Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[pablope]

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 ?

The Reformation succeed? What are you talking about? The Reformation is still at it…500 years and still going…in splitting the Church.

St. Catherine of Sien was able to heal a schism and reform the Church in her lifetime, so did St. Francis of Assisi.

The question is…it has been 500 years…what has the Reformation shown as a success story for the last 500 years? And why is it still going on? What do you think will make the Reformation a success?

 

[MaryT777]

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 ?

The reformation is a dismal failure and the Church is splitting and splitting and splitting even among mainstream Protestants.

The invention of the Printing Press was the reason for the “larger” reformation.

Mary.

 

[benhur]

The Reformation succeed? What are you talking about? The Reformation is still at it…500 years and still going…in splitting the Church.

St. Catherine of Sien was able to heal a schism and reform the Church in her lifetime, so did St. Francis of Assisi.

The question is…it has been 500 years…what has the Reformation shown as a success story for the last 500 years? And why is it still going on? What do you think will make the Reformation a success?

Well, by succeed I mean why did it continue to exist and now for 500 years (irregardless of agreement with it or against it). Why was it not squelched by reason or might, by inspirational priests and teachers, or inquisitors and princes ?

 

[JonNC]

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 ?

I disagree that the Reformation has succeeded. If we recognize that reformation means to reform, then it has not as of yet succeeded. the Reformation was not initially intended to be a division, which it is today - a division of the western Church (singular).
Reconciliation is a requirement for success of the Reformation, and if we (western Christians of all stripes) become complacent or comfortable in division, then the Catholic polemic that it is a “deformation” is sadly correct.

Jon

 

[benhur]

The reformation is a dismal failure and the Church is splitting and splitting and splitting even among mainstream Protestants.

yes a travesty . But also, the Jehovah’s Witness’s are very unified, more so than CC, but the unity gauge only goes so far.

The invention of the Printing Press was the reason for the “larger” reformation.

Amen.

 

[spina1953]

I disagree that the Reformation has succeeded. If we recognize that reformation means to reform, then it has not as of yet succeeded. the Reformation was not initially intended to be a division, which it is today - a division of the western Church (singular).
Reconciliation is a requirement for success of the Reformation, and if we (western Christians of all stripes) become complacent or comfortable in division, then the Catholic polemic that it is a “deformation” is sadly correct.

Jon

Hi Jon: I have to agree with you on what you state and it seems to me to be right on point.

 

[benhur]

I disagree that the Reformation has succeeded. If we recognize that reformation means to reform, then it has not as of yet succeeded. the Reformation was not initially intended to be a division, which it is today - a division of the western Church (singular).
Reconciliation is a requirement for success of the Reformation, and if we (western Christians of all stripes) become complacent or comfortable in division, then the Catholic polemic that it is a “deformation” is sadly correct.

Jon

Partly agree, and entirely with the wish for all to be in full light on all important matters of the faith. The partly is due to historical context. Just put yourself in the shoes of the reformers, and what they went thru to live with put forth their convictions. Would it have been better to live unified but without the freedom to live by their “different” convictions ? Would it be better that only one church could exist on main street as did for centuries ? I am just saying in a certain way freedom of choice as we have it today is a gift, a “success” , some shedding their blood for it. That it is a curse also (really a responsibility) I will not deny.

 

[phil19034]

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.**

This is where Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East would disagree with Protestants.

The Bible is only part of the Deposit of Faith and not the entirety. There are only 4 Gospels which focus on Christ’s life and ministry. The Acts of the Apostles focuses on the history of the Apostles after Christ’s death, while the Book of Revelation focuses on the “supernatural.” The rest of the epistles are letters from Sts Paul, Peter, etc that address specific issues in the early Church. Bishops and Popes have always written letters their Churches to address issues and pastoral concerns, even today. None of the Books of the New Testament were written as a Guide Book to Christian Worship. That was left to Missals and Graduals of each Liturgical Rite. When you read the Missals of the ancient Mass/Divine Liturgies which the Church Fathers celebrated, you can see that they are very Catholic and Orthodox.

Read the following for your FYI:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1877
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1876

Many other Church Father documents can be found here: catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/

But the fact that the first two know liturgies (from between 60 and 69 AD) are very Catholic shows that early Christians always knew that the Mass/Divine Liturgy and Sacred Tradition (similar to what the Jews call the Oral Torah) would be used to teach Christian Truths. You will note that Jewish Liturgy also is not in the Books of the Hebrew Bible either, meaning that they need to rely on things outside scripture to relay Truths.

 

[guanophore]

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 ?

How do you see the endless division of the Body of Christ as a “success”?

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

How is it an advantage to have a doctrine that is defined differently by everyone who uses it?

 

[guanophore]

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.

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

Jon

It certainly seems easier to see things differently in hindsight. The same might be said about the immaculate conception and the Assumption.

 

[guanophore]

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.

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5-7

One cannot walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless unless by grace, through faith.

I think that one of the greatest losses from the Reformation is the idea that human beings cannot walk in God’s commandments, blameless. I have been told by many Protestants that this is “impossible” due to our fallen nature. And yet, Jesus calls us to be perfect, and Scriptures shows us how people can, indeed, perfect their works by grace, through faith.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is well said. The Holy Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the faith that produced them. Whenever they were separated from those authentic keepers of the Gospel, heresies were rampant.

 

[benhur]

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5-7

One cannot walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless unless by grace, through faith.

I think that one of the greatest losses from the Reformation is the idea that human beings cannot walk in God’s commandments, blameless. I have been told by many Protestants that this is “impossible” due to our fallen nature. And yet, Jesus calls us to be perfect, and Scriptures shows us how people can, indeed, perfect their works by grace, through faith.

So tell me how was job perfect? Did he contradict future scripture that all are not and all have sinned. The reformation did not to away with being perfect and righteous,nor with works of righteousness. It just clarified what all that means. Perhaps you see it as thru Christ and I do to but the only way we reach total perfection is not thru Christ but in Christ .otherwise you are never more than halfway there (there is always a halfway point till you cross the finish line)

 

[benhur]

How do you see the endless division of the Body of Christ as a “success”?

How is it an advantage to have a doctrine that is defined differently by everyone who uses it?

Each stage of a change, reform even a type of revolution has it,s challenges and therefore it,s successes or failures. I would only partly judge what happened 500years ago because of today,s " stage". Two different beasts. Post 127 deals more what I had in mind of the success of those living five hundred years ago. I would add that even back then separation was not their goal either and I believed they were disheartened by it also…not sure that popularity and status quo of a doctrine is correct criteria to determine, judge correct doctrine

 

[benhur]

This is where Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East would disagree with Protestants.

The Bible is only part of the Deposit of Faith and not the entirety. There are only 4 Gospels which focus on Christ’s life and ministry. The Acts of the Apostles focuses on the history of the Apostles after Christ’s death, while the Book of Revelation focuses on the “supernatural.” The rest of the epistles are letters from Sts Paul, Peter, etc that address specific issues in the early Church. Bishops and Popes have always written letters their Churches to address issues and pastoral concerns, even today. None of the Books of the New Testament were written as a Guide Book to Christian Worship. That was left to Missals and Graduals of each Liturgical Rite. When you read the Missals of the ancient Mass/Divine Liturgies which the Church Fathers celebrated, you can see that they are very Catholic and Orthodox.

Read the following for your FYI:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1877
catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1876

Many other Church Father documents can be found here: catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/

But the fact that the first two know liturgies (from between 60 and 69 AD) are very Catholic shows that early Christians always knew that the Mass/Divine Liturgy and Sacred Tradition (similar to what the Jews call the Oral Torah) would be used to teach Christian Truths. You will note that Jewish Liturgy also is not in the Books of the Hebrew Bible either, meaning that they need to rely on things outside scripture to relay Truths.

That there are biblical truths in liturgy does not then elevate liturgy to the level of biblical truth.that early or even any now have biblical truth only shows the accepted authority of Scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, by succeed I mean why did it continue to exist and now for 500 years (irregardless of agreement with it or against it). Why was it not squelched by reason or might, by inspirational priests and teachers, or inquisitors and princes ?

Because of the distraction from the South; Islam and Judaism contending against each other to attempt to control Southern Europe. Defeating them and preserving Christianity in those regions meant sacrificing the North to the Protestants - there were simply not enough resources to win both battles at the same time.

 

[GKC]

Because of the distraction from the South; Islam and Judaism contending against each other to attempt to control Southern Europe. Defeating them and preserving Christianity in those regions meant sacrificing the North to the Protestants - there were simply not enough resources to win both battles at the same time.

Could you expand on Judaism attempting to control Southern Europe at that time?

GKC

 

[guanophore]

So tell me how was job perfect?

The same way the parents of John the Baptist were, by grace, through faith.

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil.Job 1:1

Do you think there is another way to be perfect and blameless before God? Those who walk by the Spirit do not fulfill the desires of the flesh.

Did he contradict future scripture that all are not and all have sinned.

No, but most modern protestants have misinterpreted that Scripture, and taken it out of context.

The reformation did not to away with being perfect and righteous,nor with works of righteousness. It just clarified what all that means.

It is a clarification of mud, in that case. The modern prevalent perception is that it is not possible to be blameless before God, following all of His commandments. There is a rampant denial that Jesus Christ has triumphed over sin, and that it is now possible to live without sin.

Perhaps you see it as thru Christ and I do to but the only way we reach total perfection is not thru Christ but in Christ .otherwise you are never more than halfway there (there is always a halfway point till you cross the finish line)

In HIm, with Him, and through Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit.

Each stage of a change, reform even a type of revolution has it,s challenges and therefore it,s successes or failures. I would only partly judge what happened 500years ago because of today,s " stage". Two different beasts.

Perhaps for changes originating with humankind, but Jesus’ Church was perfect just the way he created it, and is not in need of reform, and neither are the doctrines He committed to His Apostles.

Post 127 deals more what I had in mind of the success of those living five hundred years ago. I would add that even back then separation was not their goal either and I believed they were disheartened by it also

(Post 127) Partly agree, and entirely with the wish for all to be in full light on all important matters of the faith. The partly is due to historical context. Just put yourself in the shoes of the reformers, and what they went thru to live with put forth their convictions. Would it have been better to live unified but without the freedom to live by their “different” convictions ?

People’s personal moral convictions do not create division, unless they were a departure from the Apostolic faith. Why would it be difficult?

Would it be better that only one church could exist on main street as did for centuries ?

Let’s see…

1 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us,** so that the world may believe **that thou hast sent me. John 12:21-22

How does it seem better from God’s point of view?

am just saying in a certain way freedom of choice as we have it today  is a gift, a "success" , some shedding their blood for it. That it is a curse also (really a responsibility) I will not deny.

There has always been freedom of choice, since the creation of humankind. Yet, God has given us commandments within which to exercise our freedom of choice. He has expressed His desire that His disciples manifest unity to the world, so that the world may believe. Whenever individual choice contradicts God’s plan, we are putting our own desires above His.

 

[guanophore]

That there are biblical truths in liturgy does not then elevate liturgy to the level of biblical truth.that early or even any now have biblical truth only shows the accepted authority of Scripture.

Ben, the disciples were practicing liturgy for decades before a word of the NT was ever written. Liturgy was already solid before the earliest epistle, and the books of the NT were produced through a liturgical community. Liturgy was an inheritance from our Jewish roots. The modern Divine Liturgy is rooted in the Synagogue service and prayers at Temple. This is part of our Apostolic inheritance, and is the reason why all those Churches founded by Apostles are liturgical.

 

[benhur]

Because of the distraction from the South; Islam and Judaism contending against each other to attempt to control Southern Europe. Defeating them and preserving Christianity in those regions meant sacrificing the North to the Protestants - there were simply not enough resources to win both battles at the same time.

Actually regional even parochial inquisitions paid for itself so not sure why they needed resources, irregardless of what was going on elsewhere. Actually the CC sent their best to Germany in the likes of Ignatius and the Jesuits, who did succeed in winning more than a few princes back.