- Status
G
GKC
Guest
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Ignore him, my friend. Quoting him makes the clean up job harder
G
GKC
Guest
S
SteveVH
Guest
Thank you Mods! 
J
Jerry_Westerby
Guest
the OP asks a question but responds with a strawman. a better explanation is more nuanced.
by the early 5th century, as a matter of self preservation, the Church was already a political player even while the western empire still staggered along. By the late 5th century, the Church had assumed some of the civil functions of the former empire all the while trying to survive in a world dominated by pagans, arians, Byzantines, all jockeying for position in the west. Out of the fusion between the Church and the Merovingian dynasty (c500), a Europe was born that was politically stable and Catholic (western and trinitarian), the Church supporting the State, the State supporting the Church.
But the Churchās in the Middle Ages became adverse to factions that identified themselves as national rather than part of a unified Christendom. Lutherās complaints were exploited by independent minded Germanic princes: supporting āreformationā was a pretense for their own purposes. The Reformation has this political and economic dimension, the driving forces are always those who have something to gain. I doubt that theological disputes were of major concern to the central European peasants who died by the millions in the religious wars of the reformation, counter-reformation or the plagues and famine that followed. Since then there has been lingering bigotry and lack of charity on both sides.
But, as a consequence, you have these protestant lands that have been independent of Rome for 400 years and the average protestant has his own more or less coherent theology and just doesnāt believe Catholic arguments about the authority of the Pope.
Westerby
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
CaptFunāThanks for your response. I quoted your post in my first try at a reply, then learned I had too many characters to post what Iād written. Iām going to bed now, so Iām not going to write anymore tonight.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
I donāt know what happened, but looks like it is all cleaned up. The Mods do take care of things quickly.Thank you Mods!
[Havenāt spoken with you in a long while. Hope all is well.]
Anna
L
ltwin
Guest
Iām not sure. Erasmus was Catholic priest who was committed to reforming the Catholic Church from within. On King Henry, wasnāt the Pope at the time also really chummy with King Henry until he rebelled against papal authority? He went so far as to give Henry the title āDefender of the Faith.ā
L
ltwin
Guest
Yes, but often this preservation has been accomplished despite the institutional church of the time (whatever time and place that may be) rather than because of it. Tradition, for me, can be a two edged sword. It can preserve a lot, but it also can become distorted or misused over time. As people change, they shape those traditions, and as time goes on those traditions can look and be remarkably different than what they were originally intended to look like or be understood as. I think the church should always be reforming itself, and that they should use Scripture to guide that reformation, always aware that there will never be a perfect church this side of the Kingdom. So, to state it simply, I believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved doctrinal truth for believers of every generation. He inspired men to write what would become the Bible, and he guided men who would collect it in the form we know today. The Bible is doctrinal truth. Now, we may disagree on what the Bible says, but I donāt think any Christian would deny that within the Bible is the truth, Godās revelation to man.I understand.
G
GKC
Guest
Yes, that was the same Erasmus.
Clement, the Pope with whom Henry got tangled up, was not particularly friendly with Hank, but Henry had been allied with the Papacy in the past, particularly in the Holy League.
The Defensor Fidei title is a story with complications. Iāve posted it here before. It was given to Henry (complicated story), not by Clement, but by Pope Leo X.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
S
SteveVH
Guest
Hey, Anna. It was ugly, donāt ask. Anyway, hope all is well with you also. Iām a new grandfather so things couldnāt be better right now.
God bless.
Steve
S
SteveVH
Guest
The Bible is āmaterialā doctrine. It contains the words of Scripture. It cannot interpret itself, obviously, and therefore requires an authentic interpreter. The further development of the material doctrine, expressed in and through the teachings of the Church (which we believe to be the authentic interpreter) is formal doctrine. All Christian faith traditions develop their formal doctrine based upon their interpretation of Scripture even when they deny having a formal doctrine, but instead claim to be just good ole āBible believing Christiansā.
M
mangy_dog
Guest
Because they do not believe that the great Warning and Permanent Miracle will ever come to pass.
When it does come, then all true christians will become catholic and then they will embrace and not reject the Pope.
When it does come, then all true christians will become catholic and then they will embrace and not reject the Pope.
J
Jerry_Westerby
Guest
and these are???
what are true christians now?
perhaps a theologian could correct me, but wouldnāt the function of priests and especially the vicar of Christ be obsolete when He returns?
the OP posits an interesting question, but all youāre saying is that protestants reject the Pope because they reject the Pope. circular and uninformative.
my opinion is that most protestants reject him because of historical reasons (there were millions of deaths in the Catholic-protestant wars and the consequences have cast a long shadow) and because thatās the way they were brought up (the second reason also explaining why most Catholics accept him).
M
mangy_dog
Guest
The Warning and the Miracle are not the return of Christ in glory. FƔtima, LaSalette, Akita, Betania etc.
J
Jerry_Westerby
Guest
The Church does not require that Catholics believe in these private revelations; why would protestants be expected to?
- Status