Replies

I thought I'd return to this historical question that is revived repeatedly by responding to your previous remarks and, incidentally, hijack the thread back to the original topic.

Cleburne: If one believes that Catholic Church was "hopeless" at the time of the Reformation, could one make a case for there being other groups that "carried the torch" through the "darkness" of the Middle Ages? Personally, I don't think so. The well-known "Trail of Blood", for example, has to embrace incredibly heretical (by the standards of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox!) sects in order to maintain continuity. I see no means by which to establish a claim of a "pure" church, "untainted" by popery.

Jael: So you believe that Rome was the true church? She just went bad over time?

MarMema: In 988 Orthodoxy was brought to Russia by Prince Vladimir, where it flourished. The years of 1350-1550 were the culmination, considered the "golden age of Orthodoxy" in Russia.

Jael: I couldn't consider them [the Church Fathers and their immediate heirs as part of the "true Church"] as such. Doctrinally speaking, or in any way, I don't see Rome as ever being a part of Biblical Christianity.

First off, I've looked, as have many others, for any completely unbroken line of Christian descent that is completely outside the Roman church. One can make a case for the Piedmontese churches as a missionary outreach of the Palestinian churches but that hardly seems a complete explanation. I have concluded that this is probably the wrong way to approach it. I think the case can be argued for a sort of unbroken succession but that ultimately, it is not satisfactory for a number of reasons.

Let's try to frame this entire matter a little differently instead and we see another more nuanced view emerges.

In the early years of the Roman church, in fact for centuries, the Roman bishop was not a pope in the modern sense. In fact, the real notion of a pope took about a thousand years to develop and for papal successors to establish their power. Priestly celibacy was not enforced for a thousand years. Mariolatry, in the modern sense, simply did not exist until relatively modern times. The Eucharist, while always a doctrine, did not receive the same emphasis as it does in modern times.

The point I'm making is that the church of Rome was far less apostate in the early centuries than the modern version. It was entirely possible for a good Christian to be, incidentally, a Roman Catholic.

We might keep in mind that the ordinary believer in most churches knew no more of theology or the Bible than most any Protestant child of age 10 knows today. And yet, just as I believe that that child, if they know Christ, will go to heaven if they die today, so I can have no great reason to deny that I could never meet any of those simple peasant Christians of the Middle Ages in heaven, merely because they attended an RC church which was probably the only religious organization they had ever even heard of. Other people may make pronouncement on their fate. Being a Calvinist, I am content to let God sort that out. Personally, I'm hoping He's more merciful on theological purity than many of His most devoted spokesmen throughout history.

We have to keep in mind that the ancient peoples did not have universal literacy or modern communications. For the average believer, it was quite difficult to be informed as to the opinions of the hierarchy and the pope because they couldn't read and there were not enough communications to ensure the message got out to the hinterlands.

The gross materialism of the Roman hierarchy became undeniable even to its loyal adherents in the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries. And yet, corrupt as it was, I have few doubts that within the church of Rome, there were faithful priests and ordinary Christians whose lives were untouched by the scandals of the hierarchy and the friars and the church/state politics. I would be hardpressed to say that I consider it would be impossible to meet some of them in Heaven. Certainly, many ordinary believers and village priests, isolated as they were, were far better Christians than any member of their corrupt medieval hierarchy.

It is always possible that some defects in doctrine are not a bar to salvation. Perhaps OPie would favor us with some discussion on the traditional Protestant views on the "fatal heresies" of the Roman church as opposed to merely their mistaken doctrines. It's an interesting topic to consider and certainly an issue every Protestant has to accommodate.

I think that Protestantism must dismiss itself entirely if it completely repudiates any trace of Roman heritage. After all, Protestants must be "protesting" something and that something is/was the Roman hierarchy's corruption of simple Christian worship and ordinances.

When you look closely, it is a very interesting question. If we throw out everything from the church of Rome, we have to abandon Augustine and his views on sovereignty, the foundation of Calvin's later works. And we'd have to throw out Erasmus who created the Textus Receptus version of Greek text which became the basis of all the great Protestant bibles. (Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest but died with Protestant friends without last rites.) I just wanted to give a few examples of what I'm talking about.

God looks on the heart, I think, and on how He can lead His children to do His will. Theology is secondary because without a loving heart that is lead by God as its sovereign, all that theology will neither save nor damn a single soul.

And so, you will likely say, how then can we determine exactly where Rome went truly sour. I would say that their theology is so unbiblical and their practices so worldly and pleasing to the world, that in the end, we have to judge them by their fruit. And yet, it is true that many ordinary RCs are better Christians than their hierarchies, certainly many of them tower morally over some of their priests.

In the end, a Protestant has to stand as fully and firmly upon the Word of God and only that. We can't claim all of Christian history to support us. We claim only the Word and our best understanding and reading of it. And perhaps, that is what God is after. His Word to remain true but for it to be the opening into our lives, a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths. But that light that shines from the Word is for each of us, as God reveals His will in each believer's life.

There is in the Protestant tradition a flavor of individualism that cannot be matched by the far more corporate identity of members of the Roman church. And Calvinists are the great individualists of Protestantism, if not of all time. Well, I'll stop before I digress entirely though it is a wonderful political and historical topic.

The politically relevant theological and historical upshot of all this discussion:

You'll notice that my "nuanced historical approach" allows me to include any of the Church Fathers or any early Christian authority without any problems but without being bound to any hierarchical obedience. No need to cede all that territory to the Orthodox or Roman churches.
Also, I can, as a Calvinist, make as large a claim as I wish upon Augustine's teachings on the sovereignty of God but still ignore his other teachings which supported Rome. And I can latch onto countless others who held positions within the Roman church (like Erasmus writing the Textus Receptus) with no problems at all.
I can also avoid any necessity of consigning millions of ordinary RC believers in history to hell. I can leave that to God and hope for the best. My harsh views on the Roman hierarchy (and their likely eternal destination) remains, of course, unaltered. They are, as they have always been, without excuse.

Dang, I'm getting to be one slippery Protestant. But, as OPie might tell you, the problem is that this argument starts to place us on a slippery slope theologically. And so, the strength of this more "flexible" view is also its greatest weakness. And I'm annoyed to find myself more "ecumenical" than I once was. But then, I also have a certain admiration for the aggressiveness of my local RC bishop so you have fair warning; theologically he's dead wrong but he at least scares all the right people.

</immolation exercise>

Good post GWB, very insightful.

The parish priest of the Middle Ages tended to have a poor education- he could perhaps understand a little Latin and perhaps read and write somewhat in it. He made sure that the Creed was taught faithfully. He preached regularly, and would take a sabatical when he could to study. He was probably not celibate; some sources imply that practically none of the clergy were celibate, though that is likely an exageration.

Within the monastistic orders there were men and women who were very much devoted to Christ, and carried their message to others, either through preaching or written form. Some spoke vigourusly against the corruption and abuses, though they were largely unheeded.

Overall, I think the picture painted by many Protestants is far too hasty in its summations. I know I have been forced to rethink the Church's past: the whole medieval period confronts one sharply, and must be reckoned with. I had possessed the typical Protestant idea of an age of utter darkness, with nasty friars filling their coffers, pilfering lords abusing their serfs, and the pope sitting atop it all grinning. But when I began to examine the writings and records from the time, I have found much good admist the gloom.

On another note, I would like to raise a point regarding "Protestant individualism": while it has its many good points (and it was largely lacking in "popular" Catholicity prior to the Reformation), it can also be an inhibitant. I am afraid that, by laying such an emphasis on individuals, Protestant thought has removed emphasis from the Church as a corporate, united Body. And yet the Church and its oneness is of key emphasis in Scripture- and some of this is, I think, lost in Protestantism, when it need not be. At least that has been my (albeit rather limited) experience and perception.

The key to this comment is what is meant by the word protestant. It is derived from the word Protest. a protest is not a total repudiation of a body of belief.
So you are correct that such a stand lets us pick what truth is revealed in the church fathers, while repudiating what is not truth.

Second area, there is a standard needed for the Protestant to determine truth and discern it among the church fathers. it is for this reason that without Sola Scriptura there is only relativism and infinite progression of interpretation (as per some elements of Roman apologetics, interpreting...contrary to Roman teaching...what pronouncement of what Pope was ex cathedra, and what was not).

Third area: i have my reservations, seen in my earliest posts on this thread, about the presumption of the discussion quesions...seems we needed to prove or disprove rather than presume. This is a prelude to make the next point.

Fourth point: We must, when the one accepts that the bible is the word of God, and therefore authoritative, put aside what observations we make that appear to contradict that revealed word. On earlier posts we have a gaurantee that there will be a remnant according to the election of grace defined and proven based on both OT citations, and NT applications by the apostle Paul. There is indeed a pure church, we name it the invisible church. It is pure in the sense that it's redemption and translation are sure, in a like manner as the election of the individual is sure, but not neccessarily yet.

Final Point: As previously posted, is is not that God has ever stopped speaking and working (through word and sacriment), it is that man is of a disposition to supress that knowlege. The natural revelation passages in Romans 1 don't just apply to unregenerate man, we all are presently under the depravity of our nature by sin, and act in the same manner (to a lesser degree, as the Spirit infuses empowering grace to the believer).

i hope this clears some issues W, if not, please forgive the verboos statement for naught. i do agree that we did drift too far off topic for the thread, and i fear, lost some people, for my part in this matter i offer apologies, and ask forgiveness.

Well, in the case of the Piedmontese (and their Waldensian descendants), I think it's fair to say that they were originally a part of the great early community of Mediterranean christendom, though independent of Rome at that early day.

The See of Rome, in those days, embraced only the capital and the surrounding provinces. The diocese of Milan, which included the plain of Lombardy, the Alps of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France, greatly exceeded it in extent. It is an undoubted historical fact that this powerful diocese was not then tributary to the Papal chair. "The Bishops of Milan," says Pope Pelagius I. (555), "do not come to Rome for ordination." He further informs us that this "was an ancient custom of theirs."... Attempts were renewed to induce the Bishops of Milan to accept the episcopal pall, the badge of spiritual vassalage, from the Pope; but it was not till the middle of the eleventh century (1059) under Nicholas II., that these attempts were successful... Others retired into the valleys of the Piedmontese Alps, and there maintained their scriptural faith and their ancient independence. What has just been related respecting the dioceses of Milan and Turin settles the question of the apostolicity of the Churches of the Waldensian valleys.

So it's probably not correct for us to see the Waldensians (or the Prsbyters of Iona) as part of a sort of "trail of blood" lineage of quasi-baptistic "non-catholic" groups (some of whom were not even Christian, in part), but rather as a development of one of the communities of early "catholic" Christianity which were all descended from the Apostles, but not all subservient to Rome (at least not originally).

I have concluded that this is probably the wrong way to approach it. I think the case can be argued for a sort of unbroken succession but that ultimately, it is not satisfactory for a number of reasons.

One of the flaws in such collection of "Non-Roman succession" histories (Williamson's, Wylie's, Boettner's, or even my own abridged compilation of the three) can be the tendency to discount entirely the preservation of valid and valuable elements within the Roman confession -- partly because, that's just not the intended focus of the compilation.

But this truncated focus on my (our) parts can tend to ignore the history of Predestinarians and Reformers within the Church of Rome. For example, in all my 50-odd pages discussing the history of "The Covenant Line", I don't have one word to say about the Ninth-Century Augustinian-Predestinarian Gottschalk of Orbais, or any of the other Roman predestinarians who did try to follow in Augustine's footsteps.

This is an unfortunate ommission of study, on my part. If we wanted to deny Rome any credit in the historical preservation of Gospel Doctrine, we might claim that Gottschalk was "not really a Roman Catholic" given that he was, after all, condemned to life-imprisonment for his views; but we can't very well make of him a "non-Roman" Waldensian Pastor or Hibernian Presbyter with any intellectual honesty. As far as Gottschalk's heritage and practice (and, I think, how he would have viewed himself), he lived and died as a Roman Catholic; at least a "Roman Catholic" of his pre-schism Ninth-Century age.

Anyway, just some mumblings on my part regarding an "ecumenical" view of Church History....