# Would you leave Rome during AD 800-1510?



## rembrandt (Jun 3, 2004)

The thread currently under discussion in the WCF forum brought me to ask you all this question: The year is anywhere from 800-1510 (before the Reformation). Supposing you were an able theologian, perhaps even on par (but no greater) with Aquinas, Anselm, Huss, Tyndale, or Wycliffe, would you have broken off of the Roman Catholic Church? If you understood St. Paul and St. Augustine and saw present errors in the majority of the Church, would you leave?

Assuming that you would try to light sparks and reform whatever areas you could, and Rome didn't directly take pains to [absolutely] obliterate your beliefs. Lets also assume that you didn't have the leeway to preach against false doctrine as much as you would like and couldn't proclaim the doctrines of grace as much either, due to obvious pressures of the day.

Sticky situation, eh? (all congregationalists, please refrain. thankyou)

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2004)

I'll definitely have to think about this for awhile, trying to put myself in the situation and all. But my first inclination is to say that if, as you say, &quot;Rome didn't directly take pains to absolutely obliterate my beliefs,&quot; I'd feel really hesitant to leave. They would have to openly and blatantly reject my pleas for them to consider reform in some areas and for them to not to preach against what I saw as biblical truth.


----------



## king of fools (Jun 3, 2004)

I left the universal church of Rome in the 1990's by God's grace. It would have had to have had an equally significant amount of grace to do it back then as well.


----------



## raderag (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:ec232f7682][i:ec232f7682]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ec232f7682]
The thread currently under discussion in the WCF forum brought me to ask you all this question: The year is anywhere from 800-1510 (before the Reformation). Supposing you were an able theologian, perhaps even on par (but no greater) with Aquinas, Anselm, Huss, Tyndale, or Wycliffe, would you have broken off of the Roman Catholic Church? If you understood St. Paul and St. Augustine and saw present errors in the majority of the Church, would you leave?

Assuming that you would try to light sparks and reform whatever areas you could, and Rome didn't directly take pains to [absolutely] obliterate your beliefs. Lets also assume that you didn't have the leeway to preach against false doctrine as much as you would like and couldn't proclaim the doctrines of grace as much either, due to obvious pressures of the day.

Sticky situation, eh? (all congregationalists, please refrain. thankyou)

Paul [/quote:ec232f7682]

If I was arguing against Erasmas, probabaly. 

I think the problem with this hypothetical is that it tends to negate the necessity of God's Providence in ridding the Papacy from the Church. Would have I have been the man God called out to deliver the Church? No, because I wasn't. I dare say that few theologians are spiritually or educationally prepared to endure what many of the Martyrs endured.

Furthermore, St Augustine's doctrine on justification and ecclesiology would have hindered most from leaving. While Luther and Calvin built upon many great theologians such as Augustine, we must realize that the reformation was a deliverance of the Church brought on by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. To suppose that any of us would or could have been part of this is ludicrous.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:22f4c86b7b][i:22f4c86b7b]Originally posted by king of fools[/i:22f4c86b7b]
I left the universal church of Rome in the 1990's by God's grace. It would have had to have had an equally significant amount of grace to do it back then as well. [/quote:22f4c86b7b]

I left Rome as well. I graciously accept their baptism though (PLEASE, nobody discuss this!!). 

Let us remember that the modern church of Rome cannot be compared with the mediaeval and renaissance Rome. They had yet to decree the damnation of St. Paul and St. Augustine. They were THE Church at that time, besides the Eastern Orthodox who had decent relations to Rome until around 1100. Would you break off of [b:22f4c86b7b]THE[/b:22f4c86b7b] Church? Daunting question, eh?

[quote:22f4c86b7b][i:22f4c86b7b]Me Died Blue[/i:22f4c86b7b]
They would have to openly and blatantly reject my pleas for them to consider reform in some areas and for them to not to preach against what I saw as biblical truth.[/quote:22f4c86b7b]

You said &quot;they would have to openly and blantantly reject [b:22f4c86b7b]my pleas for them[/b:22f4c86b7b].&quot; This is precisely why I am asking the question. They would have to reject [b:22f4c86b7b]ME[/b:22f4c86b7b] and [b:22f4c86b7b]MY[/b:22f4c86b7b] agenda? This is the rugged individualistic agendas of Protestantism. What if the Church just has yet to decree what &quot;we&quot; might think it is true? Maybe God is working on the Church. These are questions that they would be faced with prior to Luther.

(Don't get me wrong now, if they decreed (like at Trent) that the gospel is FALSE, then things might be a bit different. But that was NOT the case.)

Paul

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:fb37f9064d]the problem [...] hypothetical[/quote:fb37f9064d]

It is not as if it is hypothetical in the sence that it never happened. This did happen, so it is not hypothetical in the sence that it is beyond our contemplation. And this provides direct implications to the Church today. I see your point, but play along... you are a 12th century churchmen... you are Father Rader... how would you handle the situation?... submit to the Holy Catholic Church or be a schismatic?

Or even pretend that this is the case in our present day. I am only asking because it provides direct implications to how we see ecclesiology. The thinking mind will inquire these situations...

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2004)

[quote:25404ffb06][i:25404ffb06]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:25404ffb06]
You said &quot;they would have to openly and blantantly reject [b:25404ffb06]my pleas for them[/b:25404ffb06].&quot; This is precisely why I am asking the question. They would have to reject [b:25404ffb06]ME[/b:25404ffb06] and [b:25404ffb06]MY[/b:25404ffb06] agenda? This is the rugged individualistic agendas of Protestantism. What if the Church just has yet to decree what &quot;we&quot; might think it is true? Maybe God is working on the Church. These are questions that they would be faced with prior to Luther.[/quote:25404ffb06]

I guess I just used the individualistic terminology because is was thinking in two different time senses; I was thinking, &quot;[i:25404ffb06]They[/i:25404ffb06] (Rome in medieval times) [i:25404ffb06]would have to openly and blatantly reject [b:25404ffb06]my[/b:25404ffb06][/i:25404ffb06] (as in me in the 21st century, with what I believe now in light of the already-happened Reformation, WA, etc.) [i:25404ffb06]pleas for them to consider reform in some areas and for them not to preach against what [b:25404ffb06]I[/b:25404ffb06][/i:25404ffb06] (again, me in the 21st century) [i:25404ffb06]saw as biblical truth.[/i:25404ffb06]&quot; If I were [i:25404ffb06]totally[/i:25404ffb06] thinking of the time being set back then, I would have to get the agreement and support of many others in order to even plead with the Church to reform in the first place. Sorry for the confusion.

[quote:25404ffb06][i:25404ffb06]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:25404ffb06]
(Don't get me wrong now, if they decreed (like at Trent) that the gospel is FALSE, then things might be a bit different. But that was NOT the case.)[/quote:25404ffb06]

That basically [i:25404ffb06]is[/i:25404ffb06] what I was saying they would have to do in order for me to seriously consider leaving. I guess I confused you as to what I meant by using the &quot;I&quot; terminology.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 4, 2004)

[quote:ed428de22c]I guess I just used the individualistic terminology because is was thinking in two different time senses; I was thinking, &quot;They (Rome in medieval times) would have to openly and blatantly reject my (as in me in the 21st century, with what I believe now in light of the already-happened Reformation, WA, etc.) pleas for them to consider reform in some areas and for them not to preach against what I (again, me in the 21st century) saw as biblical truth.&quot; If I were totally thinking of the time being set back then, I would have to get the agreement and support of many others in order to even plead with the Church to reform in the first place. Sorry for the confusion.[/quote:ed428de22c]

Oh, okay... sorry. 

[quote:ed428de22c]If I were totally thinking of the time being set back then, I would have to get the agreement and support of many others in order to even plead with the Church to reform in the first place.[/quote:ed428de22c]

Yes, I was talking about with our understanding [i:ed428de22c]back then[/i:ed428de22c], atleast understanding Augustine's theology of grace, in knowledge that the predominant view of the Church is in some error. 

I still want to press the idea of protestant personal agendas. I think the Reformers basically failed (obviously) in getting people to understand what &quot;private interpretation&quot; [i:ed428de22c]does not[/i:ed428de22c] mean. 

If everybody were to think that they have the right as an individual to break off of God's fellowship because of what [i:ed428de22c]they think[/i:ed428de22c] is right, then, well, it would look like what we have today.

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2004)

[quote:98d103999c][i:98d103999c]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:98d103999c]
I still want to press the idea of protestant personal agendas. I think the Reformers basically failed (obviously) in getting people to understand what &quot;private interpretation&quot; [i:98d103999c]does not[/i:98d103999c] mean. 

If everybody were to think that they have the right as an individual to break off of God's fellowship because of what [i:98d103999c]they think[/i:98d103999c] is right, then, well, it would look like what we have today.

Paul [/quote:98d103999c]

Yeah, I see this as one of the greatest (if not [i:98d103999c]the[/i:98d103999c] greatest) problems of modern evangelicalism. Christians speak so passionately against the relativism of secular agnostics, but essentially make themselves &quot;Christian agnostics&quot; by developing a &quot;Christian relativism&quot;! In fact, when I was discussing the issue of Calvinistic soteriology with one of the pastors at my church, they were basically responding with exegetical relativism, saying &quot;How do you [i:98d103999c]know[/i:98d103999c] that's the interpretation?&quot;

For a perfect example of a church that embraces this mindset, check out http://www.getalifechurch.com. Under their &quot;who we are&quot; section, click on &quot;our faith&quot; to find their statement of faith. It's sickening how they take Romans 14 and Augustine's quotation completely out of context.

This issue in general is one reason we need a strong emphasis on confessionalism within modern Reformed Christendom. It's sickening how broad a meaning even the term &quot;Reformed&quot; has come to have!


----------



## kceaster (Jun 4, 2004)

I think others have said this and I affirm these things:

1) Rome then wasn't the Rome after Trent. It was a church worth saving.

2) God's grace is what made these men stand up for Reformation, just as Josiah of old. I think the fact that these years were darkened were the consequence of God's judgment. He brings the Reformation in all ages through the grace He gives men.

Given that, I don't think I would have left unless God had given me the grace He gave the Reformers. But even then, not until about the time of the Reformation.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## cupotea (Jun 4, 2004)

[quote:0e508729a4]Under their &quot;who we are&quot; section, click on &quot;our faith&quot; to find their statement of faith.[/quote:0e508729a4]

Statement of Faith? [i:0e508729a4]That[/i:0e508729a4] was a Statement of Faith?

Who can be surprised when the pastor preaches on a movie. But hey, YOU can own the Mel Gibson packet, which includes 1 Mint Quality poster, 1 Buck Slip and FIVE, count 'em 1 2 3 4 5 Door Hangers all for the low price of $23.45. Step right up, folks, get your Collector's Kit NOW.

Where's the puke emotie?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 4, 2004)

[quote:c32522f2df][i:c32522f2df]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:c32522f2df]

For a perfect example of a church that embraces this mindset, check out http://www.getalifechurch.com. Under their &quot;who we are&quot; section, click on &quot;our faith&quot; to find their statement of faith. It's sickening how they take Romans 14 and Augustine's quotation completely out of context.
[/quote:c32522f2df]


Chris,

This is not directed at you, but I am really tired of people (including the website you mention) claiming that Augustine said that liberty, charity, unity thing. HE NEVER DID. It is an excuse for bad ecumenicism.

No one has ever found an attribution of Augustine to it.

Here is a good summary of the issue:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html

And it actually has Roman undertones:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictiona...nitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 4, 2004)

Now, I'm going to ask this question: why would you stay? Seriously, give me a real answer, anybody.

Paul


----------



## kceaster (Jun 4, 2004)

I would stay just because I believe Rome was different then. I believe they had the proper idea about church authority prior to the rise of the papacy and the magisterium as it is now.

This is one thing that is brought forward in the Reformed church. And I think they have the proper idea of authority from Rome. Remember, Rome was not all wrong.

Because I think it is proper to submit to lawful authority over us, I would have stayed, because they only became an unlawful authority at the very end. Sure they were in error about a great many things, but they were still the authority God ordained until He removed their candlestick.

I think our democratization has made it necessary for us to point fingers and wonder how people could have lived under those conditions. But excommunication was a serious thing back then. It was not as if one could go to another place to worship God. We most likely would have thought to leave the church would be unthinkable, which is why it was difficult for Luther to do what he did.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 4, 2004)

I agree. But let me press this further. If you wanted to be a minister, you would have to be ordained by their priesthood. You would have to perform Mass as they have it. You would have to put up with all kinds of pictures and relics. etc. etc.

A correct answer to this question will tear down average protestant principles...


----------



## kceaster (Jun 4, 2004)

Again, we have to work with the grace we've been given. If the same grace were given to me then as I have now, then I would most certainly not live under that ordination.

Perhaps God did bestow the kind of grace we have then and we just don't know of it because there was no printing press or record of it. We can't really say for sure.

What we can say for sure is that God ordained them for their time. He gave them the grace they had. It is rather like saying if we were in Jerusalem in AD 33, would we have stood behind Jesus? I don't believe any of us would have.

In the same way, we have to live with the grace God gives. That is the only thing that makes us stand or fall.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## dswatts (Jun 4, 2004)

&quot;They had yet to decree the damnation of St. Paul and St. Augustine. &quot;


Okay, maybe I missed this...Is this true? Can someone cite a source?

Wow!

Dwayne


----------



## raderag (Jun 4, 2004)

> [quote:8f60e6cdf0][i:8f60e6cdf0]Originally posted by king of fools[/i:8f60e6cdf0]
> They had yet to decree the damnation of St. Paul and St. Augustine.
> [Edited on 6-4-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote:8f60e6cdf0]
> 
> ...


----------



## DanielC (Jun 12, 2004)

Let us remember that the modern church of Rome cannot be compared with the mediaeval and renaissance Rome. They had yet to decree the damnation of St. Paul and St. Augustine. They were THE Church at that time, besides the Eastern Orthodox who had decent relations to Rome until around 1100. Would you break off of [b:13dc99fef8]THE[/b:13dc99fef8] Church? Daunting question, eh?

Paul

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote]

The Roman church was never THE Church. There have always been other branches. Constantinople was more rightly the center of the Christian world at the time - Rome had more the makings of a village ever since Romulus Augustulus was deported (476), being overrun by barbarians for the third time in 66 years. Constantinople was so huge that it simply called &quot;The City&quot; - eis tin polis (to the city), later corrupted to the name Istanbul. They broke off from Rome in 1054 (when Rome dropped off the bull in the Aya Sofia - which was the largest church in the world since 100 years before Mohammad was BORN). Ever noticed how fast they went through Popes back then (882-904 22yr, 12 popes; 1045-1061, 16 yr, 12 popes)? One of the major reasons was that they were constantly poisoning each other, excommunicating each other, digging up old Pope's bones, burning them, and tossing them into the Tiber. How about Pope Sylvester II (999-1003), as just one example? Not only the pope, but a necromancer, astrologer and magician. And I got that from a couple books I read on the history of the popes which I bought when I was at the VATICAN. Do you think YOU would stay? Or how about the time when there were three popes at the same time. Which of those is THE Church, as you say? There is little glorious about the Roman church in the middle ages. Also, what about the churches that developed outside of Roman rule (Syriac, Coptic, Jacobite, St. Thomas Christians, England (N. England post-Whitby), Ireland, Waldensians, &amp;c.)? THE Church? No I don't think so, nor would anyone who has taken more than a cursory glance at Church or European history.

By the way, the Eastern Orthodox DIDN'T have decent relations with Rome until around 1100. Ever heard of the Photian schism (867)? Relations were strained before then, and worse afterwards.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:e566940d2d]The Roman church was never THE Church.[/quote:e566940d2d]

I mentioned Eastern Orthodox splitting and what not. I meant THE Church of the land. The Roman Church was basically recognized as THE Church before the Eastern Orthodox relations started going south. Even the Eastern Orthodox people recognized Rome's prominence, and was submissive, until the whole deal about the papal supremecy and the filioque. 

[quote:e566940d2d]By the way, the Eastern Orthodox DIDN'T have decent relations with Rome until around 1100. Ever heard of the Photian schism (867)? Relations were strained before then, and worse afterwards.[/quote:e566940d2d]

EO was not excommunicated until 1054, and yes I realize that they pretty much ceased communion with one antoher earlier.

[quote:e566940d2d]THE Church? No I don't think so, nor would anyone who has taken more than a cursory glance at Church or European history.[/quote:e566940d2d]

In regards to those churches that developed outside of Roman rule, I don't think that they were without influence of Rome for all those years (after the initial missionary efforts).

Rome was dominant. There is no way to get around it. But yes, I do realize the EO and what not. The fact that there was a wider universality than Rome, is my justification for the Reformation. If we are excommunicated from Rome, we still have the rest of Christendom to appeal to.


----------



## yeutter (Jun 13, 2004)

Prior to 1500 we had the great schism between the Eastern and Western Church. I think if we reflect on the issues that brought about that seperation Rome was already a body that was not open to reform.

Trent made final her fall into grevious error. Prior to Trent believer probably should not leave but call for her to reform.


----------

