Why all the Fuss over the Reformation 2

[spina1953]

According to a statement from the first book you have cited, I’d like ask: how did he (Constantine?) shape the final decision of the Council, exactly?

And regarding the second book mentioned, how exactly did the later Emperors intervene in Eccesiatical affairs? If they chose Popes, or bishops, as sometimes happened, I’m not personally concerned much with that. More importantly, how did they shape, change, or influence Church teaching? So far, I’ve seen no evidence that Church teaching was in any way affected. “Affairs” and “Doctrines” may mean two different things. As I said earlier, Constantine urged the Bishops to hold a Council, which infers meddling in Church affairs, but the Council was a good thing for the Church. I’d like to see proof that it wasn’t.

Hi Denise1957: I appears that Constantine held the belief as did Roman emperors before him that they had the right to intervene in religious affairs and try to mold it whatever way brought stability to the empire. We need to remember that at that time there was still paganism not everyone embraced Christianity. and there were issues concerning Christ that did need to be addressed as there were different idea’s about Christ; was he man, or God or both? What about Mary was she really the Mother of God? Did Christ have two nature or one? or did it merge or not etc.

I doubt that Constantine or emperors after him changed any dogma, but they did try and influence the Bishops the side they were on during the debates. I will say this I was only quoting the authors to make the point that emperors tried to influence and to intervene in Church affairs that were not their place to do so. In some way this led to for a time acceptance of heresies by some and the infighting over doctrines till they were resolved.

It was not till the invasions in the West and the break down when the empire was divided into east and West that the Pope took a more secular role that in effect lasted for several centuries.

While doctrines needed to be defined over the issues at hand, there is no doubt in my mind that emperors did at least try to influence decisions.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Denise 1957: I would also like to add that emperors often times decided who would be bishops of Constanstanople or Patriarch. Even later emperors tried to have the Patriarch be make equal to Rome in authority. In the end the Patriarch became second, but the Patriarch of Alexandria was second after Rome originally.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise1957: I appears that Constantine held the belief as did Roman emperors before him that they had the right to intervene in religious affairs and try to mold it whatever way brought stability to the empire. We need to remember that at that time there was still paganism not everyone embraced Christianity. and there were issues concerning Christ that did need to be addressed as there were different idea’s about Christ; was he man, or God or both? What about Mary was she really the Mother of God? Did Christ have two nature or one? or did it merge or not etc.

I doubt that Constantine or emperors after him changed any dogma, but they did try and influence the Bishops the side they were on during the debates. I will say this I was only quoting the authors to make the point that emperors tried to influence and to intervene in Church affairs that were not their place to do so. In some way this led to for a time acceptance of heresies by some and the infighting over doctrines till they were resolved.

It was not till the invasions in the West and the break down when the empire was divided into east and West that the Pope took a more secular role that in effect lasted for several centuries.

While doctrines needed to be defined over the issues at hand, there is no doubt in my mind that emperors did at least try to influence decisions.

I still see no evidence or proof that Constantine actually influenced Church teaching - Dogma or doctrine. It’s not just the actions of men which determine the course that the Church took and has taken. Always I try to keep in mind that it was, and still is, guided by Divine Providence. There is a supernatural element that the non-Catholics don’t see and could care less about, because they are convinced, it would seem, that only the natural actions of men (which they scrutinize obsessively) have been at play, for the most part, in the history of the Church. It’s a one-sided viewpoint and causes blindness as to the real nature of Christ and His Church.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: I would also like to add that emperors often times decided who would be bishops of Constanstanople or Patriarch. Even later emperors tried to have the Patriarch be make equal to Rome in authority. In the end the Patriarch became second, but the Patriarch of Alexandria was second after Rome originally.

Yes, I’m aware of that, and not really concerned. Sometimes Emperors even chose Popes, but strangely enough, sometimes they chose good ones. I can’t recall the Pope who tried to put an end to the Emperors choosing Popes. I’ll see if I can find it.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I’m aware of that, and not really concerned. Sometimes Emperors even chose Popes, but strangely enough, sometimes they chose good ones. I can’t recall the Pope who tried to put an end to the Emperors choosing Popes. I’ll see if I can find it.

Nicholas II?

GKC

 

[Denise1957]

Nicholas II?

GKC

Maybe so, but somehow I recall reading that it was one of the Alexander Popes. Maybe not. My memory is fuzzy on the subject. I may have read it in one of Diane Moczar’s books, or maybe it was Ronald Knox. I get the two confused sometimes. Dr. Moczar reminds me of a sort of female American version of Knox (though few can really compare to Knox - he was quite amazing).

 

[spina1953]

I still see no evidence or proof that Constantine actually influenced Church teaching - Dogma or doctrine. It’s not just the actions of men which determine the course that the Church took and has taken. Always I try to keep in mind that it was, and still is, guided by Divine Providence. There is a supernatural element that the non-Catholics don’t see and could care less about, because they are convinced, it would seem, that only the natural actions of men (which they scrutinize obsessively) have been at play, for the most part, in the history of the Church. It’s a one-sided viewpoint and causes blindness as to the real nature of Christ and His Church.

Hi Denise 1957: I appears that when it comes to history and since the Council of Nicaca in 325AD was not recorded we only have what those who attended wrote about it or those they heard from. So in the end one either believes what happened or not. I am not really wanting to go further with it as it is more for a thread on that subject I think I may have gone off base with it as I am not to sure now that it has anything to do with the reformation other than the fact that there is a schism between the West and East, which I suppose one could say that when the reformation took place that is it a Western schism so there are some parallels between the two that way, and certainly there are doctrinal differences also where doctrines were questioned and those promoting new doctrines or thinking against the doctrines being taught.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: I appears that when it comes to history and since the Council of Nicaca in 325AD was not recorded we only have what those who attended wrote about it or those they heard from. So in the end one either believes what happened or not. I am not really wanting to go further with it as it is more for a thread on that subject I think I may have gone off base with it as I am not to sure now that it has anything to do with the reformation other than the fact that there is a schism between the West and East, which I suppose one could say that when the reformation took place that is it a Western schism so there are some parallels between the two that way, and certainly there are doctrinal differences also where doctrines were questioned and those promoting new doctrines or thinking against the doctrines being taught.

Maybe you’re right, this may be going off-topic since it’s not directly related to the Reformation. In any case, I’ll be away from the computer until Saturday, so I’ll check back on the thread then.

 

[spina1953]

Maybe you’re right, this may be going off-topic since it’s not directly related to the Reformation. In any case, I’ll be away from the computer until Saturday, so I’ll check back on the thread then.

Hi Denise 1957: One can only go where one thinks in how it may relate to the Reformation, in any event we will see you when you come back on line. peace and God bless.

 

[GKC]

Maybe so, but somehow I recall reading that it was one of the Alexander Popes. Maybe not. My memory is fuzzy on the subject. I may have read it in one of Diane Moczar’s books, or maybe it was Ronald Knox. I get the two confused sometimes. Dr. Moczar reminds me of a sort of female American version of Knox (though few can really compare to Knox - he was quite amazing).

That’s a good recommendation. I’ve collected Knox for around 50 years. If you recall which Knox you’re thinking of, I might have it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hi Denise 1957: I appears that when it comes to history and since the Council of Nicaca in 325AD was not recorded we only have what those who attended wrote about it or those they heard from. So in the end one either believes what happened or not. I am not really wanting to go further with it as it is more for a thread on that subject I think I may have gone off base with it as I am not to sure now that it has anything to do with the reformation other than the fact that there is a schism between the West and East, which I suppose one could say that when the reformation took place that is it a Western schism so there are some parallels between the two that way, and certainly there are doctrinal differences also where doctrines were questioned and those promoting new doctrines or thinking against the doctrines being taught.

Hughes, THE CHURCH IN CRISIS, makes the same point about the paucity of data on Nicaea.

GKC

 

[Tomyris]

What takeaways can we have from how the Arian controversy was resolved might be applicable to resolving today’s divisions among Christians?

Either a great question or I just need to go to bed.

 

[guanophore]

What takeaways can we have from how the Arian controversy was resolved might be applicable to resolving today’s divisions among Christians?

Either a great question or I just need to go to bed.

I don’t think there are any. I think that this is one aspect of Sacred Tradition that all Christians accept, and those who do not accept it are not considered Christian.

It is notable, though that the more of Sacred Tradition that is rejected, the more likely a group is to fall into this old heresy.

 

[Contarini]

So you’re saying that Constantine suggested the key term…“homoousios.” What does that have to do with Nicene Dogma?

That term essentially was the Nicene Dogma: “of one substance with the Father.” Again, Constantine may not have come up with it himself, but he played an important role in suggesting it publicly, if we can trust Eusebius’ account.

That’s pretty darn significant.

Now I take your view of this: divine providence used Constantine, and when he and other emperors tried to force Athanasius and others to compromise the truth, they ultimately failed. But there’s no doubt that Constantine’s intervention helped shape Christianity as we know it, or of the broader reality that the social role of the Church, its polity, its way of seeing itself in relation to society, etc., changed pretty radically.

Being a special catechumen does not infer that he was Catholic.

In what Church do you imagine he was a catechumen?

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t think there are any. I think that this is one aspect of Sacred Tradition that all Christians accept, and those who do not accept it are not considered Christian.

It is notable, though that the more of Sacred Tradition that is rejected, the more likely a group is to fall into this old heresy.

So you think we can learn nothing from one of the largest, if not the largest, division in the church and how it was reconciled?

What leadership did the bishop of Rome exhibit there? I just read Wikipedia (fount of all knowledge) on the end of Arianism, but I expect someone around here has something more to say about it.

 

[guanophore]

What takeaways can we have from how the Arian controversy was resolved might be applicable to resolving today’s divisions among Christians?

I don’t think there are any. I think that this is one aspect of Sacred Tradition that all Christians accept, and those who do not accept it are not considered Christian.

It is notable, though that the more of Sacred Tradition that is rejected, the more likely a group is to fall into this old heresy.

So you think we can learn nothing from one of the largest, if not the largest, division in the church and how it was reconciled?

What leadership did the bishop of Rome exhibit there? I just read Wikipedia (fount of all knowledge) on the end of Arianism, but I expect someone around here has something more to say about it.

So you think we can learn nothing from one of the largest, if not the largest, division in the church and how it was reconciled?

Clearly I misunderstood the question. I was talking about the result - the nature of Christ. Either people accept it, or not.

We don’t have enough information on the “how”, except that the same conciliar method was used (as it always has been) demonstrated in the book of Acts. You have already stated that you reject the office of bishop (those are the ones who attended the council, debated, and decided) and the gift of infallibility under which such councils function, so what is left to discuss?

What leadership did the bishop of Rome exhibit there? I just read Wikipedia (fount of all knowledge) on the end of Arianism, but I expect someone around here has something more to say about it.

The functions of the councils have not changed in the last 2000 years. If you reject the foundational elements upon which they are based, then they will have little value to you.

 

[Tomyris]

Clearly I misunderstood the question. I was talking about the result - the nature of Christ. Either people accept it, or not.

We don’t have enough information on the “how”, except that the same conciliar method was used (as it always has been) demonstrated in the book of Acts. You have already stated that you reject the office of bishop (those are the ones who attended the council, debated, and decided) and the gift of infallibility under which such councils function, so what is left to discuss?

The functions of the councils have not changed in the last 2000 years. If you reject the foundational elements upon which they are based, then they will have little value to you.

There is quite a bit to talk about. Are you aware the WCF cites the council as the way to resolve differences?

Chapter XXXI

Of Synods and Councils

I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.[1]

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;[2] so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.[3]

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4]

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

V. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.[6]

And here you have the PERFECT opportunity to demonstrate how the pope brought the two factions together and showed his leadership and divinely mandated office in restoring unity and being looked to by all as Peter. But you passed it up. Hmmmm.

And I realize that the presbyterian model faded in a few decades or centuries, and after that it was bishops. God works with what He has. I would have expected you to respond with the idea that the Catholic Church is presbyterian, and even more so than the presbyterians, but no. The fall from presbyterianism did not mean a total corruption in the church, just a detriment. Despite man, God still works. Do you recall the anecdote about Napoleon, when he threatened to destroy the Church? The pope reputedly sent him back a message to the extent that the bishops hadn’t been able to do it, so he doubted Napoleon could either.

And the presbyterian model is not flawless. There are advantages to the monarchial episcopal system that it is possible that God, despite my opinion, prefers. The best system would be one that takes the best of both and mitigates the weaknesses of both.

What are the weaknesses of the presbyterian model, Tomi? I hear someone saying. You can have men elected who are business successes or who are popular but are in no way spiritual leaders. You can have a strong pastor who somehow gets the guys he wants in there as elders who allow him to make all the decisions, or passive elders. You can have elders who interminably disagree with each other. On the other hand with an episcopal system you can have the wrong pastor and an indifferent bishop, and many other things.

I don’t think the “infallibility cannon” is dragged out and fired every time there is a dispute. It is reserved for special occasions, meaning most of the time councilor decisions are of reason and prayer.

 

[guanophore]

There is quite a bit to talk about.  Are you aware the [WCF cites the council ](http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html)as the way to resolve differences?

Yes. There is a great deal of Apostolic Tradition that has been retained by the Reformers though some deny it.
WCF:

Chapter XXXI

Of Synods and Councils

I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.[1]

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;[2] so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.[3]

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4]

This much is consistent with the Apostolic faith we have received.
WCF:

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

This statement is a denial of the promises that Christ made to His Church and allows that Jesus will permit us to fall into error, thus paving the way for us to pass through the gates of hell.
WCF:

V. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.[6]

There is nothing in Catholic Teaching that is contrary to this, despite the long history of ecclesial authorities meddling in secular affairs.

We are called to be light and salt.

 

[guanophore]

And here you have the PERFECT opportunity to demonstrate how the pope brought the two factions together and showed his leadership and divinely mandated office in restoring unity and being looked to by all as Peter. But you passed it up. Hmmmm.

Not sure what event you are referring to here.

And I realize that the presbyterian model faded in a few decades or centuries, and after that it was bishops.

The bishopric is not contrary to the presbytery, as can be clearly seen in the NT, where both are functioning together. Bishops are the successors to the Apsostles, and carry the Apsotolic authority. It is clear that the presbyteroi are in unity with the Bishops continually from the time of their ordination by Apostles to the present time. In the Council of Jerusalem, we see this model at work.

God works with what He has. I would have expected you to respond with the idea that the Catholic Church is presbyterian, and even more so than the presbyterians, but no.

That would be disingenuous, would it not, since Presbyterians reject the office of the Bishop? But yes, the CC has always functioned with the presbyteroi in unity with the Bishop, who is the visible sign of unity.

The fall from presbyterianism did not mean a total corruption in the church, just a detriment. {/quote]

And what might that be?
Tomyris;12264319:

Despite man, God still works. Do you recall the anecdote about Napoleon, when he threatened to destroy the Church? The pope reputedly sent him back a message to the extent that the bishops hadn’t been able to do it, so he doubted Napoleon could either.

And not many know that Lord Acton in saying “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men”. was actually inspired toward this sentiment by Catholic Bishops at the time and before.

And the presbyterian model is not flawless. There are advantages to the monarchial episcopal system that it is possible that God, despite my opinion, prefers. The best system would be one that takes the best of both and mitigates the weaknesses of both.

This is what is evident in the NT and the Early Church. I don’t think the Bishopric became so defiled until it was conflated with secular power.

What are the weaknesses of the presbyterian model, Tomi? I hear someone saying. You can have men elected who are business successes or who are popular but are in no way spiritual leaders.

This is not a weakness of the presbyterian model. One only need to study the installation of the Medieval Popes to see this. A cursory look at the Medici line, including Leo X will demonstrate that the election of politically savvy and monetarily endowed persons / families was a major source of contamination of the office. Popes were not elected for centuries based up on their spiritual ability to lead, but secular power.

 You can have a strong pastor who somehow gets the guys he wants in there as elders who allow him to make all the decisions, or passive elders.  You can have elders who interminably disagree with each other.  On the other hand with an episcopal system you can have the wrong pastor and an indifferent bishop, and many other things.

I think these are the common sins of mankind in any leadership, religious or secular. It is not a fault of the system, but a reflection of the nature of humankind.

I don’t think the “infallibility cannon” is dragged out and fired every time there is a dispute. It is reserved for special occasions, meaning most of the time councilor decisions are of reason and prayer.

Yes, as it was meant to be. But those who have received the Apostolic Faith (Orthodox and Catholics) are taught by the Apostles that the council, when attended by the Holy Spirit, is infallible.

 

[Tomyris]

Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post

And here you have the PERFECT opportunity to demonstrate how the pope brought the two factions together and showed his leadership and divinely mandated office in restoring unity and being looked to by all as Peter. But you passed it up. Hmmmm.

Not sure what event you are referring to here.

The reconciliation of Arians with the Catholic-Orthodox church.