Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Brakelite]

The rest, except for John, deserted Him in His hour of need! THAT is the Church Christ founded.

True. And what did those first disciples do with their new found faith?
KJV Acts 2:5-11
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

These foreigners were visiting Jerusalem, and obviously them went home, taking their new beliefs with them. There, in their homes, in countries far away from Jerusalem, they shared their faith in obedience to Jesus's Commandment,
KJV Acts 1:7-8
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

In those uttermost parts of the earth, they began churches. In Arabia, Britain, Africa, India, the far East, China and Japan and Mongolia. And no-one of these has anything to do with Rome except to offer the hand of fellowship whether they meet. Rome would have none of this. The Popes wanted all other churches to submit to Papal authority. If they didn't, they were often persecuted and destroyed. God worked mighty miracles in those nations, honouring the faith and commitment of those early disciples and evangelists. Yet along comes Rome claiming they were 'heretics' because the refused to honour the false claims of a falling church. Christ was the Head of those churches, and they grew the more because they cleaved to Him and Him only.

And it was the ONLY Church until the Orthodox splintered off in the Great Schism in 1054 A.D.

Nonsense.

 

[Brakelite]

There is no activity after death….but you know this…right?

Indeed. That's what scripture teaches. As well as a final destruction of the wicked, not ECT. As for the Godhead issue, I would take great care and much circumspection before coming down too hard on Protestantism for their variety of beliefs while you deny the Lordship, the Divinity, the Deity, and glory of Christ, the Only begotten born, not created, Son of God. I have several issues with pure trinitarian teachings. I say pure, not in the sense that it is truth, but I'm the sense that there are many versions of the trinity but the actual trinity as taught in the creeds must include certain aspects many people miss, ignore, or don't know about.

 

[face2face]

The Only begotten born, not created

How do you reconcile Paul's teaching on Christ being in every way like his brothers? The record goes to great lengths to show there is no difference (at all) between the first and second Adam (only in what God achieved in Christ..."became"). The very fact Christ (not God) is called "an Adam" should raise alarm bells. I think you will find Brakelight your "born, not created" teaching was developed theology which took place some time after the Apostles fell asleep in the Lord. You & I know the source of his Glory and we know Whose image he was made in.
F2F

 

[Marymog]

I'm not playing these silly word games with you, where you continuously attempt to trick people into corners through lies and obfuscation.

Translation: I can’t defend my illogical theory so I will call you a liar and accuse you of tricking me

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

On the subject of Rome resolving Eastern disputes, here's the view of Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (1993):

“Three bishops (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) had traditionally exercised a measure of jurisdiction beyond the frontiers of their province, Alexandria controlling upper Egypt and Libya, and Rome the churches of southern Italy. These rights were recognized as a modification of the metropolitan system, though their nature and limits are not defined. A significant canon declared that special honour attaches to the see of Jerusalem, though without prejudice to the metropolitan rights of Caesarea. These pregnant words marked a crucial step towards the fifth-century creation of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, gradually achieved in face of bitter opposition from Caesarea.

“The Nicene canons throw much light, therefore, on the developing organization and ‘power structure’ of the church. By 325 the Greek churches at least were accustomed to an organization based on the secular provincial system, and the unit normally conformed to that of the State. But what court of appeal could stand above a provincial council? Unlike the West, the East had no single see of unquestioned pre-eminence, but only great cities like Alexandria and Antioch and (from 330) Constantinople. The one Greek city with sacred sites of the first importance was Jerusalem, whose bishops showed a strong awareness that they presided over the mother-church of Christendom; but it never became a major centre of power in the Church. Not until the fifth century, in face of passionate opposition from Alexandria, could the see of Constantinople establish in the East a position comparable with that of Rome in the West. But for the Latin bishops the Western prestige of Rome simplified the problem.”

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• The Arian schisms (343-398)
• The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
• The Acacian schism (484-519)
• Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
• Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.
source

 

[Augustin56]

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• The Arian schisms (343-398)
• The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
• The Acacian schism (484-519)
• Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
• Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.
source

Excellent, factual post. Good job!

 

[RedFan]

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• The Arian schisms (343-398)
• The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
• The Acacian schism (484-519)
• Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
• Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.
source

I'm gratified that all your examples are post-Nicaea. As I said in Post #1113, "The "Catholic" Church as it existed in 325 CE throughout the Latin West and the Greek East was not the "Roman" Catholic Church as you would think of it today. Rome's hegemony 1700 years ago did not extend to Alexandria or Antioch or Jerusalem or environs, where the source of ecclesiastic legitimacy was apostolic succession simpliciter, not derived from the consent of the Roman Pope."

I am sticking to that statement. Of course, I am always open to correction. That's why I frequent this site.

 

[Brakelite]

Translation: I can’t defend my illogical theory so I will call you a liar and accuse you of tricking me

Your theory is that the reformers discovered errors of The Church and found the Truth.

What is so illogical about that? It isn't a theory, it's what happened. And that's what I mean by your word games. Calling historical facts 'theories'.
Unless of course you think Righteousness by faith is error as discovered by Luther. Or perhaps full immersion baptism is an error? Is prayer as taught by Calvin an error, prayer without the meaningless rote repetitions of Rome? Or maybe the availability of scripture to the common people is an error? The corollary to that of course is to freely in the woods of God only as the safest foundation for faith and practise. Of course, you believe the 7th day Sabbath to be an error, except you can't do so without resorting to Catholic tradition. Other teachings the reformers discovered was the identity of the system of Roman Catholicism as the Antichrist. To refute the numerous biblical prophecies and descriptions regarding the Antichrist you have to resort to 2 Jesuit priests of the 16th century who had to reinvent prophecy to fit their agenda... Hiding Rome from truth.
Now of course, you may point out to me the errors of the Protestant reformers, and there were several, the worst of which is their rejection of truths from former reformers and persecuting those followers who believed in them. But each of the reformers did learn truths from scripture long covered in superstition and tradition. It is the scriptures, again, which decides what is truth and what is error. None of reformers came to a complete knowledge of truth. But they made significant advances in a society and church surrounded in darkness and ignorance.

My church? My men? Lol. Same old
Mary. More word games. By attempting to win the argument you resort to the fallacy that God cannot, does not, or refuses to reveal Himself and teach men outside of so called church authority.
Let me ask you a question. The Apostles were active during the time of Saul's persecutions against the church, so what made the difference in Paul's life? Where did he learn truth? Who showed it to him?

 

[Brakelite]

How do you reconcile Paul's teaching on Christ being in every way like his brothers? The record goes to great lengths to show there is no difference (at all) between the first and second Adam (only in what God achieved in Christ..."became"). The very fact Christ (not God) is called "an Adam" should raise alarm bells. I think you will find Brakelight your "born, not created" teaching was developed theology which took place some time after the Apostles fell asleep in the Lord. You & I know the source of his Glory and we know Whose image he was made in.
F2F

And again, when He bringeth in THE FIRSTBEGOTTEN into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him (Heb 1:6)

"Who is the image of the invisible God, THE FIRSTBORN of every creature (Col 1:15)

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER,) full of grace and truth (John 1:14)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John
3:16)

The scriptures plainly declare that God sent His only begotten Son into the world to save sinners. If that is true, then I am of a mind to believe the Father had a Son to send.

 

[Brakelite]

Although there is a connection between the authority of the church and the trinity doctrine promulgated in the 4th century and beyond, I am loathe to discuss that on this thread as it will result in total derailment, and the present discussions on authority are important and interesting. I would like to keep that as is.

 

[The Learner]

First, that assumption is easily disproven by the letters of Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus and others, who clearly identified the Bishop of Rome as leader of the Universal Church centuries before "that time" in question. . Second, the basis for the papacy has always existed, and the doctrine of the papacy develops over time, just like the canon of Scripture developed over time. Jesus used seeds and bodies as metaphors for the Church, seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet the essence or core of the doctrine has never changed. So expecting the papacy today to look exactly like the papacy did 2 millennia ago isn't reasonable.

Then you never heard of the illegitimate Robber Council

Then who signed the final declarations of the Council of Nicaea making it binding on all believers???

You still don't get it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene an ecumenical council without the pope, who has the authority to send legal representatives, yet you can't find any evidence for Pope Sylvester convening the council. With a little work, I can probably find their names. You should include them in your book.

Ironically for such an important figure in the contemporary church, Pope Sylvester did not go to the famed and critical First Council of Nicea of 325. At this early universal church conclave the Nicene Creed was originated. The pope had two legates named Vincentius and Vitus who represented him at the meeting, and both were treated with honor though they did not preside over the event. The pope later gave his official approval to the decisions of the council after the return of his legates.​

Pope St. Sylvester I - PopeHistory.com

Pope Sylvester I had the distinction of being the 33rd reigning pontiff of the Western Church in Rome. During his long and eventful pontificate of from 314

popehistory.com

The Development of the Papacy
By Hector Burn-Murdoch · 1954

 

[The Learner]

Protestantism’s history is a very interesting story. No one can deny that their intentions were good at the beginning, in exposing the false teachings and abuses of the RCC. Their initial intention was to reform the Catholic church and rid it of its abuses of power, but that didn’t work…and is ancient history….today is where we find ourselves, and Protestantism sold out to many of the teachings of the RCC.

Claiming to be Bible oriented, it actually took with it the three basic teachings found in all false worship.

1) A multiplicity of gods, which in Christendom’s case created a new kind of god…three personas crammed into one “godhead”…something never mentioned in scripture, but a way to claim that polytheism was actually, monotheism.

2) They also adopted the notion of an immortal soul, which is from Platonic Greek thinking, not from scripture. Jesus taught about resurrection….a return to life, not a continuation of it somewhere else.

3) Belief in a fiery hell of eternal torment for the wicked…..

So the Reformation accomplished only one thing that was positive….it gave the Bible back to the people, but in the process, broke “Christianity” up into innumerable sects….following the teachings of men (and women) all claiming to teach inspired biblical truth…so who has the truth? Does God speak with a forked tongue?

Is it? Now is where we are at this moment. All we have is now. Has there been improvement down through history? Or is the whole church system dying through lack of anything to sustain it?…..most importantly, God’s spirit and guidance.
How can God’s spirit penetrate their endless squabbling even over political issues, let alone religious ones?

Our mistakes are human, (the apostles made mistakes too) but we remain focused on the present and the future. We cannot alter the past but we can move on from it if we have learned something.
We are progressive in our understanding, as the first Christians were…and as the day for God’s judgment approaches, we eagerly await the outcome, and a whole new start on planet earth. (2 Peter 3:13)
We are not so focused on heaven that we forget where God planned for us to live forever….in the beginning. (Gen 3:22-24)

So did Jesus….where was Lazarus before Jesus awakened him? Jesus said he was “sleeping”. (John 11:11-14)
The entire OT testified to soul sleep. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17)
The ancient Jews had no belief in an immortal soul that continued to exist after the death of the body….so what else would they have believed except what God told Adam..?

Gen 3:19…
”In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Adam was not given a soul but “became” one when God started him breathing. (Gen 2:7) The soul dies when breathing stops. (Ezekiel 18:4) Therefore, death is no more scary than going to sleep.

There is no activity after death….but you know this…right?

Latter-day Saints and the "Great Apostasy"

Catholics and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Mormons, can agree on one very important principle. Both Catholics and the L...

www.catholic.com

Amazon.com

Was There a Great Apostasy?

“Apostasy” comes from the Greek work apostasia, which means “a defection, revolt, or falling away” The Bible warns against apostasy: against those who secretly bring in destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1) and despise authority (2 Peter 2:10), rejecting God’s Word by adding to and taking away from...

www.adamsroadministry.com

“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition.” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3)
“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me . . . and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age'” (Matthew 28:18-20).

“. . . and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:33).

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).”

DID THE CHURCH FALL INTO TOTAL APOSTASY?

Julian the Apostate presiding at a conference of sectarians, by Edward Armitage, 1875 The anti-Catholics preached that the Church founded by the Lord in the first century turned away from God after…

svmmaapologia.wordpress.com

https://ae31e616b5.cbaul-cdnwnd.com/370a1a22e8bfea4e51c1fa7ca1059f7e/200000634-4189d42844/217MormonismGreatApostasy.pdf

Library : Was There a 'Great Apostasy?'

Was There a 'Great Apostasy?' This booklet by Fr. Matthew Poetzl addresses the accusation against the Catholic Church made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Mormons call

www.catholicculture.org

The Promise of Jesus Contradicts TOTAL Apostasy

Total Apostasy? By Fr. Paul Kaiparambadan

I'm a Cebuano Visaya Roman Catholic Faith Apologist. Welcome to my site blog. Please, leave your messages, remarks or comments here. Pax Romana

veritas899.weebly.com

 

[The Learner]

rth

 

[face2face]

And again, when He bringeth in THE FIRSTBEGOTTEN into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him (Heb 1:6)

Yes, firstbegotten from the Fathers Word - to mean he has a beginning which of course God does not! You proceed to quote that that Word created a man in God's image and after His likeness

"Who is the image of the invisible God, THE FIRSTBORN of every creature (Col 1:15)

Again - firstborn not of the Flesh who the record states is Adam BUT of the Spirit who is Christ - again you have a man being created from the Spirit - the issue you will keep coming back to is the word "FIRST" - first is not the language of a self existent God but a person who has been given life by the Spirit.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER,) full of grace and truth (John 1:14)

Again, you have the word "made" - the Spirit Word has made something not unlike the Creation account, however this time God's Word went forth (Isaiah 55:11) and achieved that which He Purposed - the only Begotten of the Father was the result.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John
3:16)

Again - you cannot avoid that Christ's existence is from the Father, from His Spirit which quickened him and made Christ the living embodiment of the Word. The accomplishment of God doing this in a second Adam is where the wonder resides - certainly not teaching a pre existent Christ.

The scriptures plainly declare that God sent His only begotten Son into the world to save sinners. If that is true, then I am of a mind to believe the Father had a Son to send.

And how does the record reveal the coming of this Son?

Bread from Heaven?....And how did Jesus live? Maybe his answer will provide you insight into how it was that he "became" this bread?

“ ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”

Its all there Brakelight...you just need to understand precisely what was sent from Heaven.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Whoever read this, if you are interested, read John 6.

In John 6:51 Jesus states, "I am the LIVING bread which came down from Heaven: If any man eat of THIS bread, he shall live forever: and the Bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." All of a sudden Jesus is connecting that living bread with his flesh, and then his blood!

Why?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

What is so illogical about that? It isn't a theory, it's what happened. And that's what I mean by your word games. Calling historical facts 'theories'.
Unless of course you think Righteousness by faith is error as discovered by Luther. Or perhaps full immersion baptism is an error? Is prayer as taught by Calvin an error, prayer without the meaningless rote repetitions of Rome? Or maybe the availability of scripture to the common people is an error? The corollary to that of course is to freely in the woods of God only as the safest foundation for faith and practise. Of course, you believe the 7th day Sabbath to be an error, except you can't do so without resorting to Catholic tradition. Other teachings the reformers discovered was the identity of the system of Roman Catholicism as the Antichrist. To refute the numerous biblical prophecies and descriptions regarding the Antichrist you have to resort to 2 Jesuit priests of the 16th century who had to reinvent prophecy to fit their agenda... Hiding Rome from truth.
Now of course, you may point out to me the errors of the Protestant reformers, and there were several, the worst of which is their rejection of truths from former reformers and persecuting those followers who believed in them. But each of the reformers did learn truths from scripture long covered in superstition and tradition. It is the scriptures, again, which decides what is truth and what is error. None of reformers came to a complete knowledge of truth. But they made significant advances in a society and church surrounded in darkness and ignorance.

My church? My men? Lol. Same old
Mary. More word games. By attempting to win the argument you resort to the fallacy that God cannot, does not, or refuses to reveal Himself and teach men outside of so called church authority.
Let me ask you a question. The Apostles were active during the time of Saul's persecutions against the church, so what made the difference in Paul's life? Where did he learn truth? Who showed it to him?

I don't understand how your sect condemns all Protestants as daughters of the Whore of Babble-on, yet you appeal to the reformers rediscovered "truth" that allegedly corrected the errors of Catholicism. You should leave Protestantism alone and stick to quoting Ellen G, White.

"long covered in superstition and tradition" is a red flag.
"in a society and church surrounded in darkness and ignorance." another baseless whopper.

+++
Here’s what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan’s expression) or it was tragic because it was unnecessary.

Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is “Come out from among them” and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.

Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God “raised up” Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work—for Protestantism’s principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer’s conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can’t be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the “full flowering of the principles of the Reformation”? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It’s these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here.

One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That’s one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.

In that regard, Bouyer’s brief introduction is worth quoting in full:

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Whoever read this, if you are interested, read John 6.

In John 6:51 Jesus states, "I am the LIVING bread which came down from Heaven: If any man eat of THIS bread, he shall live forever: and the Bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." All of a sudden Jesus is connecting that living bread with his flesh, and then his blood!

Why?

Perhaps its because flesh is dead without blood.
Tim Staples explains from Scripture why we receive the same fullness of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist whether we receive only the body, only the blood, or both.

Is Receiving the Eucharist Under One Species Enough?

Do we NEED to receive both the body and the blood of the Eucharist in order to recieve the fullness of its graces? Tim Staples explains why not.

www.catholic.com

 

[Marymog]

What is so illogical about that? It isn't a theory, it's what happened.

Brakelite,

I'm finding it hard to believe that you are being serious. But then I thought about it and I realized how you wrote over 1,600 words to defend your theory so you must be serious!

Here is why your theory that 'the reformers discovered errors of The Church and found the Truth' is not logical:

Your THEORY broken down: For 1,500 years The Church presumably properly interprets Scripture and teaches salvific doctrine XYZ.

Reformer #1 reads Scripture and says that The Church is in error on doctrine XYZ. Reformer #1 leaves The Church and starts denomination #1. He convinces some members of The Church that HE has the Truth and that The Church is in error, so half the flock leave The Church and join #1. A couple years later a member of denomination #1 convinces its members that HE has the Truth and that Reformer #1 AND The Church are in error. Denomination #1 now splits in half forming denomination #2 with Reformer #2 leading his new flock into this new truth.

Reformer #2 is then challenged by a member of denomination #2 about the Truth of Scripture. He starts his own denomination (#3) teaching the truth.

Reformer #3 takes half of denomination #2 with him into this new truth........ etc etc blah blah blah over and over again for the next 500 years until we have denomination #200 with Reformer #200 with a completely different truth than Reformer #1, 2 and 3 and The Church.

So, it is a "historical fact" that many different men have "reformed" Scripture into THEIR truth. But all of them can't have the Truth when all of their truths are different 'truths'. And that makes what you stated a theory!

So, do tell Brakelite! Which one of those 500 Reformers are OR are not.....as you say...... in error?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

My church? My men? Lol. Same old
Mary. More word games.

Not a word game Braklite. I'm just revealing how illogical your theory is.

 

[Marymog]

Let me ask you a question. The Apostles were active during the time of Saul's persecutions against the church, so what made the difference in Paul's life? Where did he learn truth? Who showed it to him?

Let me answer your question: Jesus taught Paul the Truth just like he taught the Apostles the Truth. They then passed that Truth down to other men who then taught other men the Truth (2 Timothy 2:2). Anyone that REFORMED that Truth was considered a wolf in sheep clothing, a false teacher etc.

Your THEORY suggest that every reformer has the Truth!