Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[Tomyris]

I think sometimes that one of the unfortunate effects of the Reformation was to leave many Christians with a readers digest (abbreviated) version of the faith. There is so much richness that has been lost, because people don’t see the “need”. But James tells us that the effectual fervent prayers of the righteous have great power in it’s effects, and when did we not have a need for that?

I think that is true on both sides, that is, both Catholic and Protestant. After Luther began to do his thing a lot of the reforming movements within the Catholic Church were crushed, particularly if they exhibited any symptoms of anything even remotely resembling Lutheran thought, no matter how Catholic. As a consequence Catholics moved in practice away from ideas that remotely smacked of Lutheranism, for example, and so in some ways Catholicism became more legalistic, works-based and sacramental - to demonstrate that they were NOT Protestants, just as Protestants avoided decidedly Catholic practices to demonstrate that they were NOT Catholics. I think that Catholics have also inherited a truncated faith in comparison to what we had before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The blame of course I lay on the Borgia popes far more than on the Reformers for creating the situation, if anyone is to be blamed. In Tolkien terms we have been elves and dwarves, mutually suspicious, and we are now in times when we need to look to the other and see friendship, as the Enemy has risen in a new form and many lands are in shadow.

 

[guanophore]

(I know Augustine said that) Kind of nonsensical for scripture is apostolic faith.Again nonsensical. Sorry when I read John I don not read it thru the eyes of say Luther, but strive to read it thru the eyes of John as inspired by the Holy Ghost, and that I may also see it as the Holy Ghost meant it,thru His eyes.

I was not able to find this original post again, Ben, so I am not sure what you are referring to that is non-sensical. For some reason the thread search tools will not find it so maybe I will stumble across it.

I am sure you do strive to read through the eyes of those that wrote, but this perspective is maintained by the Holy Spirit through the Sacred Tradition, from which you have become largely separated. That leaves you in a position to do the best you can without adequate instruction, much like Apollos.

That is not to say that I do not covet/cherish shared illuminations from any forefather, even present day brothers. ...But I know what you mean and understand your sense.  You mean to understand it as you have received from others in the faith and not apart from it. You mean to understand it not apart from CC teaching.

Totally agree. Now just what instruction or what do we gleen from it ?This is where we differ, on the why.

Yes, and needfully so. Those who have rejected the Apostolic faith in favor of doctrines created at the Reformation have need to glean some different instruction (interpret it differently than the Fathers).

First of all the apostles did not converse with the departed saints.

If this were true, then the practice would not have been handed down from them.

Moses/Elijah conversed with Jesus, and that a glorified Jesus while the apostles slept and were just awakening. They did not speak to the apostles.

Was there something about the even that left you thinking that the Apostles could not participate in the conversation? Or converse with them after Jesus rose? What evidence is there in the account that Moses and Elijah are not alive and well, and know what is transpiring on earth?

The *instruction *is primarily that God's glory resided in flesh, the incarnate Son of God. The flesh veiled His glory , but that which is within (and within us) is pure Light and was revealed outwardly temporarily at the transfiguration. Clearly the *instruction *was , "This is my beloved Son, hear Him". It is also to show the reliability of "judaism", of the OT, of the continuance of the use of "prophets" for pointing to the "Son",as Moses had and Elijah .

Yes, I think all this is right on target. The fact that the saints are able to converse with those on this earth is really quite incidental to the event.

Again also to show, “this is the one”,for many thought the two prophets would “accompany” the Messiah… Don’t know of any early father saying this shows that Jesus gifts departed saints to hear and see us, therefor to pray to them also for intercession…

Yes, this is contained in all the ancient liturgies, and on the prayers written on the tombs.

The purpose of intercession is not to add to a grace bank so that God will use and spend it on our behalf. It is for our benefit to see that He is God and a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, for building up the faith and the Body, the Body on earth still in conflict.

It is the same thing, Ben. What you are describing as the effects of grace is the whole point of the grace “bank” if one must think of it that way. We know that the grace of one person can cover the sins of another.

The departed do not need to build up their faith or grow or be encouraged in a conflict (answered prayer does encourage both recipient and intercessor , on earth).

True. It is we who are alive and remain that are in need of their effectual fervent prayers, and the experience of grace that accompanies it. Have you never known a very holy person whose prayers or counsel you especially respect?

That is not say the departed do not pray before the throne (even the rich man “prayed’’ in hell to send messengers to his brothers). But what we see in scripture ,the prayers are of a general knowledge that also may have been known while still on earth. Like the rich man knew his brothers were not “righteous” and were also destined for hell because they were like him before he died, or the saints know Jesus is to return triumphantly to earth-part of eucharisting on earth-,but they pray, " please hurry up Lord” .

I don’t think what Samuel had to say to Saul was “general knowledge on earth”. I don’t think the disciples had any clue about Jesus’ “upcoming departure that he was to accomplish in Jerusalem”.

 

[Kliska]

I think that is true on both sides, that is, both Catholic and Protestant. After Luther began to do his thing a lot of the reforming movements within the Catholic Church were crushed, particularly if they exhibited any symptoms of anything even remotely resembling Lutheran thought, no matter how Catholic. As a consequence Catholics moved in practice away from ideas that remotely smacked of Lutheranism, for example, and so in some ways Catholicism became more legalistic, works-based and sacramental - to demonstrate that they were NOT Protestants, just as Protestants avoided decidedly Catholic practices to demonstrate that they were NOT Catholics. I think that Catholics have also inherited a truncated faith in comparison to what we had before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The blame of course I lay on the Borgia popes far more than on the Reformers for creating the situation, if anyone is to be blamed. In Tolkien terms we have been elves and dwarves, mutually suspicious, and we are now in times when we need to look to the other and see friendship, as the Enemy has risen in a new form and many lands are in shadow.

Very interesting observations, thanks for sharing!

 

[adrift]

I think that is true on both sides, that is, both Catholic and Protestant. After Luther began to do his thing a lot of the reforming movements within the Catholic Church were crushed, particularly if they exhibited any symptoms of anything even remotely resembling Lutheran thought, no matter how Catholic. .

Perhaps you would document this statement.

 

[benhur]

I think that is true on both sides, that is, both Catholic and Protestant. After Luther began to do his thing a lot of the reforming movements within the Catholic Church were crushed, particularly if they exhibited any symptoms of anything even remotely resembling Lutheran thought, no matter how Catholic. As a consequence Catholics moved in practice away from ideas that remotely smacked of Lutheranism, for example, and so in some ways Catholicism became more legalistic, works-based and sacramental - to demonstrate that they were NOT Protestants, just as Protestants avoided decidedly Catholic practices to demonstrate that they were NOT Catholics. I think that Catholics have also inherited a truncated faith in comparison to what we had before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The blame of course I lay on the Borgia popes far more than on the Reformers for creating the situation, if anyone is to be blamed. In Tolkien terms we have been elves and dwarves, mutually suspicious, and we are now in times when we need to look to the other and see friendship, as the Enemy has risen in a new form and many lands are in shadow.

Good and interesting points. Thanks.

 

[Tomyris]

Perhaps you would document this statement.

Please see: Alister McGrath’s “Luther’s Theology of the Cross” p. 13, Blackwell Publishing, 1990. I doubt it is online. The typing errors, if any, are mine. McGrath did not capitalize ‘catholic’ in the original, in case you pick up on that.

This upsurge in activity gained ground throughout Europe during the first two decades of the sixteenth century, before the spectre of a new heresy - Lutheranism - caused a frightened church to begin the systematic suppression of these groups and their ideals during the third and fourth decades of that century. Whatever positive impact Luther’s stand at Wittenberg may have had upon the catholic church as a whole, it had the universally negative effect of bringing all of those working for reform and renewal under suspicion of heresy. Such was the odium which came to be attached to the name of Martin Luther that similarities, however slight, between Luther and contemporary catholic writers tended to be regarded as evidence of heresy on the part of the latter, rather than orthodoxy on the part of the former.

IMHO the bishops sabotaged the renewal of the Catholic church, leading directly to the situation we are now in. A lot of people were thinking about issues thought of as Lutheran, many of whom, I suspect, came to the same conclusions; he did not live in a vacuum and it is wholly myth to think that he, and he alone, was the cause of the Reformation. Some were silenced, others became Protestant.

 

[adrift]

Please see: Alister McGrath’s “Luther’s Theology of the Cross” p. 13, Blackwell Publishing, 1990. I doubt it is online. The typing errors, if any, are mine. McGrath did not capitalize ‘catholic’ in the original, in case you pick up on that.

IMHO the bishops sabotaged the renewal of the Catholic church, leading directly to the situation we are now in. A lot of people were thinking about issues thought of as Lutheran, many of whom, I suspect, came to the same conclusions; he did not live in a vacuum and it is wholly myth to think that he, and he alone, was the cause of the Reformation. Some were silenced, others became Protestant.

I do appreciate your reply, thank you.

caused a frightened church to begin the systematic suppression of these groups and their ideals during the third and fourth decades of that century

What were “these groups”

 

[Tomyris]

I do appreciate your reply, thank you.

What were “these groups”

McGrath helpfully lists three sources in a footnote, one in a German publication, one in Spanish, and one in Italian.

This is probably one of the least explored areas of Reformation studies. I picture a small group somewhere that had been working for reform getting news of “Ex Surge” and quietly burning all their writings and dispersing. If that was happening, there are no records. And it seems like the Church, in its zeal to Blame It All on Luther, probably got rid of a good number of records as well.

On the other hand, Calvin learned his evangelicalism from somewhere, and it was not Lutheran. His forbears must have been some group in northern France that had worked in this area and may well have all been torched by King Francis. Somewhere I read that most of Calvin’s French friends met death by burning at the hands of the king, which may account for some of his attitude towards the Catholics.

There were other, lesser known reformers. Erasmus stayed in the Catholic Church. There may have been others who left and returned, or who vacillated tremendously, or who tried to pursue reform and met their fate. We may never know their names on earth. But apparently McGrath has found some documentation.

 

[adrift]

McGrath helpfully lists three sources in a footnote, one in a German publication, one in Spanish, and one in Italian.

This is probably one of the least explored areas of Reformation studies. I picture a small group somewhere that had been working for reform getting news of “Ex Surge” and quietly burning all their writings and dispersing. If that was happening, there are no records. And it seems like the Church, in its zeal to Blame It All on Luther, probably got rid of a good number of records as well.

On the other hand, Calvin learned his evangelicalism from somewhere, and it was not Lutheran. His forbears must have been some group in northern France that had worked in this area and may well have all been torched by King Francis. Somewhere I read that most of Calvin’s French friends met death by burning at the hands of the king, which may account for some of his attitude towards the Catholics.

There were other, lesser known reformers. Erasmus stayed in the Catholic Church. There may have been others who left and returned, or who vacillated tremendously, or who tried to pursue reform and met their fate. We may never know their names on earth. But apparently McGrath has found some documentation.

The Counter-Reformation

For in the first place the name suggests that the Catholic movement came after the Protestant; whereas in truth the reform originally began in the Catholic Church, and Luther was a Catholic Reformer before he became a Protestant. By becoming a Protestant Reformer, he did indeed hinder the progress of the Catholic reformation, but he did not stop it. It continued to gain headway in the Catholic South until it was strong enough to meet and roll back the movement from the North. Even if our Catholic reform had been altogether posterior to the Protestant, we could not admit that our reform movement owed its motive power or its line of action to the latter, in the way that modern reform movements among Orientals are due to the influence of European thought. For the principles of the Protestant Reformation are to Catholics principles leading to deformation and to the perpetuation of abuses, such as the subservience of Church to State, or the marriage of the clergy, to say nothing of doctrinal error. Both the continuance and correction of the same abuse cannot be due to the same movement. Moreover, it will be seen that the Catholic reform was not even originally due to reaction from Protestantism, in the way In which inert nations are sometimes spurred by initial defeats to increased energy, which In the end may even make them victorious. Though this reaction undoubtedly had its effect on certain Catholic reformers, it had little or no influence on the leaders or on the best representatives of the movement, as, for instance, on St. Ignatius, its pioneer, or on St. Philip Neri and St. Vincent de Paul, exemplars of its maturity.

 

[Tomyris]

adrift:
Technically, I think this is the first time I have quoted a post that is entirely quotes…Interesting…

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not exactly noted for being unbiased. It makes a number of these statements without backup, if you notice. And I don’t think it references McGrath’s groups, although it is an interesting read in its own right. Thanks for posting!!

 

[adrift]

Technically, I think this is the first time I have quoted a post that is entirely quotes…Interesting…

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not exactly noted for being unbiased. It makes a number of these statements without backup, if you notice. And I don’t think it references McGrath’s groups, although it is an interesting read in its own right. Thanks for posting!!

Did you notice the section on sources?
I had to smile at this comment as Alister McGrath is hardly unbiased. If you want a well sourced history, try Warren H. Carroll. You have not given sources for McGrath.

 

[jmcrae]

McGrath helpfully lists three sources in a footnote, one in a German publication, one in Spanish, and one in Italian.

This is probably one of the least explored areas of Reformation studies. I picture a small group somewhere that had been working for reform getting news of “Ex Surge” and quietly burning all their writings and dispersing. If that was happening, there are no records. And it seems like the Church, in its zeal to Blame It All on Luther, probably got rid of a good number of records as well.

This would run contrary to standard operating procedure, which is generally to hold on to everything in writing, and counter it with debates in writing, a la St. Thomas Aquinas, and a la St. Justin Martyr.

On the other hand, Calvin learned his evangelicalism from somewhere, and it was not Lutheran. His forbears must have been some group in northern France that had worked in this area and may well have all been torched by King Francis. Somewhere I read that most of Calvin’s French friends met death by burning at the hands of the king, which may account for some of his attitude towards the Catholics.

Northern France? Probably the Dominicans.

I would note that St. Ignatius of Loyola took that same evangelical spirit and established the Jesuit Order, which is responsible for millions of conversions in Asia and North and South America, as well as for a school system that even non-Christian parents fight to get their kids into, until the present day.

There were also St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Thomas More, and many others whose stories are well known to school children all over the world; hardly “hidden” or “forgotten.”