The Dark Ages – a period of both intense darkness and great Light

[Biblicist]

Even though this is a lengthy opening post it should prove to be of interest to those who value church history – I know that I found it interesting to compile.

There is another topic on the Dark Ages that was resurrected while I was compiling this one but it is looking at it from a different perspective where this one is addressing it solely from within a historical framework. For those who may wish to explain or elaborate on their denominations history during this period of time that post might be the better one to go to. Maybe someone could start a couple of topics on the reforms that have been undertaken within both the RC & EO denominations over the years.

If anyone has any material or links to the period of the church especially between 750AD to 1100AD I would be interested to hear.

-----------------------------

For most Christians it would be easy to simply assume that the years between 450AD and 1517 which preceded the Reformation was a period of darkness for the Church and this position is certainly well entrenched within both religious and secular thinking. Contrary to what we often may think, there were indeed bright lights that shone during this period and very powerful and influential lights at that.

It is not uncommon to hear questions that ask why the Lord allowed this apparent 1000 years of darkness and for many of us we probably quietly wonder much the same thing from time to time. For some they can even question, was God really in control or how could he allow the church to be so worldly for such a long time. Even though it can be easy to simply write off this period of time, the Lord was far from being quiet and we have ample evidence of the testimony that he maintained during this period and of the sacrifice of many saints who tried to remain faithful to the Gospel under great persecution.

Martin Luther – 1517
We often presume that the Reformation of 1517 was a singular event that occurred within a vacuum in that it unexpectedly removed one denomination as the sole temporal ecclesiastical power in the West. Luther seems to have come onto a very receptive political scene which was becoming increasingly frustrated with Rome; it is difficult to know if his ministry would have been as affective as it was if he was say a century earlier.
“Without being aware of it, I have till now taught and held the whole doctrine of Jan Hus…” Luther, 1520

Girolamo Savonarola (1452 – 1498)
Savonarola was a Dominican monk of their Observant Order who upon his arrival at the priory of San Marco in Florence he started to fiercely preach against the abuses of the clergy and with the shameful financial outlays toward extravagant artworks which he viewed as outrageous considering the state of the poor in his city. Due to certain events many of the Florentines were overwhelmed by a sense of piety where they subsequently destroyed many of their luxury items which became known as the “burning of the vanities”. His attack on homosexuality which was deemed to be acceptable in Florence saw a number of wealthy Florentines leave for safer cities.

[FONT=&quot]Unfortunately for Savonarola he soon upset Pope Alexander VI who decided to silence him by having him burnt at the stake in 1498.

Some of his works were used by Martin Luther.

[/FONT]C.H. Spurgeon wrote in 1869, "How far was Savonarola the herald of Protestantism?"

Jerome of Prague - 1414 [FONT=&quot]Link 1 Link 2[/FONT]
Jerome was part of the pre-reformation movement. He was one of the chief followers and friends of John Hus and was heavily influenced by the writings of John Wycliffe. For those who tend to be dismissive of academic study, Jerome was able to go an exchange program to Oxford University as King Vclav’s sister had married Richard II. While he was there he was able to read numerous works by John Wycliffe and before he returned to Prague he copied these books by hand and had them distributed amongst his fellow academics including Jan Huss.

He was condemned by a “kangaroo court” and burnt at the stake by his enemies in 1416.

Jan Hus - 1413
If we go back 100 years we find a great Reformer by the name of Jan Huss who resided in what we know as the Czech Republic. Huss was greatly concerned with the ongoing abuses by the clergy of the day much in the same way that Luther was a century after him; he was also aggrieved by the numerous unbiblical doctrines that had crept into the life of the church which he said could not be found within Apostolic teaching. He was burned at the state for his Godly convictions in 1415. After he was killed the Hussite forces defeated five consecutive papal crusades against them. In spite of this intense persecution they were able to gain a number of concessions which stood for centuries.
Jan Hus was heavily influenced by the English Reformer John Wycliffe.

John Wycliffe - 1365
If we go back around 50 years to England, we now encounter John Wycliffe who was a very important English churchman; he is probably better known for his publishing the Bible in the early English language. Even though this act by Wycliffe was an important stepping stone in enabling the Word of God to finally be placed in the hands of the ordinary man, his most important lay to claim is his stand against the doctrinal distinctives of the post Apostolic church and with its ongoing clerical abuses. Wycliffe publicly entered the world scene in about 1365 and his long term influence for change within the Western church should not be underestimated. Wycliffe instigated a movement known as the Lollards who were a very influential movement of lay preaches who preached throughout Britain.
He is often referred to as the “Morning Star of the Reformation”.

English Statute of Praemunire – 1350
It has often been said that England always had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with Rome which was demonstrated in 1350 by Richard II who established this new Act which effectively blocked any attempt by the Roman Curia with establishing or authorising any appointments within the English Roman Catholic Church. An Act had been passed earlier in 1306 which stopped the flow of taxes to Rome but both of them fell into the background until Henry VIII decided to break with Rome. The Law was only repealed in 1967 to allow England to join the EU.

Marsilius of Padua - 1324 see post #44
He denied the Church the right to use coercion in religious matters. He stated that power is derived from the general body of citizens or believers. Even though his work is generally unknown to most of us his work had a strong influence in Europe.

William of Ockham - 1324 see post #43
“Ockham was another opponent of the papal claims to fullness of power, but not as extreme an opponent as Marsilius. Whereas Marsilius wanted to subordinate the Church to the secular ruler in a Christian state, Ockham reasserted the older 'Gelasian' theory of the relationship between Church and State, namely, that each is independent of the other. He argues that Christ did not take away any of the legitimate rights enjoyed by non-Christians, and, in particular, did not subordinate the Roman Empire and other kingdoms to the pope…

Ockham is better known for Occams Razor, the methodological principle that bears his name.

Peter Valdez - 1170
In the late 1100’s a man by the name of Peter Valdez came onto the scene in modern day France and his influence sent shockwaves throughout Western Europe. Valdo was the founder of the Waldensians who initially had no desire to separate from Rome but their continuing practice of adhering to the Gospel made them enemies of the establishment. By the 13th century the Waldensians had spread, into Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, Poland and Spain. When the Reformation occurred this movement became incorporated into the Reformed denominations though the Waldensians are still a force within Italy even today. Even though they suffered under great persecution and encountered a number of massacres by the established church they maintained their witness in spite of it all.

It is hard to imagine that Wycliffe, Huss and Luther were not aware of some of the teachings of the Waldensians which tends to indicate that the Reformation may have slowly but powerfully begun maybe 400 years before it is officially recognised as having commenced. Some Protestant groups place their roots within this movement and if this is correct the so called Protestant movement is now approaching its own millennium.

Humiliati – early 1100’s
In Northern Italy during the early 1100’s a group called the Humiliati arose who were also concerned with some of the developments of the established church. It seems that by the 1500’s they had become about as morally corrupt as the church of which they had separated from.

With the close of the 4th century the church seemed to be in a pretty sorry state; the period from the end of the 4th century till the end of the 10th century is a bit cloudy as many important documents were destroyed in the attempt to remove any knowledge of Church groups who would not adhere to the Roman Emperors and to their successors.

The Donatists – 313 to 750
In North Africa we also have a very large contingent of the Church who were concerned with a number of unbiblical practices and doctrines that were being promoted in Rome. They were also very unhappy with the all too close relationship between the Roman Empire and the officiates of the Western Church who resided in Rome.

This movement which is often referred to the Donatists remained in a loose but not all that friendly association with the Roman Emperors and the new Roman Popes up until about 670AD. This independence came at a high price as they had to fight off a number of crusades that were sent against them by the Emperors who sided with the newly developed Roman Magisterium; thankfully the North African Church was too strong for the Roman legions.
In 670Ad they were overcome by the invading Muslim armies which turned North Africa from being a centre of advanced thought and excellence into a backwater.
______________

So in my view the Dark Ages were not completely dark as the Lord ensured that he maintained a witness during this period and it seems from the limited information that we have that it was a fairly vibrant witness at that. This two-page summary of the Church before the Reformation of 1517 is hardly exhaustive and leaves out much of the important work that was undertaken by many unnamed individuals.

As this post is a work in progress, in Europe there is still a gap of time between 450AD and the 1100’s and hopefully with some more research this gap will be adequately filled. It could well be argued that the Church was spiritually bankrupt from even around 300AD.

Barry

 

[Yarddog]

Hmmm, I guess that you consider all those which disagreed with Rome to be "great lights".

 

[Biblicist]

Yarddog,

Hmmm, I guess that you consider all those which disagreed with Rome to be "great lights".

Not really, there were quite a few individuals and groups who I would not have wanted to associate with in any manner or form even if they did feel that they were supposed to be a breath of fresh air for the church.

Irrespective of what position one holds on the matter, there are still many millions of Christians who are embarrassed by this period of time and who often face criticism from unbelievers; this topic hopefully well help to offset this criticism and it should also demonstrate that God certainly was in control even if we tend to think that he might not have been.

I should point out that Wycliffe, Hus and Luther were all Roman Catholic academics who only desired to see reform within their denomination; they had no desire to leave their denomination but were unfortunately not given any real choice. Richard II was a faithful Roman Catholic as was Peter Valdes initially – the problem was not with them but with the engrained attitudes of the Roman Curia.

There were many individuals who be they ordained or secular state princes including many influential individuals who remained faithful to Rome but who still wanted to see the ongoing and increasing abuses stopped. Unfortunately for them the system was not always that receptive to their message and they simply dropped off the radar; sadly the only real change that could be made was when Roman Catholics such as Valdez, Hus and Luther forced change upon Rome from the outside. With both Hus and Luther their situation was a bit easier as they had most of the European and Scandinavian Princes on their side; though the support that Hus received was restricted more to the Kings and Princes from within his own region.

About 30 years after the Great Reformation, Rome did undertake its own ‘reformation’ which tried to address the many moral issues that existed. This would probably make a good separate topic for those who are interested in this field.

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog,
Irrespective of what position one holds on the matter, there are still many millions of Christians who are embarrassed by this period of time and who often face criticism from unbelievers; this topic hopefully well help to offset this criticism and it should also demonstrate that God certainly was in control even if we tend to think that he might not have been.

There are many who are embarrassed within the Church as well but not for the total period which you state. There are no doubts that abuses occurred, not only within the CC but also within those that separated. Reform was needed in some areas and Trent helped define much of the Catholic teaching so that those who taught doctrine did not add to it.

God was in control, within the western Church and the eastern. Many great lights have existed throughout Church history but the "Dark Ages" were not about the Church.

I should point out that Wycliffe, Hus and Luther were all Roman Catholic academics who only desired to see reform within their denomination; they had no desire to leave their denomination but were unfortunately not given any real choice.

One may say that Luther wanted to reform from within but Hus and Wycliffe, took other actions in many cases, directly teaching heresy. Hus wanted to stop the abuse of indulgences, like Luther, but he embraced the teachings of Wycliffe, which the Church could not allow.

But back to my point, in the 1st post, only posting "great lights" who were anti-Catholic during the period from 450 AD to the Reformation shows "great prejudice". There were many great lights throughout Church history and we must also admit that we all have had "dim times". The Dark Ages were not about the Church though.

 

[Biblicist]

Yarddog,

There are many who are embarrassed within the Church as well but not for the total period which you state.

If you could point to any periods within the time frame I provided (450-1500) where the institutionalised church did not generate any extreme abuses that would be more than helpful. Unfortunately the history books and material that I have read over the years don’t seem to have been all that kind during any of this time period; much the same goes for the past 500 years as well though its actions over the last 300 years and especially with the last 100 have been tempered by both secular and mainline Christianity.

There are no doubts that abuses occurred, not only within the CC but also within those that separated.

Hopefully I am not so naive to believe that all the groups that separated from the institutionalised church always did so with high ideals; undoubtedly there would have been many smaller and probably unknown break away groups that simply carried across the same sins but who merely wanted more of the pie for themselves.

As a Pentecostal I fully accept the moral and even at times the ridiculous doctrinal positions that are often found within the PCM; unless we are prepared to honestly appraise our denominations history, both in the past and contemporary we will always find ourselves repeating the same mistakes and committing the same evil - abuses are certainly not solely the domain of your own denomination though we Pentecostals and Charismatics can at least be thankful that we have not organised armies and armed gangs against those who we disagree with

Reform was needed in some areas and Trent helped define much of the Catholic teaching so that those who taught doctrine did not add to it.

My understanding is that Trent formally rejected all of the Reformers changes and that it was only formed to reform their procedures in an attempt to rein in the many abuses which they were reluctantly forced to admit was a problem. The fact that most of the known world has turned their back on Rome and not always for doctrinal reasons was akin to putting a gun to their head; the Roman Curia knew that they had to change to survive.

The most disappointing legacy with Trent was that it forced Rome into a corner and as it was both unable and unwilling to return to Apostolic teachings it instead decided to formalise its heresies where they placed a knife deep into their spiritual heart.

God was in control, within the western Church and the eastern. Many great lights have existed throughout Church history but the "Dark Ages" were not about the Church.

Sadly as the Roman Curia established itself not only as the predominate religious authority in the West it also claimed that it was the supreme temporal authority as well; it placed itself above all national governments and expected them to obey their commands.


So Rome was not only the source of the darkness that crept across Europe spiritually but also temporally as well. As Rome sees itself as being the dominate human government in the world then it cannot escape the many vicious actions it undertook as the primary human government in Europe.

One may say that Luther wanted to reform from within but Hus and Wycliffe, took other actions in many cases, directly teaching heresy. Hus wanted to stop the abuse of indulgences, like Luther, but he embraced the teachings of Wycliffe, which the Church could not allow.

Heresy? Remember, Wycliffe is referred to as being the Morning Star of the Reformation as he was the one who is credited with providing Europe with the Biblical foundations to allow it to return to Apostolic teachings. Hus reformed much of the Church within his own part of Europe, though undoubtedly it could have used a bit more reforming but at least it was an improvement – and he paid his life for this as well. Even though we point to Luther as being the instigator of the Reformation we probably should go back to Wycliffe.

But back to my point, in the 1st post, only posting "great lights" who were anti-Catholic during the period from 450 AD to the Reformation shows "great prejudice". There were many great lights throughout Church history and we must also admit that we all have had "dim times". The Dark Ages were not about the Church though.

As I mentioned on several occasions; if you are able to point to any great lights who remained in the institutionalised church during this time period then please do so. I know of several myself but over the years when these discussions arise I find it intriguing that many within your denomination will happily make statements saying that not all was bad but seem to be unwilling or maybe unable to point to any individuals of high character and morals – and they do exist though they tended to be eventually forced to comply with the system or perish, and many of them did, in flames.

Yardog, here's your opportunity to counter the history books with your own denominations versions of events during this time period. To make things a bit easier you can avoid your denominations doctrinal distinctives as they were left behind by the church centuries ago, so simply address the moral issues that I have discussed.

-------------------
I was hoping that there would be others on the forum who had undertaken some of their own research either informally or formally and if they can add their own knowledge to this topic that would be great, particularly within the time period of 700-1100AD.

Barry

PS: Yarddog, are you 'Doghouse' in another forum?

 

[Yarddog]

If you could point to any periods within the time frame I provided (450-1500) where the institutionalised church did not generate any extreme abuses that would be more than helpful.

How about 30 AD through 1500 AD.

Unfortunately the history books and material that I have read over the years don’t seem to have been all that kind during any of this time period;

Many things were occurring during the onset of the "Dark Ages". The fall of the western Empire to the Germanic tribes. The Catholic was the stabilizing force which helped move Europe into the Middle Ages. "Dark Ages" was a term used to denote that few historical records existed for the period of the 6th century but that isn't used as much now, by historians.

My understanding is that Trent formally rejected all of the Reformers changes and that it was only formed to reform their procedures in an attempt to rein in the many abuses which they were reluctantly forced to admit was a problem.

Trent was intended to define Church doctrine in answer to heresies and to reform the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it. The council was first called for around 1520 but took until 1545. The hope was restoring unity with the Protestants.

The fact that most of the known world has turned their back on Rome and not always for doctrinal reasons was akin to putting a gun to their head; the Roman Curia knew that they had to change to survive.

Most of the known world???? Where do you get your information?

The most disappointing legacy with Trent was that it forced Rome into a corner and as it was both unable and unwilling to return to Apostolic teachings it instead decided to formalise its heresies where they placed a knife deep into their spiritual heart.

Spoken like someone truly prejudiced by false information.

So Rome was not only the source of the darkness that crept across Europe spiritually but also temporally as well. As Rome sees itself as being the dominate human government in the world then it cannot escape the many vicious actions it undertook as the primary human government in Europe.

There was no "darkness". There was some abuses which were occurring in areas which needed to be reformed but there has been much exaggeration about how much life was adversely effected by the Church.

Heresy?

Yes.

Remember, Wycliffe is referred to as being the Morning Star of the Reformation as he was the one who is credited with providing Europe with the Biblical foundations to allow it to return to Apostolic teachings.

Referred to that by whom? Truth is he did not return Europe to apostolic teaching, he pulled them away. Neither the Apostolic Catholic nor Orthodox Churches accept his teaching.

Hus reformed much of the Church within his own part of Europe, though undoubtedly it could have used a bit more reforming but at least it was an improvement

Yes, he did some reforming but his acceptance and teaching of Wycliffe's heresies could not be allowed, though Hus disagreed with Wycliffe on the sacraments.

– and he paid his life for this as well.

That was quite unfortunate.

Even though we point to Luther as being the instigator of the Reformation we probably should go back to Wycliffe.

Reformation in the Catholic Church started well before Luther but I can see why Wycliffe would be considered the instigator, though most reformers didn't agree with him or many times, each other.

As I mentioned on several occasions; if you are able to point to any great lights who remained in the institutionalised church during this time period then please do so.

How many do you want?

I know of several myself but over the years when these discussions arise I find it intriguing that many within your denomination will happily make statements saying that not all was bad but seem to be unwilling or maybe unable to point to any individuals of high character and morals – and they do exist though they tended to be eventually forced to comply with the system or perish, and many of them did, in flames.

Pope St. Leo I, Pope St. Gregory I, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anslem, St. Isidore, St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Acca, etc....

Yardog, here's your opportunity to counter the history books with your own denominations versions of events during this time period. To make things a bit easier you can avoid your denominations doctrinal distinctives as they were left behind by the church centuries ago, so simply address the moral issues that I have discussed.

A person writing a "history book" does not necessarily factual history. Historians vary in their accounts and many change those accounts when new information comes to light.

PS: Yarddog, are you 'Doghouse' in another forum?

No. I have been a member of two other Christian forums but only known as Yarddog. That is what the train crews affectionately called the RR yard maintenance of way guys.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

How on earth are the Donatists "bright lights"? Donatism was a position against grace and mercy and the power of God, arguing that the efficacy of the Sacraments were dependent upon the personal righteousness of the one officiating.

No thank you.

Also, let's not forget that the Dark Ages are so called because the light of Roman civilization fell in the West, and the period should only really address the history between the Fall of Rome to the crowning of Charlemagne.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Biblicist]

Yarddog,

Your reply to my comment regarding the murder of John Hus by the Roman Curia:
“ That was quite unfortunate.”

If I correctly understand the tone of your reply; can we take it as agreeing with his murder?

Reformation in the Catholic Church started well before Luther but I can see why Wycliffe would be considered the instigator, though most reformers didn't agree with him or many times, each other.

That’s an interesting perspective. I cannot find any historical evidence be it evidentiary or even anecdotal of any desire to improve the moral condition of your denomination up until Trent; for the sake of being even handed and fair, as it appears that you may have such information then if you can point me to any research on this it would be most welcomed and I will certainly include it within my own work as well.

Even though Trent failed to return your denomination back to Apostolic teachings, its attempts with moral and practical reform which had various degrees of success did show that the Curia realised that it had to reform itself – at least with moral reform and with improving the woefully lacking academic qualifications with its town and village priests. Unfortunately change within your denomination is usually undertaken reluctantly as is evidenced with the recent Irish Roman Catholic Church which had its attempts toward moral reform with its many paedophile priests thwarted by the Roman Curia.

The lack of interest with moral standards and with reform in prior to Trent is evidenced by the numerous attempts by the Roman Curia to annihilate those who accepted the moral teachings of both Peter Valdez in 1170 (Waldensians) and with John Hus in 1410 who were both justifiably outraged with the endemic abuses of the clergy especially with its lower priestly orders.

When it comes to the great work undertaken by Luther and those who supported him, I tend to have the view that in spite of the brilliant work that he and others undertook and that it changed the face of the Western world; that the Reformation seemed to be more political than it was spiritual. Even though many great spiritual gains were made it still took time for the broader Church to grow out of its carnality which of course it never truly does but certainly gains can be achieved.

When it comes to Wycliffe as being seen as the Morning Star of the Reformation, you may disagree with this but this is still the viewpoint of the majority of Evangelical and Full Gospel academics since the Reformation – your comment may well define the differences between your denominations view on morality and ethics as against the Evangelical viewpoint.

---------

Even though the endemic abuses of your own denominations history are well documented; it is good for us to remember that there are abuses occurring even today also within the Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations; though of course these pale in comparison to your own denominations history.

Undoubtedly even if the Pentecostal denominations of today were given near absolute power especially in the temporal or areas of local government that we would probably end up being abusive and controlling as well.

Barry

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog,

Your reply to my comment regarding the murder of John Hus by the Roman Curia:
“ That was quite unfortunate.”

If I correctly understand the tone of your reply; can we take it as agreeing with his murder?

Murder? No. He was given a trial and found guilty of heresy. By today's standards, we can all agree that it should not have occurred and it would not happen now. The Catholic Church has apologized and Pope John Paul II participated in the International Symposium on John Hus held in Prague.

That’s an interesting perspective. I cannot find any historical evidence be it evidentiary or even anecdotal of any desire to improve the moral condition of your denomination up until Trent; for the sake of being even handed and fair, as it appears that you may have such information then if you can point me to any research on this it would be most welcomed and I will certainly include it within my own work as well.

Reform Came before the Reformation (This Rock: April 2006)

Even though Trent failed to return your denomination back to Apostolic teachings,

There was no need to "return" the Church back to Apostolic teachings. It had always taught that. The abuses which Trent sought to correct were not doctrinal.

its attempts with moral and practical reform which had various degrees of success did show that the Curia realised that it had to reform itself – at least with moral reform and with improving the woefully lacking academic qualifications with its town and village priests.

You can read about Trent and the reforms at this site.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Trent

Unfortunately change within your denomination is usually undertaken reluctantly as is evidenced with the recent Irish Roman Catholic Church which had its attempts toward moral reform with its many paedophile priests thwarted by the Roman Curia.

Reluctantly is not a good word for it. There is no doubt that the Church moves slowly but many times it is because of Canon Law. There are steps which must be taken and unfortunately, too many priests were allowed to remain in contact with children. Hopefully, that has been rectified and authorities will be brought in when accusations first arise.

The lack of interest with moral standards and with reform in prior to Trent is evidenced by the numerous attempts by the Roman Curia to annihilate those who accepted the moral teachings of both Peter Valdez in 1170 (Waldensians) and with John Hus in 1410 who were both justifiably outraged with the endemic abuses of the clergy especially with its lower priestly orders.

Just how do you make that connection??? If you have proof and not just a whim of yours then provide proof that your so-called lack of interest with moral standards had the slightest thing to do with these cases. If you complain about the lack of academic training in the Church, what do you think the problem with the Waldenses was? They also separated themselves from the Church, thinking that they were the perfect. They refused to do any work and depended on their "friends" to support them. They set up their own hierarchy.

When it comes to Wycliffe as being seen as the Morning Star of the Reformation, you may disagree with this but this is still the viewpoint of the majority of Evangelical and Full Gospel academics since the Reformation – your comment may well define the differences between your denominations view on morality and ethics as against the Evangelical viewpoint.

You continually show your prejudices against the Catholic Church by making erroneous charges, such as I high light in your paragraph. You have been talking about a period which you falsely call the Dark Ages and then you make such an insulting remark about the present day Church. Your true colors come to light.

I do not question the faith and morals of your Church or any other of the Protestant Churches. The faith in Jesus is rich in these Churches but neither faith or morals are greater in yours, than ours.

Undoubtedly even if the Pentecostal denominations of today were given near absolute power especially in the temporal or areas of local government that we would probably end up being abusive and controlling as well.

Barry

Let me ask you something. You put forth what you call great lights but have you actually studied each of these enough to understand how much they disagree with the other and how one would look at the other as heretical.

How many of their doctrines do you agree with and how many do you disagree with?

Do you agree with Wycliffe or Luther on the real presence?

By the way, I am not anti-Pentecostal or Protestant. I was a Baptist. I also enjoy watching Rev. Charles Stanley and watched Jimmy Swaggart quite a bit before his fall and was a member of the 700 Club before God brought me to the Catholic Church.

In case you didn't know it, the Catholic Church is Charismatic and has a movement fully endorsed by the Vatican called the Charismatic Catholics.

 

[Biblicist]

Yarddog,

It is rather unfortunate that this topic has not as yet generated the type of feedback that I was hoping for. As there are quite a few million believers out there even today, along with countless millions of unbelievers who are both well aware of the history of a number of denominations during this period; its subsequent negative affect upon them toward the Gospel is the reason that this topic has been started.

So that topic is not about anyone taking the false stand that the Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations are pure and wholesome and above reproach; the likes of Swaggart and Baker and with the seemingly many dozens of other carnal ministries that work under the guise of the PCM banner are testimony to this; let alone with the wilful and unintentional sins and wicked behaviour that even those who desire to be true to the Lord commit on a daily basis.

It would have to be more than obvious to you that we within the PCM can be as carnal and spiritually dull in heart as anyone, which is evidenced by what seems to be the inability of a large proportion of its members being unable or maybe unwilling to apply even the most rudimentary amount of discernment with some of these ministries. To make things worse many of our members will staunchly support a decadent PCM ministry until if finally falls and disappears, they then quietly discard this person/ministry and then move on to the next quack and so forth. So Rome certainly does not have the monopoly on carnality and evil. ¶

----------------------------------------------

You continually show your prejudices against the Catholic Church by making erroneous charges, such as I high light in your paragraph. You have been talking about a period which you falsely call the Dark Ages and then you make such an insulting remark about the present day Church. Your true colors come to light.

Of course I am prejudiced against a number of the denominations that existed during this time period and as for making erroneous charges, I guess maybe I should discard the numerous history books, articles etc that have documented the atrocities that have occurred during this period; along with the numerous admonitions by Roman Catholics along with Rome itself. I understand that even though Rome has admitted to many of its abuses over the centuries that the blanket term “the Dark Ages” can still be a bit threatening and a bit too all encompassing.

I am surprised that you have used the expression “Your true colors come to light” as the very nature of the topic indicates where I stand on this issue of history; as do many millions of others.

…and then you make such an insulting remark about the present day Church.

Apparently this is one with which you also agree with going by your following comment: “… too many priests were allowed to remain in contact with children. Hopefully, that has been rectified and authorities will be brought in when accusations first arise.” It was not meant merely as an insult but as a condemnatory statement.

I do not question the faith and morals of your Church or any other of the Protestant Churches. The faith in Jesus is rich in these Churches but neither faith or morals are greater in yours, than ours.

Who has ever asked you not to and why shouldn’t you? Maybe this is one of the fundamental differences between the RCC and Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism in that we encourage intense and heartfelt rigorous debate. During my short time on this forum I have made a number of statements about some of the foolish doctrines and practices that crop up within the PCM and I will continue to do so. There are of course many within the PCM who in my opinion apply a head-in-the-sand approach to their church involvement under the more spiritual guise of harmony & peace; there have been many congregations and individuals who have paid a high price for the unwillingness of others to speak out against the wickedness that we can also commit.

I would have to ask you, as you are a practicing Roman Catholic who is strongly defending your denominations history against the charges laid by these same denominations and their members (let alone the many secular historians), why you would not question the faith of these same denominations. As I read through your comments I know full well that you are, as you should be otherwise you may as well accept universalism.
When it comes to the likes of Swaggart and with most of the other tele-evangelists, it has been many years since I have taken any notice of them. There are undoubtedly some good men amongst them but I rarely take any notice of what they have to say as I tend to rely more on the material produced by academics. Unlike many of the former group who seem to take any reasoned criticism as being an attack by the enemy or an approach to their self-appointed ‘anointing’; those from within the academy welcome reasoned critique of their work as they should, this helps to gain a better balanced understanding.

Just how do you make that connection??? If you have proof and not just a whim of yours then provide proof that your so-called lack of interest with moral standards had the slightest thing to do with these cases. If you complain about the lack of academic training in the Church, what do you think the problem with the Waldenses was? They also separated themselves from the Church, thinking that they were the perfect. They refused to do any work and depended on their "friends" to support them. They set up their own hierarchy.

This line of questioning does surprise me somewhat as there does seem to be common agreement by many Roman Catholics that there were serious moral and ethical problems within their denomination in the years leading up to the Reformation. The article on the Council of Trent that you linked to was interesting in that it provided a number of interesting remarks, a summary is provided below;

• ·Still the Catholic princes of Germany, especially the dukes of Bavaria, favoured a council as the best means of overcoming the evils from which the Church was suffering;

• ·He proposed an Italian city, preferably Rome, as the place of assembly. The emperor, however, distrusted the pope, believing that Clement did not really desire a council.

• Meanwhile preparations were carried on with zeal at Rome. The commission of reform, appointed in July, 1536, drew up a report as the basis for the correction of the abuses in ecclesiastical life

• Other regulations were also passed, in regard to the right of the members to draw the revenues of their dioceses during the session of the council, and concerning the mode of life of the members.

• In the meantime earnest discussions concerning the question of church reform had been carried on between the pope and the legates, and a number of items had been suggested by the latter. These had special reference to the Roman Curia and its administration, to the bishops, the ecclesiastical benefices and tithes, the orders, and the training of the clergy

• The decree on reform treated the discipline of the clergy and various matters respecting ecclesiastical benefices.

• the second directed the suppression of abuses in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice; a third (in eleven chapters) treated reform, especially in regard to the morals of the clergy,

• This disciplinary decree treated the obligation of residence, the conferring of the different grades of ordination, and the education of young clerics (seminarists).

• a decree on reform (in twenty-two chapters) concerning monks and nuns; a decree on reform, treating of the mode of life of cardinals and bishops, certificates of fitness for ecclesiastics, legacies for Masses

• the suppression of concubinage among the clergy, and the life of the clergy in general.

“The Ecumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of the Church. No council has ever had to accomplish its task under more serious difficulties, none has had so many questions of the greatest importance to decide.

The assembly proved to the world that notwithstanding repeated apostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles of Christianity”.¶

It does seem that your approach to this topic is a bit extreme in that you seem to be trying to unduly whitewash over much of the accepted historical data; even the NewAdvent accepts that many of the complaints by both the Reformers and with the Roman Catholic Princes about the continued moral and ethical abuses were legitimate.

As such I am in the view that you are unintentionally doing your denomination a grave disservice by apparently rejecting what they seem to have accepted as being legitimate even centuries ago. You would be doing your denomination a great service by acknowledging its many sins of which it seems to have partially accepted and be prepared to demonstrate how it has in fact improved – assuming that you believe it has; otherwise the Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations (along with the rest of the world) will continue to believe that nothing has really changed – and this would be a shame indeed.

Barry

 

[revanneosl]

Benedict of Nursia
Born into the Roman nobility of the late 5th century, he rejected the life of privilege and hedonism and dedicated himself instead to the attempt to live a life totally dedicated to Christ. Through many years of trial-and-error, he developed the Rule of St. Benedict: a guidebook for the governance of intentional Christian communities, which has been invaluable to the church for the past 1400 years. A model of balance, moderation and reasonableness, Benedict's Rule has enabled millions of Christians to live lives that become the Gospel.

Francis of Assisi
Born Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone, into a family of wealthy cloth-merchants, his early life was characterized by frivolity and dissipation. While in the Army, he was gifted with a vision from God instructing him to return to his home, and from that time his gradual spiritual awakening began. Though his father threatened him with beatings, he rejected his inheritance and took up a life of poverty, dedicating himself to nursing those struck with leprosy, and laboring to rebuild ruined churches. In 1209, he founded the Order that bears his name, and began to live the life of a mendicant, traveling from place to place without possessions, and preaching repentance to all who would listen. He is the first known person to build a three-dimensional nativity scene, which he used to illustrate the humble origins of Christ.

Columba
Born in County Donegal, Ireland in the early 6th century, Columba dedicated his life to Christ's church from an early age. An accomplished scribe and illuminator, he quarreled with a fellow monk over the ownership of a particularly beautiful Psalter, and was subsequently expelled from his monastery. He traveled to Scotland and founded the religious community of Iona. Columba was noted for his diplomatic skills, negotiating peace between various communities of Picti, while he engaged in his mission to convert them to Christianity. His monastery was the first (and for many years the only) center of literacy among the Scottish tribes, and was a renowned seat of learning, preserving both manuscripts and the ability to read them in the decades following the fall of the Roman empire.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

As far as Hus goes, it's my understanding that Hus himself desired certain reforms, a number of which were echoed in Luther, Luther finding himself surprised to see how much he agreed with Hus. For example one of the major reforms which Hus desired was the Eucharist in both kinds.

My understanding also is that the Hussite movement fragmented very early, a number of Hussites were far more radical than Hus, such as the Taborites who tried to establish a Hussite theocracy. However there were more conservative Hussites who stuck more closely to Hus's own teachings and desired not breech with Rome, but reform from within.

Wycliffe on the other hand, I'm not too familiar with.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

a number of Hussites were far more radical

Those shameless hussites

I've heard it said that the Churches of the East had no dark ages, but don't see the OP address that at all?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Those shameless hussites

I've heard it said that the Churches of the East had no dark ages, but don't see the OP address that at all?

There was no Dark Age to speak of really in the East since Roman civilization didn't die out in the East until--in some sense--the fall of Constantinople. However, after the conversion of the Kiev Rus, the Ottoman occupation of former Byzantine lands, and the growth of Russia as a center of Orthodoxy, Moscow eventually became known as the Third Rome, and the leader "Caesar" or "Czar". So if one really wanted to stretch things, the fall of the Roman Empire didn't really come until the Bolshevik Revolution about a century ago.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Biblicist]

razeontherock,

I've heard it said that the Churches of the East had no dark ages, but don't see the OP address that at all?

I will have to admit while I was compiling this topic I was thinking that someone would soon pick up on my lack (or complete and utter lack) of knowledge on the various EO denominations.

Even though the city that I live in has the largest Greek population outside of Greece, as far as I know the Greek Orthodox Church has had no interaction with the denominations and congregations that I have been involved with here in Melbourne; if they were to disappear overnight I probably wouldn't even realise it.

When the newspapers and TV news programmes mention them, it is usually at Easter when some of them go for a dip in the sea or when there is some ruckus with some particular group trying to "lock out" another group from one of their churches. I cannot recall any mention of any EO church other than with the Greek Orthodox; it does seem for all intents and purposes that for most Greek Orthodox here in my city that it is merely something that gives them their Greek identity - do they see it is a living relationship with the Father, I wish I knew.

As for the Russian Orthodox denomination and the others, I really have had no exposure to them and undoubtedly they do exist in my country - but where, who knows.

When it comes to the worldwide EO denominations I will have to admit that maybe my European heritage in coming into play but I have absolutely no knowledge of their history since the Great Schism or with their internal politics; sadly it can be very easy for me to even remember that they exist at times; not good, but this is simply the way it is.

Leaving this sad state of affairs behind for a moment, for most of us in the West we have our connections with European history; and yes the Greek Orthodox Church and the other various Balkan EO denominations are certainly a part of Europe but its impact on Western Christianity and particularly with Evangelicalism and with the Pentecostals and Charismatics seems to be almost about zero.

I am acutely aware of the persecution and resistance that the Russian Orthodox Church particularly in Belorussia generates toward both the Evangelicals and Pentecostals; this certainly seems to be a fairly common occurrence in the other parts of Russia and Eastern Europe as well. I have heard that there has been a number of issues within the EO regarding their members who were in close association with the various communist governments up until recently who turned in those who they deemed as being unpatriotic.

From the little I know about them the EO denominations don't really seem to be all that healthy and vibrant and the communist governments that controlled a number of them seem to have created a few issues within these denominations which does not really say much for them. They seem to be more aligned around numerous ethnic groups who consider that to be true to their ethnic identity that they must belong to their particular countries EO denomination. As for the control that Islam had over many of them for several centuries it appears that the EO church was essentially silenced.

 

[wayseer]

The Dark Ages were just that - Dark. Compared with other parts of the world Europe was a backward and spiritually stagnant part of the planet.

The only Light came from the East and lodged in Spain and from that Light emerged the Renaissance.

That Light was the light of Islam.

It is from Islam that we owe our science, our spirituality, much of our language, mathematics, oranges and lemons, horticulture, agriculture, windmills, canal systems, carpet, paper and medicine.

In return we gave Islam the Crusades.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

razeontherock,

I will have to admit while I was compiling this topic I was thinking that someone would soon pick up on my lack (or complete and utter lack) of knowledge on the various EO denominations.

Even though the city that I live in has the largest Greek population outside of Greece, as far as I know the Greek Orthodox Church has had no interaction with the denominations and congregations that I have been involved with here in Melbourne; if they were to disappear overnight I probably wouldn't even realise it.

When the newspapers and TV news programmes mention them, it is usually at Easter when some of them go for a dip in the sea or when there is some ruckus with some particular group trying to "lock out" another group from one of their churches. I cannot recall any mention of any EO church other than with the Greek Orthodox; it does seem for all intents and purposes that for most Greek Orthodox here in my city that it is merely something that gives them their Greek identity - do they see it is a living relationship with the Father, I wish I knew.

As for the Russian Orthodox denomination and the others, I really have had no exposure to them and undoubtedly they do exist in my country - but where, who knows.

When it comes to the worldwide EO denominations I will have to admit that maybe my European heritage in coming into play but I have absolutely no knowledge of their history since the Great Schism or with their internal politics; sadly it can be very easy for me to even remember that they exist at times; not good, but this is simply the way it is.

Leaving this sad state of affairs behind for a moment, for most of us in the West we have our connections with European history; and yes the Greek Orthodox Church and the other various Balkan EO denominations are certainly a part of Europe but its impact on Western Christianity and particularly with Evangelicalism and with the Pentecostals and Charismatics seems to be almost about zero.

I am acutely aware of the persecution and resistance that the Russian Orthodox Church particularly in Belorussia generates toward both the Evangelicals and Pentecostals; this certainly seems to be a fairly common occurrence in the other parts of Russia and Eastern Europe as well. I have heard that there has been a number of issues within the EO regarding their members who were in close association with the various communist governments up until recently who turned in those who they deemed as being unpatriotic.

From the little I know about them the EO denominations don't really seem to be all that healthy and vibrant and the communist governments that controlled a number of them seem to have created a few issues within these denominations which does not really say much for them. They seem to be more aligned around numerous ethnic groups who consider that to be true to their ethnic identity that they must belong to their particular countries EO denomination. As for the control that Islam had over many of them for several centuries it appears that the EO church was essentially silenced.

A bit of information on Eastern Orthodox:

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church which is united under the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, there is no "head" of Orthodoxy (except Christ). As such Orthodoxy is a communion of autocephelous churches each headed by a patriarch, but they are still a single Church (Orthodoxy). That is, the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox are not separate churches (or "denominations" which is a term only applicable in talking about Protestantism), they are one Church through their shared communion and faith.

In Orthodoxy all bishops are equal, though some have a higher place of honor, this dates back to the time of the Pentarchy in late antiquity (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, the bishop of each known as patriarch). Rome was said to have the highest place of honor as "first among equals", second to Rome was Constantinople. Since Rome is no longer in communion with the other four ancient Patriarchates, the position of "first among equals" falls on Constantinople, and thus the bishop of Constantinople is known as the Ecumenical Patriarch and he is often deferred to as a matter of respect (again, he is not higher in authority or jurisdiction, it's just a matter of honor and respect).

So Orthodoxy is just one Church, organized under bishops; whether Greek, Russian, Antiochene, Bulgarian, Serbian (et al) it's still just Orthodoxy and they are members of the same faith, same church, same everything. When issues of ethnicity within Orthodoxy started to become an issue (especially as Orthodoxy was making inroads into places such as the United States and others) the Orthodox Church pronounced Phyletism heretical (Phyletism meaning something like Tribalism, Nationalism or Ethnicism, the identification of ethnic or national identity with Christian faith, e.g. the important part of being Greek Orthodox wasn't being Greek, but Orthodox).

So Russian and Greek Orthodox are still just Orthodox, not separate denominations or Churches; it's closer to speaking of say a Methodist church in Los Angels and a Methodist church in Paris, they're still Methodist regardless of one being American and the other being French.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Biblicist]

Double up on post - maybe I should stop using a WiFi connection~!~!

 

[Biblicist]

wayseer,

Islam??

 

[Biblicist]

CryptoLutheran

Thanks for that information. I was probably aware of this myself but I have absolutely no knowledge of their internal politics or with their moral history. From what I have heard over the past 30 plus years most Orthodox churches seem to be actively resisting and persecuting Evangelical and Pentecostal missionaries within their homelands which tends to limit whatever "warm and fuzzy" feelings that I could have towards them.