Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[clem456]

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.

My bad, I should have said
“You deny the truth of scripture in this matter?”

 

[PRmerger]

My bad, I should have said
“You deny the truth of scripture in this matter?”

Yes. I think that would have been better. And it would have been helpful to offer the Scripture verses which support apostolic succession.

 

[clem456]

In addition to the witness of Scripture is the life a Person who was born to a human mother, lived and taught, started a real body, then died, then rose from the dead, and walked the earth before ascending to his Father.

Did he really live, or did he not? Maybe he is Jesus “the great concept”.
Did he start an organized group of apostles, or did he not?
If he did live, and start an actual Church, why did he not stay here to rule the world from a worldly throne?
If he did not stay to exercise personally his gift for teaching and leading, where is it?
Or did it die with him?
Or is his mission merely a vague “exhortation” with no physical reality?

Why does gnosticism never seem to die?

 

[steve_b]

Yes. I think that would have been better. And it would have been helpful to offer the Scripture verses which support apostolic succession.

That had already been quoted earlier to Tomyris.

Acts 1:20

not to mention Apostolic Succession

 

[spina1953]

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

Hi Steve B; I think you are correct with your post.

 

[guanophore]

Would you call the ability to cure the sick that came from Jesus freaky?

Now THATS freaky! Christians that believe the supernatural is strange?

 Why do you think this? Did Leo say something to call the spirit of Peter to talk?

Suspicion of necromancy, perhaps?

This is one of the most serious consequences of the loss of the doctrine of the communion of saints.

I also love it that the ancient Pagans accused Christians of “drowning their babies and eating their God”.

 

[guanophore]

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

The patriarchal system in the East developed exactly like that in the West. In fact, the line of Bishops that came from Peter when he was in Antioch is older than the one in Rome. There were five patriarchies very early in the Church, but there was unity among them.

The issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome was never an issue in the early centuries of the Church. The problems began to develop with the conflation of secular power with spiritual. When the seat of the Roman Empire was moved to Byzantium, and Rome was overrun, there was no structure or authority left to organize and preside over civil affairs. The Emperor gave the secular title “Pontiff” to the Bishop of Rome and left him in charge of the civil affairs.

This conflation of powers and subsequent involvement in political and worldly affairs drove a continued wedge between East and West, and resulted in the involvement of Bishops, Cardinals and all levels of Church officials in political and economic affairs. In the middle ages, the office of the Papacy was treated like a political office more than a spiritual one.

All I am saying is that, from the Eastern point of view, it appears that Latins have added doctrines that were not in the original deposit of faith, and the Pope has self proclaimed position and power for himself that was also not part of the original deposit of faith. These are issues that need to be addressed for unity to be achieved. The Eastern Churches that did not re-unite with the successor of Peter when some did so claimed that those bishops that did so did not have the authority to speak for them.

I read the link you provided. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes and saved some stuff to disk so I won’t have to go looking for it again.

Good stuff.

 

[guanophore]

 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.

The fact that the Roman Pontiff does not accept that he is the idea does not mean the idea had no validity. Similarly, just because the Roman Pontiff proclaims himself supreme ruler does not make it so (from the point of view of the other patriarchs).

It actually seems like everyone is vying for most important, greatest, powerful status, something that Jesus strictly forbade.

I thank God that the popes of the last century have all been very humble men, and have worked hard toward unity with the East. The fact that none of them lord primacy over their brother bishops has helped a great deal toward reconciliation.

 

[JonNC]

The fact that the Roman Pontiff does not accept that he is the idea does not mean the idea had no validity. Similarly, just because the Roman Pontiff proclaims himself supreme ruler does not make it so (from the point of view of the other patriarchs).

It actually seems like everyone is vying for most important, greatest, powerful status, something that Jesus strictly forbade.

I thank God that the popes of the last century have all been very humble men, and have worked hard toward unity with the East. The fact that none of them lord primacy over their brother bishops has helped a great deal toward reconciliation.

It helps with certain non-Orthodox communions, as well.

Jon

 

[JakeTheBaptist]

When the printing press was made the Bible got around. When people were recieving the Bible in their own language they and Martin Luther realized that half of the things the Catholic church is proclaiming is found in the Apocrypha which the majority of Christians didn’t believe and just the fact that the church was entirely corrupt just put it over the line…

 

[JonNC]

When the printing press was made the Bible got around. When people were recieving the Bible in their own language they and Martin Luther realized that half of the things the Catholic church is proclaiming is found in the Apocrypha which the majority of Christians didn’t believe and just the fact that the church was entirely corrupt just put it over the line…

Hi Jake,
Welcome to CAF.
Even as a Lutheran, I recognize a couple of problems with you statement here.

1. What Catholics proclaim is found throughout scripture,and not just in the Aprocrypha. It is an exaggeration to state that half of what they teach is found there.
2. The fact is the vast majority of Christians throughout history have accepted these 7 books as scripture.
3. While there was corruption in the medieval Church, it is an exaggeration to say it was entirely corrupt.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi Jake the Baptist: I also think that you got some of the history incorrect. First the Bible was written in various languages as long as it was translated correctly. Yes, the printing press helped get the bible to many that did not have monies to have one done by hand which was the way it was done till the printing press came along. Still Bibles were very expensive just the same and most people during those times did not know how to read and write… The CC has always taught all of the Scriptures not just revelation.

Also welcome to CAF.

 

[MaryT777]

When the printing press was made the Bible got around. When people were recieving the Bible in their own language they and Martin Luther realized that half of the things the Catholic church is proclaiming is found in the Apocrypha which the majority of Christians didn’t believe and just the fact that the church was entirely corrupt just put it over the line…

Others have addressed your post, just wanted to say
Welcome to the forums!~
Blessings,
Mary.

 

[guanophore]

When the printing press was made the Bible got around. When people were recieving the Bible in their own language they and Martin Luther realized that half of the things the Catholic church is proclaiming is found in the Apocrypha which the majority of Christians didn’t believe and just the fact that the church was entirely corrupt just put it over the line…

LOL, well, Jake the Baptist, welcome to CAF. I had to chortle reading your post. I remember when I sojourned among my Baptist brethren that I was given many such beliefs.

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, and a monk. He had a Ph.D. in biblical studies. It wasn’t a matter of the printing press for him to know the contents.

It is a ridiculous statement to say “half the things teh CC is proclaiming is found in the Apocrypha”. Have you any idea what the Church teaches? I can assure you that nowhere near half of it can be found in those books.

Your statement that “the majority of Christians didn’t believe” may be a reference to the Deterocanonical books? Did you know that every Bible in existence up until the Reformation contained those books?

As far as not believing in the doctrines of the Church, this may well be true. The rapidity with which Christendom fell into heresy in Europe after the Reformation is a testimony to very poor spiritual formation.

And to be sure, there was corruption, as men are always in need of reform. However there has never been any “corruption” found in the Teachings of Christ that are infallibly preserved in the Church.

Over what “line”? Are you saying that people changed the teachings of the Apostles because some of the clerics were not acting in holiness?

 

[Cube2]

My Protestant friend’s main protest with the Catholic Church is us “bowing before statues” and “confessing to a priest”. He doesn’t even know what the Nicene Creed is…

But the bottom line for most Protestants today is: 1) They were raised Protestant 2) Our mass just feels foreign to them. It’s our job as Catholics to try our best to explain why and how we do what we do.

Many informed protestants know why they are referred to as protestants. Its not about bowing to statues or confessing to a priest.
The first protestants, eg Martin Luther cited many issues related to the Catholic doctrines.
The same is today; the Sacred Traditions as a deposit of faith equal to the Bible has brought about contradicting teachings which have been authenticated through Dogmas.

The simplest basis of protesting is justification through faith alone (sola fide)
Christ teaching as outlined in the the Bible is totally different from Catholics teaching on justification.
So, many protestants know the differences between the Catholic teachings and the other Christian teachings.

 

[SteveVH]

The first protestants, eg Martin Luther cited many issues related to the Catholic doctrines. The same is today; the Sacred Traditions as a deposit of faith equal to the Bible has brought about contradicting teachings which have been authenticated through Dogmas.

Can you give us a few examples? Do you know what a “Dogma” is? How can contradicting teachings be authenticated through revealed truth?

The simplest basis of protesting is justification through faith alone (sola fide)

Where is that in the Bible?

Christ teaching as outlined in the the Bible is totally different from Catholics teaching on justification.

According to who?

So, many protestants know the differences between the Catholic teachings and the other Christian teachings.

Well it doesn’t sound to me like you know much of anything about Catholic teaching so what are you basing this on?

 

[steve_b]

The patriarchal system in the East developed exactly like that in the West.

As then Card Ratzinger wrote, (link I provided), the patriarchal system never developed in the West. And no such equalization of sees was ever accepted by a pope.
g:

In fact, the line of Bishops that came from Peter when he was in Antioch is older than the one in Rome. There were five patriarchies very early in the Church, but there was unity among them.

With a closer look.

Re: Antioch

• There is no argument Peter’s see is Rome. When a bishop moves, his see is where he is. Not where he was. If Peter remained in Antioch, then Antioch would be considered Peter’s see for all time. But that’s not how it was…
• Besides, Popes ordain bishops throughout their pontificate. Just look at how many bishops JPII ordained. It does NOT mean those bishops he ordained are automatically successors to him, nor are they the pope. That’s an important point to remember.

Re: Antioch It’s also instructive to look at the ancient ranking of sees

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   Notice the position of Antioch? If Antioch is seen by the Church as the chair of Peter then or now, then where’s the consideration for Antioch in ranking as Peter’s see? It’s not there. Instead it’s behind Alexandria and Rome.
   
   THEN consider the time Constantinople is established in the 4th century. Look at the change of rankings THEN
   
   1. • Rome
      • -]Byzantium/-] becomes -]Constantinople/-] and eventually Istanbul
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      Rome stays #1. Antioch moves to #4. Constantinople moves to 2nd place, ahead of apostolic sees. I say it that way because there’s no solid evidence Byzantium was founded by an apostle. And it also needs to be mentioned, Constantine the emperor, wasn’t baptised till the end of his life. Which means he wasn’t technically a Christian.
      g:
      

      The issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome was never an issue in the early centuries of the Church.

      True. And that doesn’t change
      g:
      

      The problems began to develop with the conflation of secular power with spiritual. When the seat of the Roman Empire was moved to Byzantium, and Rome was overrun, there was no structure or authority left to organize and preside over civil affairs. The Emperor gave the secular title “Pontiff” to the Bishop of Rome and left him in charge of the civil affairs.

      Empires come and go, not the Catholic Church. We need to keep these 2 issues empires and Church seperate. Obviously for accuracy we need to be more specific when distinguishing Church vs State, Pope vs Emperor etc.
      g:
      

      This conflation of powers and subsequent involvement in political and worldly affairs drove a continued wedge between East and West, and resulted in the involvement of Bishops, Cardinals and all levels of Church officials in political and economic affairs. In the middle ages, the office of the Papacy was treated like a political office more than a spiritual one.

      Church authority was already established by Jesus. That’s NOT going to change. Peter had no geographical restrictions to his authority when Jesus gave him the keys, so no East or West restrictions or issues
      g:
      

      All I am saying is that, from the Eastern point of view, it appears that Latins have added doctrines that were not in the original deposit of faith,

      keep reading
      g:
      

      andthe Pope has self proclaimed position and power for himself that was also not part of the original deposit of faith.

      Let’s talk about the original deposit of faith
      
      Here is why the papacy is here, and will always be here.
      
      I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ
      
      II. Primacy of the Roman See
      
      III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power
      
      IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope
      
      V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia
      
      Peter’s office didn’t come from Peter’s executive fiat. It didn’t come from a vote from the apostles. It didn’t come from a vote in council. It came from Jesus.
      g:
      

      The Eastern Churches that did not re-unite with the successor of Peter

      are not Catholics. And are NOT the Catholic Church
      g:
      

      when some did

      They are Catholics and are the Catholic Church

 

[guanophore]

Many informed protestants know why they are referred to as protestants.

increasingly this is not true in the US, where there is a burgeoning “non-denominational” movement whose members claim they are NOT Protestants (not "protesting anything’)

Its not about bowing to statues or confessing to a priest.

For most “Bible Christians” these are essential elements of disagreement.

The first protestants, eg Martin Luther cited many issues related to the Catholic doctrines.

Yes, but modern American Protestants have not read their Luther. If they had, they would never extol him as some kind of saint!

The same is today; the Sacred Traditions as a deposit of faith equal to the Bible has brought about contradicting teachings which have been authenticated through Dogmas.

I don’t think so, Cube2. What brings about contradictions is a refusal to accept scripture as understood through Sacred Tradition. There cannot be any contradicting teachings involving the two, since they come from the same Source.

The Church has always authenticated controversies through Dogmas. This is a response to heresy. This is the source of the Church’s creeds, among other things.

The simplest basis of protesting is justification through faith alone (sola fide)
Christ teaching as outlined in the the Bible is totally different from Catholics teaching on justification.

What does the CC teach about justification?

So, many protestants know the differences between the Catholic teachings and the other Christian teachings.

I am eager to know what you know about the differences.

Do you know where the words “faith alone” appear in the Bible?

 

[guanophore]

As then Card Ratzinger wrote, (link I provided), the patriarchal system never developed in the West.

Perhaps I don’t understand the reference, then, because there are Patriarchs in all the other sees. Bishops consecrate priests, and priest consecrate deacons. The same system is seen in the Eastern Catholic Churches. What is meant by “patriarchal system” must not mean a ministerial heirarchy.

And no such equalization of sees was ever accepted by a pope.

From the Eastern point of view, Steve, this is irrelevant. The Bishops in the East trace their lines back to the Apostles just as we do in the West, and they consider that they have valid bishops and valid holy orders (a fact which the CC does not dispute). The fact that the Bishop of Rome seized to himself supremacy over the whole world does not, from their point of view, make it a valid act. And the fact that their patriarchs may not be accepted by the successor of Peter as equal has no bearing on their practice either. From their point of view, the Latin Church has fallen away from the faith.

Re: Antioch It’s also instructive to look at the ancient ranking of sees

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   Notice the position of Antioch? If Antioch is seen by the Church as the chair of Peter then or now, then where’s the consideration for Antioch in ranking as Peter’s see? It’s not there. Instead it’s behind Alexandria and Rome.
   
   THEN consider the time Constantinople is established in the 4th century. Look at the change of rankings THEN
   
   1. 
      *]Rome
      *]-]Byzantium/-] becomes -]Constantinople/-] and eventually Istanbul
      *]Alexandria
      *]Antioch
      *]Jerusalem
      
      Rome stays #1. Antioch moves to #4. Constantinople moves to 2nd place, ahead of apostolic sees. I say it that way because there’s no solid evidence Byzantium was founded by an apostle.

1. 1. 
      These rankings have as much to do with secular politics as they do with spiritual.
      
      I am at a loss as to why you disregard the historical evidence of the see of Constantinople. It is traced to Andrew by Eusebius in his church history 3,1 quotes Origen as saying Andrew preached in Scythia. The Chronicle of Nestor adds that Andrew preached along the Black Sea and the Dnieper river as far as Kiev, and from there he traveled to Novgorod. Hence, he became a patron saint of Ukraine, Romania and Russia. According to tradition, he founded the See of Byzantium (Constantinople) in AD 38, installing Stachys as bishop. According to Hippolytus of Rome, he preached in Thrace, and his presence in Byzantium is also mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Andrew, written in the 2nd century; Basil of Seleucia also knew of Apostle Andrew’s mission in Thrace, as well as Scythia and Achaia.[9] This diocese would later develop into the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Andrew is recognized as its patron saint.
      
      Now maybe you refuse to accept any of this historical evidence, but that does not mean it does not exist!
      

       And it also needs to be mentioned, Constantine the emperor, wasn't baptised till the end of his life. Which means he wasn't technically a Christian.

      What does that have to do with anything? All of these Apostolic sees were in place centuries before he was born!
      

      True. And that doesn't change

      But it did change. When the Bishop of Rome declared supremacy, there was a drastic change in attitude among non-Latin Catholics. Then the declaration of other dogmas about which the other Patriarchs were not privy or consulted just drove the wedge further. That is where the perception comes from that the Latin Church has departed from the faith.
      

      Empires come and go, not the Catholic Church. We need to keep these 2 issues empires and Church seperate. Obviously for accuracy we need to be more specific when distinguishing Church vs State, Pope vs Emperor etc.

      I agree 100%, but while those empires are coming and going, we see that they have a great influence on the Church. The authority and extent of practical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was severely limited by the transfer of the empire to Constantinople.
      

      Church authority was already established by Jesus. That’s NOT going to change. Peter had no geographical restrictions to his authority when Jesus gave him the keys, so no East or West restrictions or issues

      I agree 100%, but when the Apostles ordained Bishops, they placed them over regions, and gave them Apostolic authority. There is no reason that the Bishops of the other Apostolic Sees should think they had less authority than what was passed down to them. All of them have a ministry in the care and feeding of the flock.

 

[guanophore]

Let's talk about the original deposit of faith

Here is why the papacy is here, and will always be here.

Steve, I had an opportunity when I was reverting to become Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic. And although I have great admiration and have been positively influenced by Eastern theology and practice (the Byzantine parish is closest to my house ) I chose to remain Latin. You don’t need to convince me of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or of the reason Jesus set things up this way. I think, because I am trying to get you to see that there is another point of view, you believe I hold to that view, which I do not. You are preaching to the choir.

Peter's office didn't come from Peter's executive fiat. It didn't come from a vote from the apostles. It didn't come from a vote in council. **It came from Jesus**.

I don’t believe I asserted otherwise.

are not Catholics. And are NOT the Catholic Church

Reunification will be more expedient if we can understand and appreciate the position of our Eastern brethren. As the catechism states, there is little that stands between us. Jumping up and down and thwacking them with papal supremacy is not going to help.