Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[PRmerger]

Not every protestant joins a church to make ourselves “happy”.

This is true.

We are agreed, then, that happiness in one’s religious denomination ought not be a factor in determining whether the denomination is professing the kergyma, in its entirety, as God has revealed?

It doesn’t mean just because one is not a member of the catholic church, that we are not seeking God and seeking to worship him in the way he desires.

I think you stand in the tradition of Apollos, full of vigor and enthusiasm and adoration of the One True God, but in need of some correction by Priscilla and Aquila.

There are many, many reasons that one joins a particular church, at the end of the day a believer should choose a church where he/she can freely worship God

I don’t think so. One should find the Church Christ established, and then conform one’s views to Christ’s.

Not find a church which worships in a way that I find “free”.

All I am saying is that one is not necessarily condemned to hell because you don’t belong to a church that did not exist before 1500s (I know you did not say that, but some have expressed this sentiment).

If any Catholic tells you that you are condemned to hell, you have my permission to say, “You ought to know that your own Catholic Church teaches that it’s above your pay grade to declare someone is condemned to hell”.

 

[guanophore]

Is there any mention anywhere of the apostles praying to Moses, Abraham, Noah or any other Old Testament saint after the resurrection of Jesus? If they believed the faithful were in heaven interceding for them they should have been praying to their Old Testament heroes?

I think the concept of the communion of saints was something that was not understood until after Pentecost. Though it was taught that the saints were alive and could communicate with and help people on earth, the Body of Christ was a whole new way of looking at this relationship. Jesus set the stage for this by having a little chat with Moses and Elijah about his imminent crucifixion.

The gifts of the spirit were encouraged at the mass they were celebrating. Here's a Catholic and a Jewish translation.

Douay-Rheims Bible
1 Cor 14:27 If any speak with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course, and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to himself and to God. 29 And let the prophets speak, two or three; and let the rest judge. 30 But if any thing be revealed to another sitting, let the first hold his peace. 31 For you may all prophesy one by one; that all may learn, and all may be exhorted: 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Yes, and they still are, especially at charismatic liturgies. But tongues covers a great many manifestations, and not all of them are identifiable as a known “foreign tongue”.

39 Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy; and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 But let all things be done decently, and according to order.

Some are the tongues of men, but some are the tongues of angels.

Dalphon;12382958:

30 And if a dvar hisgalus (a word of revelation) is given to a navi sitting by, let the first navi become silent. 31 For you all are able one by one to speak forth a dvar hanevu'ah (word of prophecy), in order that all may learn and receive chizzuk (strengthening).

Good job on your research Dalphon!

I know the Catholic Church compiled the writings of Jewish authors such as Paul, Peter, Matthew, John, Jude, the Book of Hebrews. I like to think of them as the first "Jews for Jesus." These early Christians were not Roman Catholics.

This is true. They were Palestinian Catholics. The Roman rite was actually one of the last to emerge. The Syriac Scriptures and liturgy, as well as the line of Bishops from Peter in Antioch is one of the oldest.

Most of the Churches planted by Paul and his companions were Greek. But they are all Catholic.

The Roman Church took over

Really? When and how did that happen?

 and of course the Catholic Church today can be traced back to the first century Christians much the same as the American Indians today can be linked to the original American Indians but the Indians had a culture forced upon them which made them lose theire true identity.

It is important to separate the culture of man from the Sacred Traditions (the Word of God) that came from the Apostles and has been infallibly preserved in the Church. There have been times (regrettably) when culture, including religious culture, has been forced upon people. However, the teaching of the Apostles has been protected by His promise that the HS will lead the Church into “all Truth”. So apart from culture, language, politics and economics, the Teaching of the Church has been preserved inviolate.

So Christians today (and I include all Christians including myself) are not turning out the same product as the early Christians.

The position of this statement seems to suggest that the difference in the “product” has to do with oppressive actions on the part of the CC. I would say that the deficient “product” today has to do with the separation from the Teaching of the Apostles that occurred during the Reformation.

Egyptian, Greek and Russian Orthodox are a few legitimate churches not under Roman authority. They had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation.

Indeed, and a testimony to many things that refute the errors of the Reformation. All Churches founded by the Apostles share the same doctrines of the faith, and reject those doctrines created at the Reformation.

There have been other threads on the Reformation so I don’t want to go too far into that here, but I can certainly stipulate that corruption in the Roman clergy in Europe was a major factor.

 

[benhur]

No, the Apostles taught that the Word of God is not confined to the Scriptures.

Right, that is why I said His Word (other than written) is in harmony, even subject to His written word. Why wouldn’t it be today ?

Yes, and this is how the Sacred Tradition works. The Scriptures and the ST are two complimentary strands of a single cord of divine revelation

ST is subject to Scripture and not the other way around.

 

[PRmerger]

ST is subject to Scripture and not the other way around.

If ST is subject to Scripture, where does Scripture tell ST the table of contents of the NT?

You are aware, benhur, that the kerygma was proclaimed for 40 years before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ?

Thus, it’s impossible, logically, for something which came LATER (Scripture) to be the catalyst for that which came BEFORE (Sacred Tradition/the paradosis/the kerygma)

 

[jmcrae]

Right, that is why I said His Word (other than written) is in harmony, even subject to His written word. Why wouldn’t it be today ?
ST is subject to Scripture and not the other way around.

Actually, Scripture is a product of the Holy Tradition, alongside many other products, such as the Seven Sacraments, which bear the unwritten words of Jesus within them, and the Magisterium, and the Councils, and all that arises from the Councils.

 

[JonNC]

** If ST is subject to Scripture, where does Scripture tell ST the table of contents of the NT?**

You are aware, benhur, that the kerygma was proclaimed for 40 years before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ?

Thus, it’s impossible, logically, for something which came LATER (Scripture) to be the catalyst for that which came BEFORE (Sacred Tradition/the paradosis/the kerygma)

Wouldn’t that fall under the teaching authority granted by Christ to the Church… found in scripture?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Wouldn’t that fall under the teaching authority granted by Christ to the Church… found in scripture?

Jon

How do you know that this statement Jesus made is actually Scripture?

 

[Novocastrian]

Indeed, and a testimony to many things that refute the errors of the Reformation. All Churches founded by the Apostles share the same doctrines of the faith, and reject those doctrines created at the Reformation.
.

What, de fide dogmas like Papal Infallibility, the canon of Scripture, the Immaculate Conception, the fires of Purgatory, etc?

 

[clem456]

Wouldn’t that fall under the teaching authority granted by Christ to the Church… found in scripture?

Jon

Scripture is one of the ways God reveals Truth. The Church’s teaching authority is another.

The Church really and substantially exists. It is not a logical deduction emanating from the written word. As Christ entered human history in the fullness of time, so the Church came into being in a specific time and place. Christ took on human nature truly and substantially, and founded the Church.

Scripture was recorded after that reality was established. Human beings live in time and space.

And that doesn’t diminish the inspired nature of scripture one bit.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that first the Apostles taught what they themselves had learned from Jesus in a oral fashion. Some of the Apostles wrote and others put down some of what the Apostles taught as in Luke and Mark, Paul’s epistles were written not as Gospel but as letters pointing out how Christians were to understand the Gospel they were taught. When the Church started to decide on the writings to be included to be used, they first had to conform to what the Apostles taught orally. The writers of what became the NT did not themselves think themselves inspired not did they think that their writings would be put into a one volume as Scripture. This why Scripture goes with Tradition because it needs to conform to what the Apostles taught, not as Tradition conform to Scripture, to be used together, not one over the other.

 

[clem456]

It seems to me that first the Apostles taught what they themselves had learned from Jesus in a oral fashion. Some of the Apostles wrote and others put down some of what the Apostles taught as in Luke and Mark, Paul’s epistles were written not as Gospel but as letters pointing out how Christians were to understand the Gospel they were taught. When the Church started to decide on the writings to be included to be used, they first had to conform to what the Apostles taught orally. The writers of what became the NT did not themselves think themselves inspired not did they think that their writings would be put into a one volume as Scripture. This why Scripture goes with Tradition because it needs to conform to what the Apostles taught, not as Tradition conform to Scripture, to be used together, not one over the other.

Yes. It all began as oral Tradition.

I would invite anyone who has a difficult time appreciating the Catholic Church’s role in defining the New Testament to talk to a scripture scholar.

The scriptures were

1. passed on orally
2. recorded by people we give names to (John, Paul etc…), but who did not all personally and physically write all of what they are given credit for. John’s parish etc…, Paul’s “secretary”.
3. transcribed, copied, by (Catholic) monks with bad eyesight who worked by candleight It is a fact that margin notes became incorporated into Scripture.
4. translated We all know what translation can do to written ideas. There are many many many “families” or lineages, of scripture interpretations, like family trees, some of which branch off due to a differing interpretation of one single line of scripture.

The interpretation of scripture has been incredibly messy. It can be horrifying for one who wants the entire faith to be contained “in the book”.
How can we believe it’s inspired through all the messiness? It requires trust in other human beings, that God’s Truth comes through, as he wants it, through those flawed human beings he gifts with competence and authority.

 

[spina1953]

Yes. It all began as oral Tradition.

I would invite anyone who has a difficult time appreciating the Catholic Church’s role in defining the New Testament to talk to a scripture scholar.

The scriptures were

1. passed on orally
2. recorded by people we give names to (John, Paul etc…), but who did not all personally and physically write all of what they are given credit for. John’s parish etc…, Paul’s “secretary”.
3. transcribed, copied, by (Catholic) monks with bad eyesight who worked by candleight It is a fact that margin notes became incorporated into Scripture.
4. translated We all know what translation can do to written ideas. There are many many many “families” or lineages, of scripture interpretations, like family trees, some of which branch off due to a differing interpretation of one single line of scripture.

The interpretation of scripture has been incredibly messy. It can be horrifying for one who wants the entire faith to be contained “in the book”.
How can we believe it’s inspired through all the messiness? It requires trust in other human beings, that God’s Truth comes through, as he wants it, through those flawed human beings he gifts with competence and authority.

Hi Clem: I agree. What I was trying to get at was the fact that Jesus preached, taught much that was never written down. The Apostles in turn preached and taught most which was also never written down… What written was I think the basic’s of their teachings in which circumstances warranted. it is rather doubtful that any writer of the NT ever thought themselves inspired or had any notion that any of what they wrote would be considered in any way shape or form to be inspired Scripture. Most likely even the earliest Pre-Nicene Fathers thought that the Gospels were Scripture or that Paul’s epistles were Scripture, though they were read in the Churches. They mostly relied on the oral teachings they received and used the written to reinforce their teaching. In time with so many writings being used the Church needed to sort out which ones were based on Apostolic teaching and what was not… However, this was or needed to be based on Tradition; the oral teachings so that what was written was conforming to the oral teaching that were passed on by Jesus and then the Apostles… Otherwise we would have had writings that were in opposition with each other and so there by confusion as to what was actually being taught and believed.
It was left to the Church to interpret these writings and make sure that contrary interpretations were not taught.

 

[zz912]

Is there any mention anywhere of the apostles praying to Moses, Abraham, Noah or any other Old Testament saint after the resurrection of Jesus? If they believed the faithful were in heaven interceding for them they should have been praying to their Old Testament heroes?

There are two instances in the Book of Revelation where the saints and angels in Heaven are taking our prayers and presenting them to God. That is intercession, and it proves this was a practice from the first moments of Christian history.

 

[JonNC]

=clem456;12384166]Scripture is one of the ways God reveals Truth. The Church’s teaching authority is another.

I wouldn’t argue that.

The Church really and substantially exists. It is not a logical deduction emanating from the written word. As Christ entered human history in the fullness of time, so the Church came into being in a specific time and place. Christ took on human nature truly and substantially, and founded the Church.

Again, no argument.

Scripture was recorded after that reality was established. Human beings live in time and space.

Well, the OT was before, but I understand the point.

And that doesn’t diminish the inspired nature of scripture one bit.

Agreed.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Wouldn’t that fall under the teaching authority granted by Christ to the Church… found in scripture?

Jon

Evidenced in Scripture written years after it was given to the Church…

 

[pablope]

Not every protestant joins a church to make ourselves “happy”. It doesn’t mean just because one is not a member of the catholic church, that we are not seeking God and seeking to worship him in the way he desires

. There are many, many reasons that one joins a particular church, at the end of the day a believer should choose a church where he/she can freely worship God.
).

Then you show or provide the chapter and verse where it is stated that Christians are free to choose how to worship God?

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Dalphon View Post

The apostles did not pray to mary or the saints because mary walked the earth with them and they were the saints.

 

[JonNC]

Evidenced in Scripture written years after it was given to the Church…

I’m not sure what you me mean by " written years after", but yes, effectively, Scripture is the evidence. I agree. The truly inerrant evidence.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

The Bereans?

Acts 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

They were the first ones to ask: "Where is that in the Bible?

 

[benhur]

If ST is subject to Scripture, where does Scripture tell ST the table of contents of the NT?

You are aware, benhur, that the kerygma was proclaimed for 40 years before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ?

Thus, it’s impossible, logically, for something which came LATER (Scripture) to be the catalyst for that which came BEFORE (Sacred Tradition/the paradosis/the kerygma)

Catalyst and table of contents are different topics. as well as what happens before God puts it in writing . I used the word “today”… So because you think you compile into table of contents it is equally subject to you ? As venerable as the custodian is they have as much authority as what is kept ?