Protestant Influence Of Vatican Ii?

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Protestantism is declared by Holy Mother Church to be an heresy. Why then at Vatican II where protestants invited, does one argue they just came for the sights? Or did they, could they have had an influence on not so much the Council but the Bishops? Did they have any influence? How major or minor was this influence? The Church is the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth, why did it need to have invited persons that hold heretical opinions? What truth could they offer, if any that was so greatly needed the Church did not already hold? Some even would argue that these Protestants were invited in order to make the New Mass and the Church over all more appealing, more acceptable, by protestants. Any elements of truth in this?

That are your thoughts?

[Mateo el Feo]

Welcome Devil's Advocate,

Protestants were also invited to the Council of Trent. The council fathers even postponed certain declarations so that the Protestants could have a voice.[quote name='Trent' date=' Session 13'][b]But whereas those[/b], of the most noble province of Germany, [b]who call themselves Protestants, desire to be heard by the holy Synod upon these said articles before they are defined[/b], and for this end have asked for the public faith from the Synod, [b]that they may be allowed to [/b]come hither in safety, dwell in this city, [b]speak freely and set forth their sentiments before the Synod[/b], and afterwards depart when they please; this holy Synod,-although It has looked forward with great earnestness for many months past for their coming, nevertheless, as an affectionate mother that groaneth and travaileth, most ardently desiring and labouring after this, that, amongst those who bear the Christian name, there may be no schisms, but that, even as all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer, so may all say the same thing, believe the same, think the same,-trusting in the mercy of God, and hoping that the result will be that they may be brought back to the most holy and salutary concord of one faith, hope, and charity, (and) yielding to them herein, hath, as far as the said Synod is concerned, given and granted, according to their request; a public assurance and faith, which they call a safe-conduct, of the tenor which will be set down below; [b]and for their sakes It hath postponed the definition of those articles to the second next Session, which, that they may conveniently be present thereat[/b], It hath indicted for the festival of the conversion of Saint Paul, which will be on the twenty-fifth day of the month of January of the ensuing year. And It furthermore ordains, that the sacrifice of the mass, on account of the close connexion between the two subjects, shall be treated of in the same Session; and that meanwhile It will treat of the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction in the next Session, which It hath decreed is to be held on the festival of Saint Catharine, virgin and martyr, which will be the twenty-fifth of November; and that at the same time, in both Sessions, the matter of reformation shall be proceeded with.[/quote]

As far as making the Church "more appealing, more acceptable, by protestants", one could suggest the same thing about some of the participants at Trent. For example, St. Ignatius Loyola wrote to the Jesuits who went to Trent:[quote]In your sermons do not touch on subjects on which Catholics and Protestants are at variance, but simply exhort your audience to virtue and to devotions approved by the Church. Awaken in souls a thorough knowledge of themselves and a love of their Creator and Lord. Speak frequently of the council and always end your sermons, as we have said, with a prayer for the council.[/quote]

In short, it seems as if most or all of your questions would equally apply to both Vatican II and Trent.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Interesting indeed. I did not know that about Trent. I would like to add I do not support the questions or statements asked, merely asked them in such a way to get answers, and open the discussion to others. As the screen name alludes to. I hear many arguments against the Church which I do not know the answers to, this is merely a way to get those answers. For myself as well as others. Truth should and will prevail.

I would still like to hear the thoughts of others as well.


So then what role did the Protestants play in both Councils? Pacifically Vatican II, but Trent as well.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Advocatus Diaboli

[Mateo el Feo]

Fair enough.

Edit:[quote name='Advocatus Diaboli' post='1249018' date='Apr 19 2007, 05:21 AM']I hear many arguments against the Church which I do not know the answers to, this is merely a way to get those answers. For myself as well as others. Truth should and will prevail.[/quote]I think many of us are in the same boat as you: we hear a lot of varied arguments against the Church. Happily, most of these arguments aren't novel, so we can "stand on the shoulders of giants" by using the many online resources available.

Since you are new to Phatmass, I would like to recommend the Phatmass Defense Directory to you:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/[/url]

It's got a whole lot of great answers to help in apologetics.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1249016' date='Apr 19 2007, 04:10 AM']Protestants were also invited to the Council of Trent. The council fathers even postponed certain declarations so that the Protestants could have a voice.[/quote]

Could you tell me which part of session 13 this is from? I scanned a version quickly but could find the reference to protestants. thanks

Edited April 19, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Budge]

Apostate Protestants and modernists, I doubt there was one Bible Christian in the room!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Advocatus Diaboli' post='1249009' date='Apr 19 2007, 04:15 AM']Protestantism is declared by Holy Mother Church to be an heresy. Why then at Vatican II where protestants invited, does one argue they just came for the sights? Or did they, could they have had an influence on not so much the Council but the Bishops? Did they have any influence? How major or minor was this influence? The Church is the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth, why did it need to have invited persons that hold heretical opinions? What truth could they offer, if any that was so greatly needed the Church did not already hold? Some even would argue that these Protestants were invited in order to make the New Mass and the Church over all more appealing, more acceptable, by protestants. Any elements of truth in this?

That are your thoughts?[/quote]

Would it occur to you that maybe the Church invited them there as an example of evangelisation?? People outside the Church do not have the Fullness of Truth, but they do have bits and pieces. What a better place to see the fullness of faith than a Council of the WHOLE Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1249045' date='Apr 19 2007, 08:46 AM']Apostate Protestants and modernists, I doubt there was one Bible Christian in the room![/quote]

lol, they were ALL Bible christians, since they were Catholics or Protestants or Orthodox[ most likely all baptised by water as well]
But your attitude is typical.

When my cousin married a Catholic, my Baptist aunt had to bring her two ministers to protect her from us terrible people - her own family. And when we had actual alcohol at the reception [ champagne toast] she fled home in horror.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1249042' date='Apr 19 2007, 08:27 AM']Could you tell me which part of session 13 this is from? I scanned a version quickly but could find the reference to protestants. thanks[/quote]It's on the bottom of the page, in the last two paragraphs:

[url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html[/url]

[Mateo el Feo]

PS: I want to add that Session 13 wasn't unique in inviting Protestants to voice their arguments at Trent. They are also mentioned in sessions 15 and 18 (maybe others...I forget). Interestingly, the "Bull of Indiction" actually indicates that the selection of Trent as the location for the council was made to accomodate Germans so that they could more easily attend. Quoting:[quote]Accordingly, as we no longer had the city of Vicenza, and were desirous, in our choice of a fresh place for holding the council, to have regard both to the common welfare of Christians, and also to the troubles of the German nation; and seeing, upon several places being proposed, that they (the Germans) wished for the city of Trent, we,---though of opinion that every thing might be transacted more commodiously in Cisalpine Italy,---nevertheless yielded up our will, with paternal charity, to their demands. Accordingly, we have chosen the city of Trent as that wherein an ecumenical council is to be held on the ensuing calends of November: fixing upon that place as a convenient one whereat the bishops and prelates can assemble very easily indeed from Germany, and from the other nations bordering on Germany, and without difficulty from France, Spain, and the other remoter provinces.[/quote]

Official delegations of Protestants didn't ever make it, but their anticipated role as non-voting observers (who could bring their ideas and arguments) reminds me of the Protestant observers at Vatican II.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1249045' date='Apr 19 2007, 07:46 AM']Apostate Protestants and modernists, I doubt there was one Bible Christian in the room![/quote]

What's a "Bible Christian"? A johnny-come-lately Christian? The Catholic Church is about four centuries older than the Bible.

Have you read my post about the Bible during the first thousand years? Careful, you might learn something disturbing to your do-it-yourself, Bible-only religion.

Likos

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1249274' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:48 PM']What's a "Bible Christian"? A johnny-come-lately Christian? The Catholic Church is about four centuries older than the Bible.

Have you read my post about the Bible during the first thousand years? Careful, you might learn something disturbing to your do-it-yourself, Bible-only religion.

Likos[/quote]

Don't you now that authentic Christianity wasn't "discovered" until the 1920's and 30's in America, as expressed by the Evangelical / Pentecostal / Fundamentalist movements?

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1249295' date='Apr 19 2007, 03:08 PM']Don't you now that authentic Christianity wasn't "discovered" until the 1920's and 30's in America, as expressed by the Evangelical / Pentecostal / Fundamentalist movements?

[/quote]

Then in the early 21st century, Budgianity was founded...

[FullTruth]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1249295' date='Apr 19 2007, 04:08 PM']Don't you now that authentic Christianity wasn't "discovered" until the 1920's and 30's in America, as expressed by the Evangelical / Pentecostal / Fundamentalist movements?

[/quote]
Yes, there is a lot of mis-information about God and the church out there. IMHO, the Catholics are the worst for it.

Can I ask you all something?

Is it wrong to not attend a church?

And you guys blowing Peter's testimony of the Christ out of proportion, claiming him to be the first pope, is quiet funny, if you do mind me saying.

I say Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, God manifested in the flesh!

Guess what, that gives me the Keys to the Kingdom as well! I can bind things on earth, and they will be bound in heaven. I can loose on earth and it shall be loosed in heaven!

There has always been people, even catholics, who probably realized that, and carried out their ministries. Many were burnt at the stake for their relationship with God!

[Socrates]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1249741' date='Apr 19 2007, 08:52 PM']Guess what, that gives me the Keys to the Kingdom as well! I can bind things on earth, and they will be bound in heaven. I can loose on earth and it shall be loosed in heaven![/quote]
All hail Pope FullTruth the First!