out so well for a Catholic. . . . .

“Co-Redemptrix,” bear in mind, doesn’t actually mean that Mary redeems us along with Jesus, in exactly the same way as Jesus. . . …

Mediatrix doesn’t actually violate the Scripture that says there is only one mediator. . . .

When Jesus said “call no man your father,” he didn’t mean that you couldn’t call men “fathers” as religious honorific. . . . .

Note: none of the above are, in my opinion, serious objections to Catholicism. (Well, I think Jesus’ words about “calling no man father” are a rebuke of Catholic clericalism among other things, but I don’t think the actual word “father” is the problem.) I’m making the point that these are the silly things fundamentalists say, and they accuse Catholics of being dishonest when they rightly point out that language is nuanced and has to be read in context, etc. . . …

You are making the same move. It’s crazy.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

In post 40,
ST. IRENAEUS “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”[/INDENT]

The “ground and pillar of our faith” was "the plan of salvation”, not “the Scriptures”.

Not so sure. Was not Iraneus contending for one gospel over another (Gnosticism) ? Was not his main argument that the correct gospel has the correct method of conveyance, the originators and their methods ? So I think he authenticated the right gospel by who delivered it, the originators of both the oral and written “gospel” as opposed to others and other writings or hidden things not in the apostle’s oral or written transmission. Faith cometh by hearing, and that by the word of God. And the question was, what is the word of God, and who truly proclaimed it ? That is the ground and and pillar from which we grow on. That is part of the rationale of this whole website, the conviction that proper conveyance of the “Word”/ gospel is crucial and just what is it and who is doing it on better grounds and stronger pillars.