Posted on 01/03/2011 10:40:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
On January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther, the chief catalyst of Protestantism, was a professor of biblical interpretation at the University of Wittenberg in Germany when he drew up his 95 theses condemning the Catholic Church for its corrupt practice of selling indulgences, or the forgiveness of sins. He followed up the revolutionary work with equally controversial and groundbreaking theological works, and his fiery words set off religious reformers all across Europe.
In January 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther. Three months later, Luther was called to defend his beliefs before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms, where he was famously defiant. For his refusal to recant his writings, the emperor declared him an outlaw and a heretic. Luther was protected by powerful German princes, however, and by his death in 1546, the course of Western civilization had been significantly altered.
Like one astute fella reflects; some you can go after with a tac-hammer...For others, you need a jack-hammer...
roamer_1:
Well, he is a Presbyterian, and it was Calvin who when reading the Church fathers in his era questioned them becaus they so clearly rejected what he was teaching.
Ok, so Killen, who I have never heard of [the others I have] disagreed with them. Still, he seems to be in the minority even among Protestant Patristic Scholars.
So, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Patristic Scholars are in agreement as to the extant Ignatian corpus to be valid, and the majority of the 19th century Patristic Scholars, which is when Protestant Scholars began to translate the Fathers into English, etc also agree that they are valid.
Is it necessary to accuse people of having a “previous screen name”....just because they are new to FR.?
And don’t have your point of view?
Works for me. Rome has been caught with her hand in the cookie jar countless times, on the basis of inclusions and outright forgeries... Why should anyone give her the benefit of the doubt on anything?
I will entertain documents which have (complete) extant copies prior to 250 AD with less scrutiny. But as to the rest, meh. Prove them valid.
Except there is as much historical evidence of a non-Catholic Christian Church[...]
That's what happens when one kills all opponents - In fact, the lack of any opponents and detractors points to that exactly.
Killen is a Presbyterian trying hard to rehabilitate Calvin’s errors and is found wanting by disinterested scholars.
And last of all, attack the messenger - It is obvious you haven't read the work, else you overlooked the particular feature of Killen aligning his work with many big, swinging names.
Not at all. Read the work. He is not leaning on his name alone. Lightfoot dropped the ball.
So, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Patristic Scholars are in agreement as to the extant Ignatian corpus to be valid [...]
Of course they do... the entire body of tradition hinges upon the early Anti-Nicaean fathers being valid. Without them, the whole works comes tumbling down. So why should I believe a tradition that is only (or nearly so) self verifying?
and the majority of the 19th century Patristic Scholars, which is when Protestant Scholars began to translate the Fathers into English, etc also agree that they are valid.
Simply not true. Read Killen through.
quite plausible if one does not start from the premise that the Roman church IS the House of Yeshua. It is far more likely that it is not.
I also suspect St. Ignatius wasn’t really torn to pieces by the lions, more Jesuit trickery!
The Martyrdom of Ignatius is certainly a forgery.
roamer_1:
So do you believe this Killen Fellow. I understand that in the 19th century, which the Anti-Nicene Fathers were published, there was a heated debate among Protestants in the U.K.
The Anglican Patristic Scholars who had first done English Translations of the CHurch Fathers were criticized because their translations were considered “Toooooo Catholic”. So the Anti-Nicene Fathers was translated by a Presybeterian Publishing Company and the footnotes in that tried to refute everything in the Fathers that was considered too Catholic.
However, the consenus is the ANglican Divines, Lightfoot, Funk, Von Harnack [who was actually a German-Reformed or Luteran I think who worked in England] does agree that the Ignatian Corpus is valid.
It is only the Scotish-Irish Presbyterians of the 19th century who think otherwise as I read your link and saw that Killen was published by the same group that published the Anti-Nicene Fathers, and that was a Scotish-Presbyterian outfit
So what we have, at least based on your post and mine is that Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Patristic Scholars all agree that Ignatius’s Letters are valid.
And that Scottish-Irish-Presbyterians scholars, at least those in the 19th century, claim they are dubios.
More recent Protestant Patristic Scholars are in agrement with the Catholic, ORthodox and Anglican Divines from the 19th century. These would include Lutheran Patristic Scholar Jaroslav Pelikan [he became Ortodox before he died] and the 20th century Anglican Patristic Scholars JND Kelly and Henry Chadwick who all agree the Ignatian corpus is valid.
I doubt very much there are Pentecostal, Baptist, Health-welfare, Emergent Church, Protestant Patristic Scholars so what we are left, at least, from what I can gather, is that the position of this fellow Killen is a very, very, very, minority opinion.
roamer_1:
I agree, the consensus of the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Patristic Scholarship from the 19th century [Anglican Divines] is that that Letter of Ignatius is indeed not valid and thus spurrious.
Sure I do. But not based upon him alone, or upon his fellows (who are numerously annotated in his text).
So what we have, at least based on your post and mine is that Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Patristic Scholars all agree that Ignatius’s Letters are valid.
Who cares? Anglicans and Lutherans of the age required the texts to be valid, just as Rome still does. Else they would put their own traditions at risk.
And that Scottish-Irish-Presbyterians scholars, at least those in the 19th century, claim they are dubios.
No, they are false, not dubious.
[...] this fellow Killen is a very, very, very, minority opinion.
Again, read the work. He calls on the opinions of at least twenty of his contemporaries and near contemporaries.
here i thought the “know-nothings” were all dead. History, we don’t need any stinking history!
You might do better to try to attack Killen's argument, rather than trying to attack me...
We do need history... but TRUE history... not fables.
i think what would be very helpful in these discussions, would be to have full disclosure of what “church” each of the posters belongs to. My guess is the majority probably attend no established church, but rather either don’t attend any services or go to an independent church. Also, i believe many are cult members, as they always attack the Church first and foremost. It would be interesting to find out, so we can search history when each of these churches was founded and what their unique beliefs are. The Catholic Church has twenty centuries behind it and has dealt with all sorts of false doctrine, from the Gnostics and Arians all the way thru to JW’S and LDS.
“We do need history” OK, maybe we are getting somewhere! Please tell me sir, in your reading of history, what happened to the Apostolic Church after St John went to be with the Lord? When did the Catholic Church begin and who was it’s founder? Please tell me what true Christian leaders opposed the Catholic Church when it was founded and started putting forth it’s false doctrines. Most Protestants i know seem to think the Church was not on earth between 95ad and 1517, what is your reading of TRUE history....not fables?
do you hold the Nicene Creed to be Biblical and true?
one Lord one faith one baptism:
I have posted something similar in the past. It is clear that those of us who are Catholic. What is not clear is what branch or sect of Protestantism that all these people belong to as most them do not ever tell you what group they are affiliated with as after all, there are thousands and thousands of different Protestant groups and there number is growing exponentially.
roamer_1:
Well, ok, so you reject the Ignatian corpus and I accept them at least we are clear on that.
It was quite likely continually decimated, along with all the other Hebrew sects. But Rome was unable to kill off the Jews... How hard is it to believe she could not kill off the Way?
When did the Catholic Church begin and who was it’s founder?
That is hard to say, as Roman history is based in the Clementine heresy - Anything I might say would be speculative. There is every indication that documents were being altered to create a history sometime around 300AD. Certainly the Roman church was fully "owned" by the time of pagan Constantine.
Most Protestants i know seem to think the Church was not on earth between 95ad and 1517, what is your reading of TRUE history....not fables?
No, I think that as Christ said, He was not bringing peace, but a sword. It follows that she who holds the sword is not Christ's assembly... More likely the ones who were under the sword are they.
What is completely ludicrous is the idea that the Roman church sprung whole cloth from a Judaic sect - That the House of Yeshua, A Torah-keeping, YHWH observant troop, suddenly became enamored of Roman thinking, Roman holidays, pagan ancestor worship, and adopted the hierarchy of the Pagan system... It is simply ABSURD... In fact, the more one insists on an early date for the Roman system, the more absurd it becomes.
No, I hold to no creed of men, especially one which was used to brutally conquer Europe (and every other thing she possibly could). Such an abominable thing, done in the name of YHWH.
There is no creed to adopt in the Scriptures. That is not what is described in order to follow Him.
thank you for both responses, you left me speechless. ( and that doesn’t happen often! )
Truth hurts sometimes.
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.