Posted on 02/01/2017 6:33:59 PM PST by marshmallow
Evangelicals have been urged to celebrate the Reformation as "essential" to Christianity and resist attempts to dilute differences between Protestants and Catholics.
The Evangelical Alliance's statement to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, headlined on the Evangelical Alliance press release as "500 Years of Protest", praised the split as a recovery of Jesus' teaching. It emphasised ongoing "points of divergence" between the two traditions as well as acknowledging efforts at reconciliation and convergence after centuries of mistrust.
"As evangelicals, we owe a great deal of our doctrinal, spiritual and cultural identity to the Reformation," the statement read.
"The Reformation was not so much an innovation as a recovery – a recovery of the essential content of the 'evangel' or 'good news' of salvation proclaimed by Jesus Christ himself, and by his apostles. That work of recovery is reflected in our own designation as evangelicals."
It insists the "core distinctions" between Luther and the 16th-century Roman Catholic church "remain between modern-day evangelicals and Catholics despite efforts at reconciliation".
The statement marked a notably different tone to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York who called for repentance for the division. They lamented the "lasting damage done five centuries ago to the unity of the Church, in defiance of the clear command of Jesus Christ to unity in love".
(Excerpt) Read more at christiantoday.com ...
I see...
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
Irenaeus taught in these books that if preaching is inconsistent with what is documented in the scriptures (both old and new) then one knows this is heresy. Simply put, if the Church is teaching things not in scripture (e.g. assumption of Mary, indulgences, etc.) then it is heresy. These examples are not listed in scripture nor were they taught by the Apostles. According to Irenaeus I should plug my ears and run.
As to Irenaeus saying the "truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church", he was right....at the time he wrote that around 175-200 AD it was the ONLY place to hear the gospel. Based on his works and the way the Church has evolved, I sincerely doubt he would have used "Catholic" today.
Although at times he was obscure, and perhaps flawed in some of his reasoning, I was very impress with Irenaeus ability to use the Old and New Testaments. Irenaeus emphasized Joseph's role far more than Mary, telling us (correctly) that it was Joseph's responsibility for the caring and nurturing of Christ until adulthood and God the Father saddled the faithful Joseph with a great burden.
As far as not being able to find a "Protestant whole and complete in the entire history of the Church before the 1500s" you are incorrect. When I was researching the Reformation I went back to Augustine-not Calvin or Luther. Reading Irenaeus, although tedious (and dull at times) provides real insight into what exactly was meant by "tradition" and the great emphasis Irenaeus placed upon studying the scriptures. Today's Catholic Church has distorted the meaning of "tradition" to suit their only fancy and deemphasized the scriptures to the point where many Catholics no longer believe the Old Testament as well as parts of the New. I've discussed this with many Catholics on this site.
You're the first IIRC Catholic on FR to admit this.
Later on in Revelation, books (plural) are opened.
Works are indeed judged.
Then the Book of LIFE is opened and SALVATION is determined.
LOLOL!!
Good scripture verse. What surprised me in Irenaeus’ writings was how the word “tradition” was applied. He applied it strictly to what was taught and done by the apostles. It was never meant as a format for evolving doctrine.
The Catholic Church added new scriptural books 1500 years later through the Apocrypha without the aid of a bona fide Apostle. These books were deemed as uninspired by the early Church fathers and rejected as infallible and inerrant scripture. So I'm not sure I see the point.
The Church, by the way, that Christ founded. I cannot imagine thinking that Christ would found a Church only to have it *immediately* be corrupted and leave His beloved people deep in error for over a thousand years. Sheer madness.
Actually, you are ignorant of history, in which the church itself began as a relative remnant after over 1500 years of faith, and while God did not leave His "beloved people" deep in error, and preserve salvific Truth even among the accretions of error in teaching and morals, yet rather than preservation of perfection being promised, corruption was foretold, (Acts 20:30) and the critique of the 7 churches of Asia (Rv. 2,3) testifies to the majority being in error of different kinds, and which was progressive. Among other aspects, by the fourth century you have a pope employing a murderous mob in order to secure his seat, and then greatly expanding his power.
For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint. Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.
Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:
The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...
These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…
Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38
Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,
The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....
Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...
With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)
For in contrast to even RC papal propaganda, even Caths researchers, among others provide testimony against such, including Newman in explaining how the Peter of Scripture, the non-assertive, street-level initial leader among the 11, for whom no successors are promised, and to whom the NT church did not look to as the first of a line of exalted infallible heads reigning supreme in Rome, much less by RC voting, was become the Roman pope:
While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. . . . When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred… (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).
Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident:
“The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200)
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224
Then we have the religious syncretism, as Newman confessed:
"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power)
And rather than RC faith actually being the "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all, the sophist " Development of Doctrine" was the daughter of necessity.
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius [what the Church taught was believed always by everyone], must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.
Falsified history of the Roman church was also instrumental in the development of her unScriptural papacy and power. RC historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger:
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. - — Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870) Then you have the unScriptural Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood More by the grace of God.
And thus you have the recourse of no less than Manning:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.
Meanwhile, besides the accretions of traditions of men, inventions and fabrications, the RC chosen delusion also should reject the church of Rome declining to the condition it experienced before the needed Reformation. From some of your own:
Cardinal Ratzinger observed,
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).
• Cardinal Bellarmine:
"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)
For indeed, history, tradition and Scripture only means what Rome says in any conflict, since Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
There are several different ancient Churches currently not in communion with each other.
I think you misunderstood my charge, which was not that of ancient Churches currently not in communion with each other, but of Rome in particular not being in communion with the NT church, as described in the link, by the grace of God who gives light.
But note that you have based your argument for authenticity unity, and thus it is one that hill that you must die. The reality is that comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized, but the prima NT church was basically of "one heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32) under such manifest apostles, (2Co. 6:4-10) that we sadly do not see today, but who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium, and contrary to Rome. And whose claim of unity is specious, as will be described, while it is the basis for unity that must be the issue.
They are the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and the Oriental Churches. We have been divided for at least a thousand years. We have our differences, certainly. But we all agree 97% in our doctrines, and the disagreements are so slight you need a theology degree to even explain them.
Wrong, even as btwn the EOs and Rome.. For one, rejecting Papocentrism, of a hierarch of Rome with universal jurisdiction is a fundamental disagreement which you cannot dismiss as "slight."
Behind all the photo-op hugs and kisses btwn leaders are substantial differences that prevent reconciliation even in this age of doctrinal laxity, with such EO conclusions as,
On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
Even more damning,
Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men".[18] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides[19] and Metropolitan Hierotheos[20][21] say the same. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox__Roman_Catholic_theological_differences
Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997;
Yet both stand in fundamental contradiction to the NT church.
You guys have been split from each other for 500 years, you all claim the Holy Spirit and you can't agree on squat.
False, for while in Orthodoxy and R. Catholicism both are contending for particular churches, both asserting to be the one true, "you guys" relies on a spurious broadbrush, so wide that you could fly a Unitarian Scientology,.Swedenborgian Mormon 747 thru it, as if anything apart from Rome befits the name Protestantism .
However, a valid comparison would be btwn the most fundamental difference, that of Scripture being the supreme authority as the only wholly inspired substantive body of Divine Truth by which the validity of Truth claims are ascertained (which eliminates both liberal churches, as well as cults), and Catholicism, in which leadership is effectively the supreme authority, based on Tradition, Scripture and history, since they only authoritatively consist of and mean what the magisterium says.
Under which, besides E) vs Rome divisions, both claiming to be faithful to Tradition, unity within Roman Catholics is limited and largely on paper.
For Scripturally the evidence of what one believes consists of what they do and effectually produce, (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) and in reality , unlike the basic "one heart and one soul" of the prima NT church, (Acts 4:32 - if not in comprehensive doctrinal unity), Catholicism consists of a mass of variegated beliefs among both prelates and lay people, all of whom Rome treats as member in life and in death, including manifest public figures. Which manifests what she really beliefs, which is most basically that being joined to her, as liberally evident, is the unity that matters, with even nominal assent to leadership being acceptable .
Nor can you dismiss liberal RCs as self excommunicated latæ sententiæ when Rome treats and calls them otherwise. They are your brethren and you must own them, and can hardly expect that conservative evangelical should join your amalgamation, and thus disobey Scripture which requires us to leave such. (2Co. 14-18)
And under the model of leadership being supreme, then when it goes South, then so do those who follow such, unless they dissent, which results in more division in the interest of fidelity to teachings of past leadership. For while claiming to better define (interpret) Tradition, there is such apparent contrasts that you have formal sects and schisms based on differences btwn past and modern teaching. Some of us here just finished(?) a 1500+ post debate with one.
Rather then official teaching itself producing coveted unity, the opposite is seen. As one poster wryly said, The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
In contrast,while lacking a central government, those who most strongly hold to Scripture as being the literal (versus liberal understanding) word of God yet testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs, in contrast to those Rome has as members.
Thus liberals fear evangelicals far more then Catholics, and it is the practical level that matters. You can only wish Catholics were as conservative.
Therefore if your argument is that unity equates to or is essential for authenticity then you must see to your own house, its reality, and not try to bluff us with propaganda about unchanging doctrine, which itself is subject to different Catholic interpretations.
However,
Second of all, on the supposed "deformation" of the ancient Church. You guys teach Church history by launching straight from Acts and quickly scurrying to the 16th century.
And why not examine Church history by launching straight from Acts, seeing that is where the only wholly inspired record of the NT church begins, and which, thru Revelation, shows us how they understood the gospels?
And which reveals the progressive contrast deformation of the NT church, which continues and did not end in the 16th century, but which saw the imperfect Reformation as a result of an recalcitrant Rome.
The reason why is because *you can't find a Protestant church* in that 1500 year period. There isn't ONE Church, ONE author, ONE movement you can point to throughout all that time that is fully and completely Protestant.
Thank God, considering what RCs include under "Protestant." However, the NT church actually began with common souls rightly discerning both men and writings as being of God, based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium,
And while even the best today comes short of the prima NT church, what we have within Protestantism are churches that come closest to the NT church of Acts (if lacking in a central magisterium of manifest Biblical apostles, etc.), while there isn't ONE Catholic Church you can point to throughout all that 1500 year period, nor since, that does not stand in fundamental and substantial contrast to the NT church.
I'll take my Christianity as it emerged from Christ and the Apostles, as it was taught by the great Fathers and Doctors, and as lived in the lives of the saints,
Which is a mere propagandistic question-begging assertion, as what you take as "emerged from Christ and the Apostles" was manifestly not what was taught by the great Fathers and Doctors as regards Roman distinctives.
For what the NT church in Scripture did NOT manifestly profess/teach practice were such things as:
• Praying to created beings in Heaven , which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers. Only pagans prayed to someone else!
• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven i they died at the time of the baptism, but with the same (as practically imperfect) later usually having to endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven, and making offerings and prayers in order to obtain early release from this unScriptural RC purgatory.
• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin.
• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme prevalent practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved.
•That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes .
• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy .
• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome, whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.
• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.
• Choosing apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (n order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)
More to see by God's grace.
not a false Christianity cobbled together by degenerate men who were unfaithful to their vows and their wives.
Who knows you this refers to, but it does not refer to a cobbled Christianity i defend, but such men pertain to some of your popes and prelates in your cobbled Christianity in contrast with the NT church, which as said, among other things mentioned, did not basically require clerical celibacy which a false Christianity enjoins, and instead being married was the normative state, even among apostles, and who taught celibacy being a gift, (1Co. 7:7) and certainly did not presume pastors in general would have it.
However, The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit, (Psalms 34:18) and as the Truth of the gospel has been and is yet present among the trappings of Catholicism, then the body of Christ continued thru the dark ages of her reign, and there are a few (relatively) simple humble souls that are somewhat part of it today, by God's grace. May you become one.
And even if this and its translation is truly authentic, which is debatable , what does that prove, but that it is invoked by RCs to support her papacy (which is not appealed to), and contrary to Scripture in which the apostles at Jerusalem were appealed to, while Paul also called all the Ephesian elders together to himself?
You exalt the church of Rome, to which Paul in his epistle to them utterly fails to mention Peter even once amidst the multitude of people he salutes or sending greeting from (and don't even try the absurd apologetic that he was trying to protect Peter, while yet naming 33 other people in Rm. 16).
And all the while teaching zero R. Catholic distinctives while teaching evangelical doctrines that Rome tries to spin!
Just give it up, as your vain attempts to defend your deformation as being the one true church are an argument against it.
Indeed, and if an active faith is the testimony here of being a true church, then the evangelicals certainly are, since they greatly surpass Catholics in testimony to commitment and support of core value s.
The other salient point, is that the seven churches of Asia were prima facie genuine New Testament churches, members of the one holy catholic apostolic church. They were at risk of severe judgment unless they repented and did the works of the LORD Jesus until the end. The LORD Jesus Christ spoke in Revelation to those churches and said that anyone with ears to hear should listen; hence the words apply to all. The word "works" is predominant. The offspring of the Reformation have no such evidence of legitimacy. .
And just where or where anywhere in these letters to the 7 churches is there any evidence that there Roman Catholic churches? Where are any RC distinctives mentioned? Taking the 2 most primary distinctives,
1. Where is Peter/the pope mentioned? Surely in the Spirit's word to the churches (plural) at least one mention to obey, or remember the supreme head would be included, either as a commendation of a criticism for not doing, if this was a RC church which is asserted to be the case,
However, trying those who which said they are apostles but were not is commended, which applies to Rome, and there were those which "hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" (Rv. 2:15) and which some think that the word nikos means “victory,” and "laos, means “people,” and that thus it corresponds to “lord of the people," contrary to Matthew 23:12: And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
But Nicolaitans likely pertains to immorality.
2. Where is partaking is the body and blood of Christ mentioned? Surely at least a one mention would be included, either as a commendation of a criticism for not doing, if this was a RC church which is asserted to be the case.
But the only eating mentioned affirmatively is of a spiritual kind in the afterlife. (Rv. 2:7,17)
The word "works" is predominant.
Yet even the church of the Laodiceans was addressed as a true church, while yet failing to evidence anything distinctively Catholics, leaving your assertions to be discarded as merely assertions.
Uh, Claud, you seem to be forgetting that those "YOU" to whom Jesus supposedly gave such powers are all dead now.
Why don't you define what or whom you mean is the "church"?
Show me where the Bible says everything is in the Bible.
.
Show us where the Bible says there is anything outside of the Bible!
Deuteronomy prohibits adding to or taking away from that which was given to us at Sinai, and the Revelation prohibits adding to or taking away from that prophecy.
Matthew ch 5 says Torah is forever.
Matthew ch 7 says that only those that are keeping Torah will be saved.
Where is there anything else called for?
.
Yep! Duh debble makes em ignore those details, don he?
.
Here we are throwing eggs and tomatoes back and forth over a “Church,” yet the word of Yehova calls not for any church, but for his assembly. The same assembly with which he forged a covenant 3500 years ago at Sinai, and which covenant he promised to renew with his assembly, the House of Judah, and the House of Israel by writing it on their hearts.
Where is any church?
Everywhere that word is used in the NT writings it is a mistranslation of Kehillah, the assembly that began with Adam, not some human corporation that builds and owns buildings that Yehova declared that he doesn’t occupy.
.
.
Long before Luther, Irenaeus grumbled about departing from “The Teaching” (Torah).
.
Show me where SS means everything must be in the Bible, or even explicitly?
Or where, as written, Scripture did not became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And where oral tradition was lauded as Scripture is in such places as Ps. 19, 119, and the reading of it started natural repentance, (2Kg. 22) and was use to rebuke the devil and others who sat in authority, (Mt. 4, 22) and to substantiate the mission of Christ and His message. (Lk. 24:44; Acts 7:2; 18:28)
And where the oral preaching of the word was not subject to testing by Scripture.
And where, before it was written, that the oral word of God was not sufficient for the obedience to God required, and likewise that God did not include in Scripture, in its formal and material aspects, what is now needful for obedience to God.
And that God promised the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, upon which belief can even be required in a event over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, yet which is absent from Scripture and lacking in early testimony from history.
I can quote all you like. And then you'll tell me why such and such a verse doesn't mean what I think it means.
You say a person should be able to go directly to the Bible and all the answers will be there. But, oddly enough, when *I* do that and come up with Catholic interpretations, somehow, Oh gee, Sola Scriptura and perspicacity goes out the window!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.