Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LDemontfort
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomyris said:
Peter’s dead and in the grave. So you’re telling me the Catholic Church is, too?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why you would make such a statement. From what I’ve read of your posts, I suspect you understand the Catholic position regarding succession, particularly that of the bishopric in Rome - the Chair of St. Peter, and the succession of popes since him.
It is obvious that is what he means.

OTOH, if you were right, then Christ’s Church Militant would be in big trouble.

Fortunately, St. Peter lives in Christ in the Church Triumphant, and constantly prays with all the saints for His Church.

Jon
 
guanophore said:
To be fair, there was no difference until 1054, at which point the EO decided that that Latins had departed from the Catholic faith passed down from the Apostles. They used the term “orthodoxy” to distinguish the faith from the Latin “Catholic”, but the EO consider themselves to be the One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which Rome has departed.
Click to expand...
Let’s test that.
To elaborate on the above link,

Bp John speaks clearly on his history. Historically he speaks from a time of division by his Church from the Catholic Church, then came the time of reconcilliation to Rome (i.e. union with Chair of Peter, pope of Rome) . In his expalantion, notice he shows the error of the Eastern mind set.

I would make additional points.
  • To return to unity with the chair of Peter, means they were united in the beginning but left.
  • Ancient Christians knew Jesus established His Church with Peter as the head. The farther one gets away from history the more disconnected they become from truth, and the more suseptible they become to charlitans.
g:
They used the term “orthodoxy” to distinguish the faith from the Latin “Catholic”, but the EO consider themselves to be the One, Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which Rome has departed.
Click to expand...
On the contrary the East was up to their eyeballs in heresy. AND they were in disagreement with each other AND they were starting to pull away from the chair of Peter. The term “orthodoxy” for them was to differentiate Eastern Churches who were in heresy from those who weren’t. And one can’t ignore the obvious either in all of this. Because of their division from Rome and from each other,. Islam who was united, took advantage of Eastern divisions, and came north like a hot knife through butter. As a result Christianity today in the East is on life support. 800+ years ago, here’s one of those statements history recorded, that will go down in history as a gallactically stupid statement…

“Rather the turban of the Sultan that the tiara of the Pope”
newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

My guess, those who believed that, never heard the addage, “be careful what you ask for it may come true.”

Here’s some additional history… all properly documented.

I’ll give you a 2fer.

Then Card Ratzinger, talked about 1st among equals and the pentarchy, both ideas never accepted by a Roman Pontiff

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
  1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

If you’ll notice Bp John said the same thing. melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

And don’t forget the seperated Churches that reunited with the pope.

Note also:

The apostles got in an argument in the upper room over primacy of authority among them, [Lk 22:24…] right after Jesus establuished the Eucharist. And is there any confusion who Jesus picked as greatest? Nope! It was Peter
 
Tomyris said:
Peter’s dead and in the grave. So you’re telling me the Catholic Church is, too?
Click to expand...
Peter ruled that,
‘His office let another take.’ [Acts 1:20]

Peter said that of Judas office. How much more is Peter’s office to be filled when Peter dies?
 
steve_b said:
Peter ruled that,
‘His office let another take.’ [Acts 1:20]

Peter said that of Judas office. How much more is Peter’s office to be filled when Peter dies?
Click to expand...
I’m not going to hijack the thread…😃
 
Tomyris said:
Peter’s dead and in the grave. So you’re telling me the Catholic Church is, too?
Click to expand...
Yes…:rolleyes:

I am sure that is what the bishops believed too at the Council of Calcedon in 451.

“In the second Session … the Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople was read; then some of the Epistles of St. Cyril; lastly, St. Leo’s Tome … At length the Bishops cried out, This is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles: we all believe thus; the orthodox believe thus; anathema to him who does not believe thus. Peter has spoken through Leo; the Apostles taught thus …”
 
guanophore said:
Yes…:rolleyes:

I am sure that is what the bishops believed too at the Council of Calcedon in 451.

“In the second Session … the Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople was read; then some of the Epistles of St. Cyril; lastly, St. Leo’s Tome … At length the Bishops cried out, This is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles: we all believe thus; the orthodox believe thus; anathema to him who does not believe thus. Peter has spoken through Leo; the Apostles taught thus …”
Click to expand...
What exactly is this saying? Does Peter have some freaky supernatural powers? What is he doing speaking? Doesn’t he have something better to do, like ruminate on elbows or something? Did they think he was still in charge of the church (as if he ever was, but that is for another time and place - remember I reject the idea of bishops and apostolic succession and all that)? Was Leo channeling his spirit? Why wasn’t it ‘Christ has spoken’? Why Peter, not God or Christ? Do Catholics believe that at times Peter comes down and possesses the body of a pope so he can speak? Doesn’t this strike you as creepy?
 
Tomyris said:
What exactly is this saying? Does Peter have some freaky supernatural powers? What is he doing speaking? Doesn’t he have something better to do, like ruminate on elbows or something? Did they think he was still in charge of the church (as if he ever was, but that is for another time and place - remember I reject the idea of bishops and apostolic succession and all that)? Was Leo channeling his spirit? Why wasn’t it ‘Christ has spoken’? Why Peter, not God or Christ? Do Catholics believe that at times Peter comes down and possesses the body of a pope so he can speak? Doesn’t this strike you as creepy?
Click to expand...
Being crass does not help your argument and showing contempt for the Catholic Church is against forum rules.

Why Peter? Because it is from Peter’s chair that they spoke.
 
Tomyris said:
Code: 
What exactly is this saying?  Does Peter have some freaky supernatural powers?
Click to expand...
What is freaky about supernatural power?

Do you find this account “freaky”?

6 But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” 7 And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. 8 And leaping up he stood and walked and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. Acts 3:6–9
Tomyris said:
What is he doing speaking? Doesn’t he have something better to do, like ruminate on elbows or something?
Click to expand...
Defending orthodoxy, apparently, and no, he will not be re-united with his physical body until the end of days.
Tomyris said:
Did they think he was still in charge of the church (as if he ever was, but that is for another time and place - remember I reject the idea of bishops and apostolic succession and all that)?
Click to expand...
If I was ever unaware, or forgot your position, the last couple of posts have driven the point home. The Church understood that the Petrine gifts were meant for the Church, and that the responsibility to feed and care for the flock was transferred to Peter’s successor, the bishop of Rome.
Tomyris said:
Was Leo channeling his spirit? Why wasn’t it ‘Christ has spoken’? Why Peter, not God or Christ?
Click to expand...
It was to Peter that Christ gave the charge to feed and care for the flock. No one is suggesting that he would carry on that duty without being moved by the Holy Spirit.
Tomyris said:
Do Catholics believe that at times Peter comes down and possesses the body of a pope so he can speak? Doesn’t this strike you as creepy?
Click to expand...
I find your attitude rather creepy.
 
Tomyris said:
What exactly is this saying? Does Peter have some freaky supernatural powers?

As I recall, Peter cured the sick, raised someone…where do you think his powers came from?

Would you call the ability to cure the sick that came from Jesus freaky?
What is he doing speaking? Doesn’t he have something better to do, like ruminate on elbows or something?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SteveVH said:
Being crass does not help your argument and showing contempt for the Catholic Church is against forum rules.

Why Peter? Because it is from Peter’s chair that they spoke.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Kind of like the chair of Moses.

Moses’ chair probably got packed away millenia before Christ came and told his disciples to do and observe what their leaders proclaimed…even though Moses was dead and buried.
 
guanophore said:
None of what you have written here contradicts history from the other viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Actually there are contradictions. Your link shows nothing of the fact
  • The patriarchal system was developed by the East to dilute the authority of the pope
  • 1st among equals was the Eastern attempt to put a phrase with the attitude of diluting the authority of the papacy
I read the link you provided. Did you read the links I provided?

I previously posted
Then Card Ratzinger, talked about 1st among equals and the pentarchy, both ideas never accepted by a Roman Pontiff

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
  1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

If you’ll notice Bp John said the same thing. melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
Click to expand...
 
clem456 said:
🤷

Who was it that Christ breathed on? Isn’t Scripture a source for this?
Click to expand...
While Tomi is perfectly capable of defending her position herself, I’ll just say that it’s quite a leap to go from saying one doesn’t believe in apostolic succession to “therefore there is no truth in Scripture”.

I daresay that every single Christian who denies apostolic succession still professes that Scripture is true.
 
874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:
Click to expand...
Again we have essentially the glossing over of the incarnation. The apostles themselves, although not technically successors to Christ who is God/man, are given mission by him, to succeed him in building the kingdom (he did die a real death). They themselves are not the source of their own mission. To deny apostolic succession is to deny that Christ did what the Scriptures say he did.

Christ actually lived. He gave real people a mission in the establishment of a real community. That real community still exists today. The current bishops are no less commissioned by Christ than were the first twelve.

Where do you get that head-shaking graphic, I need one of those right here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top