Did Luther mean to start Protestantism?

[tqualey]

Hi, Police42,

If you are really wanting an answer to that question you gave:
Of course the real question for everyone is not are all Catholics Muslims or Mormons et al are “SAVED”, but rather are you a Christian?

Try this link: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm It has everything you need, and it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and not someone’s opinion.

God bless

Agree - and furthermore Christ has and will continue to build His church which has yet to be revealed. There is not one specific church that is visible that can make any claim to be the only true and visible church unless of course one believes the Bible and thus the Holy Spirit are wrong according the the epistle to the Romans written by Paul and authored by God.

I, personally, would not join any church who would claim to be the only true and visible church. Only God knows who are his own and His own hear his voice and follow Him. This true church comes from every tribe, tongue and nation.

Of course the real question for everyone is not are all Catholics Muslims or Mormons et al are “SAVED”, but rather are you a Christian? That is the most important question to ask oneself and have a definitive and hopefully a good and biblical reason for affirming oneself as such as opposed to being self deceived and hearing the Lord say “depart from Me; I never knew you”. That would be the most dreadful words a person could ever hear. *** May we all hear “well done good and faithful servant” - Amen anyone?***

 

[tqualey]

Hi, IanGE,

You are probably right - it is not a conincidence. But, what is the relationship you want to point out? A link would be helpful.

God bless

It is no coincidence that Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the church door just seven months after the 5th Lateran council ended in 1517. Was that council the real trigger for the subsequent schism?

 

[Police42]

The literacy was only part of it. The other part of the reformation was in regards to corruption (mainly addressing the selling of indulgences) and doctrine that individuals didn’t agree with, which is more of a reason for a split than the simple idea to have a bible in the local language.

Protestant Reformation - Wikipedia

I agree to a small extent, but the reading and understanding of what the Scriptures said only solidified the belief that indulgences were not biblical. Again, the reformation did not occur because of a few rebellious men, but by the opening of scripture to the audience for which God intended - mainly the lay people.

Doctrine is what always causes splits, but only one reliable source of doctrine (Bible) can be trusted throughout all generations and transcends all false doctrines and as **Jude states it " I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Why Jude? verse 4 **" For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." (NKJV)

The NAS staes it more precisely, which is verse 3: "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which **was once for all handed down to the saints. **

As the church in Rome feared, which was some would distort and misuse and of course that was realized, but this is true in all ages of human history from the OT to the present.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Police42,

I think you have to take this a but further out if the real issue is to make itself known. It really was not the ‘…only one reliable source of doctrine (Bible)…’ but, who does the interpretating. If your statement was valid as it stands - there there would not be thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming to interpret Scripture correctly, yet all disagreeing with one another’s interpretation.

And, if as you say that, ‘Doctrine is what always causes splits…’ then doing without doctrine must be the answer for an ‘unsplit’ Christianity. Yet it is these doctrinal matters - that are solidly biblical - that are causing the problems. For example, here are just three issues:

Baptism. Some Protestant groups claim it is required, while others say it is optional and only symbolic, others make no effort in any direction to either provide or discourage its use.

John 3:3,5 - “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 3:22 - “After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized”…

John 4:1 - “When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John,”

Acts 8:36-37 – “And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Acts 10:47 - "Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people…?”

There really are many more - in fact, here is the link: scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html - and there are many other biblical topics you may be interested in.

So if the issue is, ‘doctrine causes division’ just look at the doctrine that Christ preached to the Jewish leaders. Yes, indeed there was division and it was Christ who provided the New Covenant through His actions and words.

Seriously, the heart of the matter is your reliance on ‘Sola Scriptura’ - and it totally ignores the fact that not every thing was written down like a court transcript. For example, from the same source:

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

And we haven’t even scratched the surface on this.

God bless

I agree to a small extent, but the reading and understanding of what the Scriptures said only solidified the belief that indulgences were not biblical. Again, the reformation did not occur because of a few rebellious men, but by the opening of scripture to the audience for which God intended - mainly the lay people.

Doctrine is what always causes splits, but only one reliable source of doctrine (Bible) can be trusted throughout all generations and transcends all false doctrines and as **Jude states it " I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Why Jude? verse 4 **" For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." (NKJV)

The NAS staes it more precisely, which is verse 3: "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which **was once for all handed down to the saints. **

As the church in Rome feared, which was some would distort and misuse and of course that was realized, but this is true in all ages of human history from the OT to the present.

 

[IanGE]

Hi, IanGE,

You are probably right - it is not a conincidence. But, what is the relationship you want to point out? A link would be helpful.

God bless

I don’t KNOW! But something triggered this Catholic priest into open rebellion. Certainly simony, and the massive corruption in the church at the time. I read that the fifth Lateran was called to validate proclamations by recent dodgy popes, ie the Borgias and the two concurrent popes in Rome and Avignon. Elevating dogma and doctrine to the same weight as the Word of God in order to justify bad popes was a bridge too far.

 

[IanGE]

Hi, Police42,

I think you have to take this a but further out if the real issue is to make itself known. It really was not the ‘…only one reliable source of doctrine (Bible)…’ but, who does the interpretating. If your statement was valid as it stands - there there would not be thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming to interpret Scripture correctly, yet all disagreeing with one another’s interpretation.

**The Holy Spirit was behind the writing of all Scripture. When one is baptised in the Spirit, HE interprets. Dutch H shared that when he was given the gift of tongues It also include a new understanding of Scripture. Most Charismatics (if not all) will testify to that. For me, the Bible was just another book on my shelf, rarely oped - if ever. Once I was Born Again every word in the Bible, OT and NT, became the most beautiful ever!
BTW, During the Roman persecution, a bunch of Roman thugs gathered outside a Christian bishop’s house. “We’ve come to burn your holy books: throw them out or we’ll burn the house down with you and your family in it.” The Bishop threw the books out, saying, “in your hands they are merely books: in OUR hands they become Holy|” **

And, if as you say that, ‘Doctrine is what always causes splits…’ then doing without doctrine must be the answer for an ‘unsplit’ Christianity. Yet it is these doctrinal matters - that are solidly biblical - that are causing the problems. For example, here are just three issues:

Baptism. Some Protestant groups claim it is required, while others say it is optional and only symbolic, others make no effort in any direction to either provide or discourage its use.

John 3:3,5 - “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 3:22 - “After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized”…

John 4:1 - “When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John,”

Acts 8:36-37 – “And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

It seems that baptism is conditional upon BELIEF in Jesus!
Acts 10:47 - "Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people…?”
Please Note: they were already baptised in the Spirit!

There really are many more - in fact, here is the link: scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html - and there are many other biblical topics you may be interested in.

So if the issue is, ‘doctrine causes division’ just look at the doctrine that Christ preached to the Jewish leaders. Yes, indeed there was division and it was Christ who provided the New Covenant through His actions and words.

Seriously, the heart of the matter is your reliance on ‘Sola Scriptura’ - and it totally ignores the fact that not every thing was written down like a court transcript. For example, from the same source:

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

John 21:25 actually reads: “Jesus DID many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
Are you telling me that doctrine covers the unspoken, unrecorded words and deeds of Jesus? The Holy Spirit has given us more than enough to argue about - unless we are Born Again: then you will find unity and love. Yes, mild disagreement, too, then we agree to pray together for the Lord to give us the true answer. He usually does.

And we haven’t even scratched the surface on this.

God bless

You mention THREE issues and yet stuck with the very minor issue of baptism: I don’t know ANY Christian church that doesn’t baptise; however, many, if not most, believe in adult baptism only. As your previous quote about Philip and the eunuch. The eunuch had to declare HIMSELF that he believed in Jesus before Philip would baptise him.

There are many doctrines NOT in scripture, but no doubt traceable via twisted human logic. There are some notable omissions: I pray for the day when Mark 16: 17 & 18 are elevated from the simple words of Jesus into Church doctrine. John’s warning at the end of his Revelation/Apocalypse, regarding adding words or taking words away are terrifying.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, IanGE,

Just a quick note - I want to respond to your post, but I’m late for work… I’ll catch you just a wee bit later.

God bless

You mention THREE issues and yet stuck with the very minor issue of baptism: I don’t know ANY Christian church that doesn’t baptise; however, many, if not most, believe in adult baptism only. As your previous quote about Philip and the eunuch. The eunuch had to declare HIMSELF that he believed in Jesus before Philip would baptise him.

There are many doctrines NOT in scripture, but no doubt traceable via twisted human logic. There are some notable omissions: I pray for the day when Mark 16: 17 & 18 are elevated from the simple words of Jesus into Church doctrine. John’s warning at the end of his Revelation/Apocalypse, regarding adding words or taking words away are terrifying.

 

[mac1234567]

go to www.gotquestions.org for answers to questions!!!

 

[KathleenGee]

LanGE…

but the issue of the particular popes, simony, etc., was not a reflection of the Church but on the individuals who failed in their faith.

The reaction by Luther and then Calvin and others was their own failure of being in Church and built up with the faith and spiritual writings of the saints who lived before them who affirmed God’s saving grace and love, to instead chose their own take using personal interpretation.

The alone-ness is not what it means being ‘in Church’, a gathering of people.

Both movements…certain popes and practices and individual men, ignoring spiritual teachings available in the Church to reaffirm grace and God’s love to break faith assuming the apostolic teachings were not handed down.

Subsequently, what we witness are the failure of men…not the Church itself.

St. Peter speaks in his 2nd epistle to hold on to the teachings given us by the Apostles, the only chosen witnesses to the Lord who endured with Him to the end. Other writings in the Epistles exhort us to hold on to the teachings given us by them. And this is possible and evident through the work of the Holy Spirit, not man’s interpretations.

If we break from the apostles, we are breaking from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ. He did not pass out Bibles.

The Catholic Tradition is based on the totality of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, not deduced to text form. Tradition is that understanding of faith by the Apostles that we utilize in understanding the perspective Scripture is intended to bring us: one-ness, sanctity, universality with all mankind, and that handed to us by the Apostles.

If you reduce faith in Christ into text, you are reducing Him to abstraction. The Eucharist is no longer concrete…and it is so easy for that then to follow…look at the secularists who came from Christian families who no longer believe and think the Resurrection of Christ an abstract…something akin to Islam that believes the crucifixion never came.

Catholicism is concrete and deals with concrete reality of Jesus Christ, non-arbitrary.

 

[IanGE]

LanGE…

but the issue of the particular popes, simony, etc., was not a reflection of the Church but on the individuals who failed in their faith.
Regrettably, those individuals additions to doctrine and dogma deny credibility. The fifth Lateran met to try and justify Papal failures And itself failed.

The reaction by Luther and then Calvin and others was their own failure of being in Church and built up with the faith and spiritual writings of the saints who lived before them who affirmed God’s saving grace and love, to instead chose their own take using personal interpretation.
**Could it not be said that that Luther, Calvin and Hus were themselves interpreting by the Holy Spirit? Before I was Born Again I was brainwashed into demonising Luther; after I was born again I had to read Luther’s 95 theses at University - and I agreed with EVERY ONE! Luther himself (a Catholic priest) wrote: “If the church will not act with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit will act with laity”. This was proved in the last century (and now) when the Holy Spirit was poured out MASSIVELY on mostly laity of ALL faiths, finally the Roman Catholics in the 1960s, but still treated with curious suspicion as though the Holy Spirit is here to knock the Pope off his perch. This is NOT NOT NOT true: the Holy Spirit is crying out for the leaders of the Church (and not only Catholic) to work WITH Him, reject dodgy doctrine and dogma and TRUST the Word of God. **

The alone-ness is not what it means being ‘in Church’, a gathering of people.

Both movements…certain popes and practices and individual men, ignoring spiritual teachings available in the Church to reaffirm grace and God’s love to break faith assuming the apostolic teachings were not handed down.

Subsequently, what we witness are the failure of men…not the Church itself.

St. Peter speaks in his 2nd epistle to hold on to the teachings given us by the Apostles, the only chosen witnesses to the Lord who endured with Him to the end. Other writings in the Epistles exhort us to hold on to the teachings given us by them. And this is possible and evident through the work of the Holy Spirit, not man’s interpretations.

If we break from the apostles, we are breaking from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ. He did not pass out Bibles.
Have you not played “chinese whispers”? Start with a word and pass it on in a circle. By the time it has returned to the originator it has radically changed! Before there was a written language, stories passed down by oral tradition were word perfect because the people had trained themselves. But the written word was more reliable (unless scribes made errors or deliberate mistakes: “O WOE to you scribes and Pharisees” thunders Jesus). Jesus did not pass out Bibles but the Holy Spirit ensured and inspired disciples to set down His words and deeds in writing. When a person’s indwelling Holy Spirit is renewed, the Bible (OT and NT) is no longer dead text but LIFE!

The Catholic Tradition is based on the totality of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, not deduced to text form. Tradition is that understanding of faith by the Apostles that we utilize in understanding the perspective Scripture is intended to bring us: one-ness, sanctity, universality with all mankind, and that handed to us by the Apostles.

If you reduce faith in Christ into text, you are reducing Him to abstraction. The Eucharist is no longer concrete…and it is so easy for that then to follow…look at the secularists who came from Christian families who no longer believe and think the Resurrection of Christ an abstract…something akin to Islam that believes the crucifixion never came.

Catholicism is concrete and deals with concrete reality of Jesus Christ, non-arbitrary.

That’s the point: God gave people free will and we who are Born Again KNOW that Jesus and the Holy Spirit will not over-ride anyone’s free will. Jesus wants people to come to Him of their FREE WILL, not whipped (non-arbitrarily) or frightened into turning to Him by FEAR. Evangelists, led by the Holy Spirit, draw people in with Love. And the duty of the Evangelist is to broadcast the Good News of Jesus, not just with preached words but radiating good news from within himself like a broadcast aerial. Conversion is the job of the Holy Spirit.

 

[KathleenGee]

If you remove doctrines, dogmas, the Pope, the priests, you are removing the foundation of the Church that Christ set up at the Last Supper…you are removing the Memorial,…the Mass. You are reducing the Church to an invisible, abstract model where there are all sorts of disagreements and adversarial contesting among each other and more so against Catholics. That is what Protesantism is: Protest the Church.

Not only that but to find fault with having doctrines, is again reducing faith to individual…under no authority but self. And true authority always comes from higher authorities down to its citizens/believers.

Sacred Scriptures came alive to me when I was in college. I visited some Protestant charismatic groups and witnessed speaking in tongues.

But for me, there is no one to interpret beyond that what was happening, such as the prophecies at the tent meetings. Where was the guidance and spiritual direction? And these movements in time led Catholics out of the Church into small sects centered on personal interpretation of their own lives and daily living.

What they lost was the life of being in Church. And never coming to maturity to understand what the Mass is and what it does and what it brings us into.

Doctrines explain the truth of Who Christ is. And without them we can end up with fuzzy ideas about the Lord that lead us into error and isolation.

Everything the Catholic Church teaches brings us into the fullness of Jesus Christ…and not just in our minds, but through our entire beings.

Protestantism focuses on the Gospel. That is what Martin Luther wanted to place his focus, and he gave higher attention to the individual preacher at the gospel than the Catholic Church has done. Later, he sadly admitted he saw less witness of the Gospel by his followers, than the Catholics who did. If anything Vatican II changes reflect some of the sentiments of Luther but also criticisms of false reforms and priests ending up being personality figures rather than helping the congregation focus on the reality of what happens at Mass.

The universal Church vs evangelism/gospel…connects us to salvation history and the faith walk beginning with Abraham.

Every Sunday at Mass, and daily Mass for that matter, we are leaving this world and everything of it and its works with the reality that all of it will pass away…to enter into sacred space and the eternal moment in the living presence of God Himself.

If God could feed the Jews in the desert manna from heaven, most certainly Christ is fully capable of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity be as He said: ‘This is My Body, This is my Blood’.

We enter Mass, we again give witness to the early faith of the Jews reliving the experience of the ancient Jews in the Old Testament, we attend as did the beginning Christians…living in the eternal moment as we are now…the ancient letters of the apostles and Paul…we listen to the Gospel of Jesus in the form of the Risen and Glorified Lord every Sunday.

Did you know that ordinary Sunday is the greatest feast day we celebrate, not Christmas or Easter? Did you know that Sunday is indeed called Resurrection Sunday where we encounter the Risen Lord with the same power of triumph and glory as was witnessed by Mary Magdalene and the apostles on Resurrection Sunday 2000 years ago?

And in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we see fulfilled the Perfect and Perpetual Sacrifice prophesized by Melchizedek who brought gifts of ordinary bread and wine…not animal sacrifice or gold or silver…to the altar through our intercessor the priest, chosen by Christ, consecrated in truth and spirit, the bishop laying hands on the priest at ordination the same Holy Spirit passed down for all these times…

We receive the Lord totally and fully and physically. We cannot reduce the Word of God into abstract text with no authority, no doctrine to affirm and bind the truth of Jesus.

We have the Lord present and visible on our altars, and He remains with us as He promised in the tabernacle, and verified by the lit sanctuary light.

Christ chose His apostles. He chose Peter as head. And this apostolic succession has never been broken nor our tradition of faith in how we understand the Word Made Flesh.

Catholics do not broadcast their faith. And virtue tends to hide itself. In regards to dogmas…they mostly pertain to Mary…and summarize the 2000 year old study of spirituality and faith lived out, prior to her by the saints.

Our Masses focus on the reality of Christ Among Us, made present to us by His representative the priest. It is Christ of Whom we focus. It is Christ Himself Who is the Word Made Flesh.

And thus the Angel Gabriel who pointed out to Abraham the ram caught in the bush to be sacrificed…was akin to a mature and grown and virile beast, who was once a lamb.

Christ chose His time He wish to come into the world. And it was during the Constellation of Aries – the Ram…the point being He was not just coming for the Jews, but to the poor and downtrodden, He was coming to bring His kingdom for humanity and all of history.

At the Mass and in the universal Church, we do not just focus on the Gospel and Bible alone. Instead we are entering into eternal place, facing the altar of the Heavenly Father in heaven. God created space and time. He helps us let go of all our worries and troubles. And when Mass is done, we are eager to go out and live the Gospel as servants, and not on our own momentum or works or understandings, but through the supernatural presence of Christ within and among us as Church, in communion with the saints who have gone to the Lord before us, all endeared in our Blessed Mother, our companion in this life and our greatest advocate at our last dying moments.

 

[KathleenGee]

I just saw over the weekend the video, ‘I love Jesus but hate religion’…this goes along with the Marxists and secular atheists who said religion has caused more wars in the world, etc etc etc.

We all agree about the point of phariseism…but the rest of the perspective of this young man…the cathedrals that don’t feed the poor, etc etc etc…sounds like another anti-catholic spin…even though the young man says he does not intend it that way.

How we know charity in the world today actually comes from the Catholic tradition of charity. Our history is immense in this area and your public universities, basic form of law, aspects of the scientific method and great humanitarian work done by the monasteries prior to the Reformation, provided support and education to those populations who lived around them. Likewise we have values in our economic system that are given us by Catholic, celibate scholars in past times. I could go on and on.

The Catholic Church is the small seed at the center of Western Civilization…and ‘The New Yorker,’, January 3, 2011 has a great article on the Vatican Library.

The Vatican Library testifies so well how the Risen Lord draws all men to Himself. Christ is victor over sin and death. But how we understand this is to grow in Christ, give Him our all, a daily work, and He transforms us and helps us be better servants and stewards of the life He has given us.

We are seeing alot of things corrected since Vatican II, we are witnessing lay Catholic evangelists coming forward here in America to teach the truth of our faith, that is so often times is misrepresented through forms that tend to pass down with each generation.

So we can look forward to a new spring time of Catholic evangelization in this country and abroad, no matter how hard things seem right now.

We are witnessing people coming into our RCIA programs, increase in vocations, and universities preparing our lay evangelists in spite of the scandals. What is rotten on the tree Christ cuts down, but He also plants new trees that will bear good fruit.

It is Jesus Christ Who is the Shepherd of our Church, Jesus Christ is the life of our Church, it is He Who reforms it and keeps us one through the Holy Spirit. One will study our faith and see it is not about us and our works, but that of Jesus Himself Who is teaching us and leading us and forming us in Him.

 

[JonNC]

Protestantism focuses on the Gospel. That is what Martin Luther wanted to place his focus, and he gave higher attention to the individual preacher at the gospel than the Catholic Church has done. Later, he sadly admitted he saw less witness of the Gospel by his followers, than the Catholics who did. If anything Vatican II changes reflect some of the sentiments of Luther but also criticisms of false reforms and priests ending up being personality figures rather than helping the congregation focus on the reality of what happens at Mass.
The universal Church vs evangelism/gospel…connects us to salvation history and the faith walk beginning with Abraham.

I think, Kathleen, you underestimate Luther’s dedication to the Sacrament, but I might be reading you wrong. The confessions indicate the Church as being the congregation of saints where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, IanGE,

Sorry it took me a while to get back with you - hopefully, this post will make up for previous oversights and, I will try to steer clear of any very minor issues. This took a little longer then I thought … this is Part 1 of 2

As best as I can tell - EVERY Protestant Church rejects the idea that Peter was the leader of the Apostles and the Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, and, that the current successor of Peter is Pope Benedict XVI. So, let’s take this big item and work with it from Scripture. Here are a baker’s dozen references as to why the Catholic Church teaches this:

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

• and, if you want more, just go to this link: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

But, don’t stop there! As you know, St John advises us that Scripture does not tell us all that Jesus said and did. So we need to look at additional sources that go beyond the Apostolic Age which ended in about 100AD. At this point we enter the time of the Early Church Fathers (ECF).

If there was ever a time when there was one major crisis after another in the young Church - this is it. Considering all of the disargeements - arguing about who was in charge would have surely come up. If your position was valid - then this young Church now under serious persecution by the Roman Empire - would have disitegrated, or splintered in to the thousands of sects we see in Protestantism Let’s take a look at some of the ECF’s writings. In Part 2 I hope to address this…

Continued…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, IanGE,

Here is Part 2 of 2

“Peter…coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, ‘Ye must bear witness at Rome,’ deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing…” Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

“Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world’s advantages to attract men to him?” Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).

“But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city, [Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon [Magus].” John Cassian, Institutes, X (ante A.D. 435).

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

So, here is the issue - there is an unbroken line that stretches from Christ to Peter to Benedict XVI. No Protestant group makes such a claim - and with good reason - no such line exists. This is something that can be dismisse.

God bless
IanGE;9782401:

You mention THREE issues and yet stuck with the very minor issue of baptism: I don’t know ANY Christian church that doesn’t baptise; however, many, if not most, believe in adult baptism only. As your previous quote about Philip and the eunuch. The eunuch had to declare HIMSELF that he believed in Jesus before Philip would baptise him.

There are many doctrines NOT in scripture, but no doubt traceable via twisted human logic. There are some notable omissions: I pray for the day when Mark 16: 17 & 18 are elevated from the simple words of Jesus into Church doctrine. John’s warning at the end of his Revelation/Apocalypse, regarding adding words or taking words away are terrifying.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I really do not think there was any underestimation of Luther’s dedication - the issue was, at least in this case, that there were 7 Sacraments when Luther was ordained - and in a few short years he decided that this was too many.

As I understand it, Protestants essentially deny the very idea of anything being a sign that itself conveys the Grace of God - if received properly. I think Luther may have gone along with that idea - but, there are few Protestant groups now in that category.

But, tell me - when Luther was nailing his 95 Theses to the church door - do you think he meant to start the Protestat revolt?

God bless

I think, Kathleen, you underestimate Luther’s dedication to the Sacrament, but I might be reading you wrong. The confessions indicate the Church as being the congregation of saints where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Jon…

No,you are right, I cannot under estimate Luther’s stand on the sacraments…but he did indeed remove the Church as the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, breaking with apostolic tradition deriving from the witness of the 12 apostles…He comes across as unaware of what was happening outside his own time…3 bad popes…regarding authentic life of the Church that was happening elsewhere.

I note that Italy, Spain, Ireland, Poland, France and various others at that time remained Catholic, while Germany, England and the Scandinavian countries became Protestant. There was this political, nationalistic movement intertwined as well.

But certainly Luther was seeking a new vitality in the liturgy as well as reform.

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;9791639]Hi, JonNC,

I really do not think there was any underestimation of Luther’s dedication - the issue was, at least in this case, that there were 7 Sacraments when Luther was ordained - and in a few short years he decided that this was too many.
Hi Tom,
It simply has to do with the definition of sacrament, not in the value of sacred acts or ordinances. The Lutheran Confessions goes into this issue at length, and it, in the final analysis, wouldn’t be a Church dividing issue, AFAIK.
The Lutheran definition of sacrament is as follows:
*Commanded by Christ;
*A promise of grace, and;
*Accompanied by an earthly element
Lutherans are split on whether or not Confession/Holy Absolution is on its own a sacrament or a part and extension of Baptism. Either way, it is a means of grace established by Christ Himself.
The practices of marriage, ordination, confirmation, even annointing are continued in the Lutheran Church.

As I understand it, Protestants essentially deny the very idea of anything being a sign that itself conveys the Grace of God - if received properly. I think Luther may have gone along with that idea - but, there are few Protestant groups now in that category.

Can’t speak for other communions as they are…other communions. You’d have to ask them about it, but Lutherans certainly believe that the sacraments are means of grace.

But, tell me - when Luther was nailing his 95 Theses to the church door - do you think he meant to start the Protestat revolt?

That wouldn’t be my take, but I wouldn’t deny that his thiking regarding things like justification were already developing.

God bless

And His blessing also with you, Tom

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=KathleenGee;9792861]Hi Jon…

No,you are right, I cannot under estimate Luther’s stand on the sacraments…but he did indeed remove the Church as the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, breaking with apostolic tradition deriving from the witness of the 12 apostles…He comes across as unaware of what was happening outside his own time…3 bad popes…regarding authentic life of the Church that was happening elsewhere.

While Luther may have held Tradition in a less high regard than the Lutheran Confessions do, here too I think Luther believed in the importance of the Church in this regard. SS, after all is a practice of the (Lutheran) Church, not the laity.

I note that Italy, Spain, Ireland, Poland, France and various others at that time remained Catholic, while Germany, England and the Scandinavian countries became Protestant. There was this political, nationalistic movement intertwined as well.

Oh, clearly.

But certainly Luther was seeking a new vitality in the liturgy as well as reform.

One can only speculate where things would have gone had Luther and Rome been more open to dialogue.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

This is a very similar to the Cathoic definition of a Sacrament.

Here is a link you may find of interest: americancatholic.org/features/special/default.aspx?id=29

God bless

While Luther may have held Tradition in a less high regard than the Lutheran Confessions do, here too I think Luther believed in the importance of the Church in this regard. SS, after all is a practice of the (Lutheran) Church, not the laity.

Oh, clearly.

One can only speculate where things would have gone had Luther and Rome been more open to dialogue.

Jon