Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[benhur]

What keeps you a Protestant when the Catholic Church put the books of the Bible together. You talk about the superiority of Scriptures and Tradition, yet you fail to realize that the Christians during early Christian times had to rely on Tradition, instead of Scriptures.

Tradition and scripture were much simpler and cohesive then than now. But yes, the oral gospel (tradition) came first before it was put to writing. It was put to writing to be as authoritative as if the apostles and writers were speaking to us today.

 

[benhur]

The Word of God has never been confined to Holy Scripture. It has always been alive and well in the Church.

Totally agree as a few posts before show .

You are not making sense, Ben. The Liturgy and the Word of God present in the Church came first, from whence the Scripture emanated.

No, we agree , I posted "Yes our churches have liturgy and liturgy came before NT. " I also posted that first came the Oral Word (at Pentecost and the church began) and then corporate praise and teaching began (liturgy), finally came the first formations of NT scriptures 20-30 years later. Hopefully that is sensibly stating it.

Yes, the Liturgy and the Word of God at work in the believers does testify to the authority of the Scriptures.

Cool.

 

[KathleenGee]

Where were Protestants before the 1500’s…well I think many of them still considered themselves Catholic but were lukewarm about the Eucharist.

Afterall, from the 900’s to Luther’s time, the reception of the Eucharist was primarily visual on the laity’s part. They could not see the Mass because there was this wall between them and the altar. There was clericalism and comments by highly educated clerics referring to reception by laity of the Eucharist as tearing Christ with their teeth.

The other issue besides the Divine Presence of the Eucharist, was the issue of the papacy. There was the Schism of who was pope that was resolved by St. Catherine of Siena…followed by the Black Plague that ended in 1349. I read the booklet on ‘Holy Church’ by Catherine and some of the abuses in there are like what we saw recently. She did not hold back her words to bishop or priest.

The pope is the successor to Peter who holds the keys to the kingdom. Going back to the time of Isaiah, the elder wore a large key representing power. The hundred years following the life of Christ, the Jews in those days knew the great importance of ‘who is holding the keys’…not a declaration of faith but an appointed person.

Today it is evident the pope is the sign of unity of all Christians united with him and the bishops. Back then I think lay Catholics were affected by ambiguity of the papacy as well as lukewarm in regards to the Eucharist.

So when Luther broke away, he took with him many disenfranchised.

When they left, they also were drawn into nationalism, which resulted in time with the 30 Years war…physical aggression really destroys relationships.

Let’s hope we can restore the sacred unity of Our Lord among us. It is most imperative especially in our country.

Where were the Protestants before the 1500’s in relationship to the thousands of sects and divisions of American Christianity. We are the greatest voting block in the country, I read recently, 79% are Christian…but we as a nation produce more smut and justification for abortion throughout the world. Just an added thought about how I think of the past and where we are now as a nation, considering how many other Christians in the world are dying for Christ than deny Him.

 

[guanophore]

Irenaeus did not address our issue of scripture vs oral /tradition or even even council as we do today.

This is a good observation. Sacred Tradition was not separated from the Sacred Scriptures until the Reformation.

He said what we all agree with, that of course first came the oral, and subsequently written Scripture. He did not pit one against the other, I don’t think. Here is his quote, " 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,".
Again, Irenaeus did not address our issue and it would be wrong to say he pitted tradition as something apart from Scripture as we do today.

I think, for the first 1500 years of Christendom, it was an undisputed fact that what was handed down from the Apostles would, by nature, be consistent with the Scripture. Both came from the same Source, so they cannot contradict.

He addressed those who believed in something different not found in both the Scriptures and the apostles and their succeeding presbyters.

Wouldn’t you say we have the same condition today? Many doctrines cannot be found in either place! Sola Scriptura is an example of that.

Wow, so hearing is a work? Preaching may be, on the part of the evangelist, but the listening ? Well then I suppose there are a multitude of works necessary, try like breathing, eating, walking etc. for without those you won’t be brought to the position of hearing.

The point being that one has to assent to what one is hearing. God does not save us without our participation, contrary to some heretical doctrines. One can hear, and still reject God’s call.

No, Irenaeus is not addressing our situation beyond what we both agree with that Scripture and oral/tradition existed then as now but then they were both quite cohesive and simpler.

They are still cohesive, since neither can change, being both the Word of God. I am not sure about the “simplier” part. Certainly, the more issues that arise, the more the Teaching needs to be applied.

 

[Micko]

476 East and West Churches separate

692 East rejection of the Council of Trullo

The Great schism in the 11th Century.

Many more doctrinal arguments before that.

The Inquisitions begin in the 12th Century with persecution of non Catholics and anyone who disagreed with Rome.

Remember that Rome ruled with an iron fist until the Protestant Reformation.
Most early protestants were Killed. Pope Innocent III declared a crusade against Christians in 1209.

Joan of Arc was killed as a heretic as were the Templars. Dissension with the Papacy was not tolerated. Any reform moment was immediately squashed and participants imprisoned, tortured, and or killed.

So you ask where are the Protestants before the 1500? They were martyred or kept quite.

That was the Dark Ages! Let’s create a new era of Light!

 

[KathleenGee]

Regarding Scripture and Tradition, the universal Catholic Catechism contains all our beliefs, and the vast majority of our beliefs are drawn from Sacred Scripture. Others are drawn on Tradition.

Tradition is how the Church has been lived out and developed based on Peter and the Apostles. At the Resurrection, and on the Road to Emmaus, the apostles still did not understand. Then when the Lord broke bread and disappeared, they then understood, recognizing Him in the Breaking of the Bread, the ancient word for the Eucharist.

We eat and drink His Body and Blood, we receive the inheritance of His Soul and Divinity, He Who brings us Eternal Life, Who serves through our ordinary lives.

Yet years prior to the Reformation, ordinary Catholics did not participate much in the Eucharist, Which likewise strengthens one’s faith.

As others have said, many people up to 150 years ago could not read. My grandmothers both had only an 8th grade education.

We hear, we see, we eat, we live in Christ.

It is the Mass, likewise, that opens the mystery and meaning of the Book of Revelation, the Mass heaven on earth.

So how the Mass was said back then did not have a good effect on the common people.

Yet you go back to St. Justin the Martyr who described what happened at Mass, 154 A.D. to the Roman Emperor, how the Mass was said then throughout the ancient Christian world, irregardless the Church goes on through the tradition and practice of faith in the Lord.

 

[benhur]

This is a good observation. Sacred Tradition was not separated from the Sacred Scriptures until the Reformation.

That is an entirely different conversation. Many here would disagree that wrankling over tradition being scriptural began with Luther.

I think, for the first 1500 years of Christendom, it was an undisputed fact that what was handed down from the Apostles would, by nature, be consistent with the Scripture. Both came from the same Source, so they cannot contradict.

Right. We have what they wrote but we just are not sure of a few things that were not written, of exactly what was handed down only orally.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

476 East and West Churches separate

692 East rejection of the Council of Trullo

The Great schism in the 11th Century.

Many more doctrinal arguments before that.

The Inquisitions begin in the 12th Century with persecution of non Catholics and anyone who disagreed with Rome.

Remember that Rome ruled with an iron fist until the Protestant Reformation.
Most early protestants were Killed. Pope Innocent III declared a crusade against Christians in 1209.

Joan of Arc was killed as a heretic as were the Templars. Dissension with the Papacy was not tolerated. Any reform moment was immediately squashed and participants imprisoned, tortured, and or killed.

So you ask where are the Protestants before the 1500? They were martyred or kept quite.

That was the Dark Ages! Let’s create a new era of Light!

Can you name any one early protestant? Are you also insinuating that Joan of Arc was a protestant?

 

[Memaw]

Which one? Lots of people have told me I need to be following “Sacred Tradition”. No one has told me what exactly is contained therein, or how I can judge who has the correct one.

You had it once when you were Catholic but you just didn’t know it and then gave it up. Prayers for your return Home. God Bless, Memaw

 

[GKC]

Can you name any one early protestant? Are you also insinuating that Joan of Arc was a protestant?

I’d ask the the title of last book on the Albigensians the poster has read. Or the last book on the general subject of the Inquisitions.

GKC

 

[KathleenGee]

It goes both ways on the Inquisition.

The documents were finally opened in August, 2003 by the wishes of P. John Paul II and it reaffirmed what Catholics already knew…that the excesses of the Inquisition were grossly exaggerated.

There were about 5,000 who died. But it was the Catholic clerics who did the most to work with them and to exonerate them. It was the temporal powers that executed.

The bigger context is that Spain was plundered for 700 years by the Muslim Moors. During the ‘Golden Age’ of Cordoba that Muslims always like to refer to, Christians and Jews had to wear green badges on the outside of their clothes, they were dhimmis, had little power of witness and trials, were not allowed to share their faith and bring others into the life of Christ.

So there was a revolution to break free of Islam and for the sake of national unity, to have one common faith. It is written that the Jewish population was oftentimes inciting trouble, and Spain wanted peace. I remember reading St. Theresa of Avila who tried to share her faith with a Jewish woman who was renouncing Christ.

Living in such an environment under Islam, and others having such an attitude about our Savior, it is understandable why Spain wanted to be a truly Catholic country.

And I give them credit for removing Islam power from its lands as well as Sardinia and Sicily in relation to Egypt, Palestine, and Syria who were once teeming Christian populations and then lost their faith.

 

[exnihilo]

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 ?

This was equally true for the non reformers once a reformation took place. The early reformed churches did not believe in freedom of religion. They believed in freedom from the Catholic religion. They didn’t think a man could believe whatever he thought the Christian faith to be. The new churches suppressed other ideas whether that was the old Catholic faith or some other Protestant faith.

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

Yes, having only one church on main street is better. Far better. One of the most difficult aspects of the Christian faith is learning to truly love your neighbor. If you can avoid your actual neighbor by going to a different church you miss out on an opportunity to be forced by circumstances to grow.

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.

The older I get the less I am excited about the great freedom of choice I have. It seems more like a burden. One of the hardest things in life is to choose, or at least to make a well informed choice. When I look at stresses in my life I often see behind it a choice I have not made. For me personally there are several reasons this may be so, but I don’t think I’m unique.

I have a bad tendency towards perfectionism. This means I think I have to make the absolute best decision. Until I have all the information I think is necessary to make a perfectly informed decision I hold off on making a choice. This means, for example, when I want to buy a new printer I need to learn about the ten different features a printer may have. This means I need to examine maybe twenty different models out of the hundreds to figure out which has the best specs.

Of course I don’t really have to do that research. I speak more of a physiological need that is probably a disorder, or of a sinful desire (pride of intellect) that is definitely a disorder. But the older I’ve gotten the more I find it a happy experience to go to a small country store, as opposed to a big box store, where the choice of products is either A or B, or no choice at all.

When I look at the modern US I see atomized individuals with an endless array of choice. I also see a very unhappy people. A lot could be said about this, but I see the two as being connected.

 

[GKC]

It goes both ways on the Inquisition.

The documents were finally opened in August, 2003 by the wishes of P. John Paul II and it reaffirmed what Catholics already knew…that the excesses of the Inquisition were grossly exaggerated.

There were about 5,000 who died. But it was the Catholic clerics who did the most to work with them and to exonerate them. It was the temporal powers that executed.

The bigger context is that Spain was plundered for 700 years by the Muslim Moors. During the ‘Golden Age’ of Cordoba that Muslims always like to refer to, Christians and Jews had to wear green badges on the outside of their clothes, they were dhimmis, had little power of witness and trials, were not allowed to share their faith and bring others into the life of Christ.

So there was a revolution to break free of Islam and for the sake of national unity, to have one common faith. It is written that the Jewish population was oftentimes inciting trouble, and Spain wanted peace. I remember reading St. Theresa of Avila who tried to share her faith with a Jewish woman who was renouncing Christ.

Living in such an environment under Islam, and others having such an attitude about our Savior, it is understandable why Spain wanted to be a truly Catholic country.

And I give them credit for removing Islam power from its lands as well as Sardinia and Sicily in relation to Egypt, Palestine, and Syria who were once teeming Christian populations and then lost their faith.

For an historical perspective on the Inquisition(s), I recommend Peters INQUISITION, on the general topic and Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION, on the most well known example. Good correctives of the excesses of the Black Legend, without attempting a whitewash on the subject.

GKC

 

[zz912]

Tradition and scripture were much simpler and cohesive then than now. But yes, the oral gospel (tradition) came first before it was put to writing. It was put to writing to be as authoritative as if the apostles and writers were speaking to us today.

This is simply false. Much of it was NOT put to writing. In fact the Bible explicitly says so. St. Paul tells them to hold to the traditions which were received by letter OR oral teaching. Notice something VERY IMPORTANT here. St. Paul does NOT bother to write down these VERY important teachings that MUST be held to.

Why?

Because the Church holds these Traditions, both the written and oral.

 

[jmcrae]

I see, that’s the bishop of Antioch.

But there are no fewer than 5 guys currently claiming that office. Which of them should I go with?

Ah, so St. Peter died in Antioch and left his Chair to the Bishop of Antioch?

Actually, St. Peter died in Rome and there is no confusion about which Church is led by the Bishop of Rome.

 

[pablope]

Ah ok.

They had the jewish scriptures. And they had the writings of the apostles circulating. And they had the tradition passed down to them.

How do you suppose those early christians were able to copy and distribute and circulate the writings, when you factor in not many could read or write, there was no paper as you know today, papyrus was expensive…and the Romans were running after the Christians and burning anything Christian the romans could find?

 

[ulickij2016]

There weren’t any!! There were small heretical groups that questioned Church authority, but these were addressed by our early Church Fathers and Doctors.
I used to attend a baptist Church as a small child, and when ever they talked about “Church History” they would either talk about the different Bible stories or skip to the reformation. We hold a huge piece of history that protestants don’t even know.

 

[spina1953]

While there were not Protestants as we would call them before the reformation, however, there were those who did protest. Peter Waldo started the Waldinsians in 1177 and John Huss in the late 1300’s translated Wycliffe’s works into the Czech language and was condemned and burned at the stake in 1414
The invention of the printing press played a key role in the reformation and without it, it is questionable if the reformation would have succeeded . Absence of the printing press prior to Luther's time severely limited the distribution of the writings of these earlier protesters like Huss and Wycliffe and as a result their ideas did not spread as rapidly or as far as they could have done.

 

[JonNC]

There weren’t any!! There were small heretical groups that questioned Church authority, but these were addressed by our early Church Fathers and Doctors.
I used to attend a baptist Church as a small child, and when ever they talked about “Church History” they would either talk about the different Bible stories or skip to the reformation. We hold a huge piece of history that protestants don’t even know.

That’s so sad. There are so many things they are missing. I learned about the martyrs in Sunday School, and about the saints, and was required to learn the three creeds as part of catechetical class. I guess a lot depends on which protestants one means.

Jon

 

[Memaw]

Totally agree as a few posts before show .
No, we agree , I posted "Yes our churches have liturgy and liturgy came before NT. " I also posted that first came the Oral Word (at Pentecost and the church began) and then corporate praise and teaching began (liturgy), finally came the first formations of NT scriptures 20-30 years later. Hopefully that is sensibly stating it.
Cool.

If your satisfied with a hamburger when you could have a full Banquet Meal, well that’s your choice. God Bless, Memaw