Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[steve_b]

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.

They weren’t “patriarchs” in the beginning. That system developed in the East, to equalize power away from the pope and spread power among 5 heads of the Church. That’s NOT how Jesus set up His Church
g:

From the Eastern point of view, Steve, this is irrelevant.

You’re assuming the "Eastern POV is E Orthodox.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms:

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
g:

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.

From the Eastern POV you’re describing the view of those who divided from the Catholic Church.

Look at Canon 43 again
g:

These rankings have as much to do with secular politics as they do with spiritual.

You’re not recognizing that the time period we’re talking about, the Roman empire was trying to obliterate the Church. The ranking of sees had nothing to do with politics.

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

Just wanted to make sure you weren’t using the “emperor” argument for Constantinople taking 2nd position in ranking.
g:

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.

So you disagree with the history I provided?
g:

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.

Ahh so you are using the “emperor” argument. Making this a political argument?
g:

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.

Each bishop had his own area, There is only one of the Apostles that could exercise authority over the entire Church.

 

[guanophore]

They weren’t “patriarchs” in the beginning.

Well, of course they were. They were all first presbyters (elders). The Bishop was the person around whom the Church was identified, and the leader in every geographical area. Where there was more than one Bishop, the one with the most seniority was the one to which they deferred. In the East they were called “metropolitan” patriarchs.

And all of those patriarchs recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

That system developed in the East, to equalize power away from the pope and spread power among 5 heads of the Church. That's NOT how Jesus set up His Church

Indeed, the intrusion of secular politics and the ego of men have continually contributed to power struggles. Rome would assert authority and jurisdiction, and other sees (esp. Constantinople) would push back, both sides saying “I have more power than you!” Not at all what Jesus wanted. :dts:

You’re assuming the "Eastern POV is E Orthodox.

Yes and that is too broad of a brush. I have spoken with many Byzantine Catholics who have been wounded by the forceful Latinizations in their liturgy and canon law. They are in unity with the Bishop of Rome, but in order to be as such, had to sacrifice elements of their traditional faith that they should not have done.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms:

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

Yes. this is basically a statement of allegiance that Eastern Catholics had to make in order to be reabsorbed.
steve b;12414820:

From the Eastern POV you’re describing the view of those who divided from the Catholic Church.

The responsibility for the division lies equally on both sides. Fortunately, our wise and loving successors of Peter are working hard to mend this wound. They have no problem affirming their brothers as Patriarchs, and have none of this “lording it over” attitude that started and fomented the schism. For this reason, unity is closer to us than it has been for a millenia.

You’re not recognizing that the time period we’re talking about, the Roman empire was trying to obliterate the Church. The ranking of sees had nothing to do with politics.

The ranking of the sees, particularly Constantinople and Rome, has not been free of political encroachment since the time of Constantine!!

Just wanted to make sure you weren’t using the “emperor” argument for Constantinople taking 2nd position in ranking.

It was a major factor.

So you disagree with the history I provided?

No, just playing the Eastern Advocate.

I never understood the Eastern point of view until I came to CAF, and I think it important to pass on this valuable insight.

Ahh so you are

using the “emperor” argument. Making this a political argument? The interference of politics and religion occurred in both East and West, and has almost always been a corruptive influence. That is a discussion outside the scope of this thread.

Each bishop had his own area,

And many of them were quite territorial about it.

 

[steve_b]

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.

I know the pov of non Catholics. Why are YOU constantly trying to convince me of their position?

Bottomline, their belief, namely division from the chair of Peter, was condemned by Jesus. John 17:20-23
g:

I don’t believe I asserted otherwise.

you don’t remember saying the following?

“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.”

I know the pov of non Catholics.
g:

Reunification will be more expedient if we can understand and appreciate the position of our Eastern brethren.

Reunification over the last 1000 years, did happen with MANY churches in the East.
g:

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.

If the wedge between us and the E Orthodox is small, why has it been impossible to remove it for 1000 years?.

 

[joe371]

We don’t believe that the church as whole fell, there was just rampant corruption in parts of it. We believe the church is the body of all believers existing where the sacraments are administered and the word is preached, that church can never fall per Jesus words. We believe we are a part of this church. What unfortunately happened was that many false teachings were brought in and had to be removed.

In the Protestant sphere, who definitively determines what is false and what is not?

 

[joe371]

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.

I always attempt to tell non-Catholics that only God forgives sins as per the catechism of the Catholic Church, and bowing before statues is not a teaching of the Catholic church.

 

[joe371]

From a Lutheran standpoint, our confessions indicate that the expanded (what we say) papal authority is a barrier to reunification.

Among minor things, Lutherans are uncomfortable with the practice of donating money to have a Mass, and the (what we feel) new revelations of events like Fatima strikes us as a bit odd.

Franky, even though we are separated,I would say that it’s much more in God’s will that we build each other up in Christ.

It’s not a new revelation; it’s a private revelation and therefore can be completely ignored as per the catholic Church - right? Mind-boggling miracle witnessed by thousands, and one of the reasons why this doubter began to believe in Jesus again.

 

[guanophore]

 I know the pov of non Catholics. Why are YOU constantly trying to convince me of their position?

Because your posts don’t reflect that you do understand it.

Bottomline, their belief, namely division from the chair of Peter, was condemned by Jesus. John 17:20-23

The EO don’t have a “belief” that they should be separated or estranged from the successor of Peter. On the contrary, they want the successor of Peter to abandon the innovations that have separated them from the One Faith that used to be shared across all the known world.

you don’t remember saying the following?

“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.”

I know the pov of non Catholics.

All this demonstrates it shat I know the point of view of non-Catholics. Your posts seem to indicate that you reject this point of view categorically, and I have not seen anything in your posts that would indicate you can even articulate it.

I am not trying to “convince” you of the other pov, just to raise your awareness.

Reunification over the last 1000 years, did happen with MANY churches in the East.

Your information on this appears to be limited. The circumstances around which many of these occurred, and the sacrifices that needed to be made by those bodies for political and economic reasons were severe. The majority of the EO felt like they had to compromise too much of their identity to come into unity.

If the wedge between us and the E Orthodox is small, why has it been impossible to remove it for 1000 years?.

The major factor is the hubris of men, which, though it only takes a small amount, is a bitter and effective poison. The consequent development of doctrine continues to cause a problem…the more the CC adds to the deposit of faith, the further the wedge is driven.

Both sides believe they have received the Apostolic faith, and cannot depart from it, and yet, each sides understanding of that divine deposit prevent them from relinquishing what they have. God help us!

 

[joe371]

That’s nice. Are they Lutheran?

Frankly, no. Matthew 16:18 is not talking about currently, or only the Church Militant, or only and exclusive that portion of the Church Militant that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. From the DRB:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell *shall not prevail against it.
The language is ongoing, not static, future tense, not past tense. simply because there are divisions within the Church Militant does not mean that the Gates of Hell will *** prevail. For that to happen, the gates of Hell would indeed have to overrun the Church Triumphant, as well. That clearly hasn’t happened, nor will it.

Jon

Hey Jon. Why would Jesus say that the gates of Hell will never overrun the Church Triumphant, if in fact the Church Triumphant is in heaven? Why point out the obvious? Seems more logical to conclude that Jesus was referring to the church militant here on earth?

I agree; just because there are divisions within the Church Militant does not mean that the Gates of Hell*** will *** prevail.

 

[steve_b]

Yes and that is too broad of a brush. I have spoken with many Byzantine Catholics who have been wounded by the forceful Latinizations in their liturgy and canon law. They are in unity with the Bishop of Rome, but in order to be as such, had to sacrifice elements of their traditional faith that they should not have done.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms:

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

guanaphore:

Yes. this is basically a statement of allegiance that Eastern Catholics had to make in order to be reabsorbed.

Allegiance to what Jesus established is a good thing.
g:

The responsibility for the division lies equally on both sides. Fortunately, our wise and loving successors of Peter are working hard to mend this wound. They have no problem affirming their brothers as Patriarchs, and have none of this “lording it over” attitude that started and fomented the schism. For this reason, unity is closer to us than it has been for a millenia.

What’s interesting, all the previous unity occured 100’s of years ago. What’s happened after that period till today? And especially after the all the hyper ecuminism of the last 50 years ?
g:

No, just playing the Eastern Advocate.

specifically, your playing the non Catholic Eastern advocate.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. Why would Jesus say that the gates of Hell will never overrun the Church Triumphant, if in fact the Church Triumphant is in heaven? Why point out the obvious? Seems more logical to conclude that Jesus was referring to the church militant here on earth?

I agree; just because there are divisions within the Church Militant does not mean that the Gates of Hell*** will *** prevail.

Hi Joe! How are you?

Do we as Lutherans and Catholics not agree that there is but one Church, that the Communion of Saints are indeed one?
It seems to me, Joe, that for the gates of Hell to prevail over His Church, the Church Militant, Church Triumphant, and if you wish, Church Suffering, must all be overcome.

Jon

 

[Carlan]

point out this, Martin Luther was excommunicated because he refused to recant from the errors he was beginning to teach. Also point out that there have been many a saint that faced morally corrupt Church leadership and didn’t break with the Church but cause the church leadership to reform.

Among these are St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Bridget of Sweden. These saints and many others didn’t break with the Catholic Church but brought reform and revival.

yes robwar, Luther was wrong in his disobedience, unlike the many others who stayed with in and fought for and gained reform and renewal. He could have avoided excommunication but for his pride. Peace Carlan.

 

[steve_b]

Because your posts don’t reflect that you do understand it

I understand it. I don’t agree with their view.
g:

The EO don’t have a “belief” that they should be separated or estranged from the successor of Peter.

There is no ONE among THEM who speaks for all of them. There is no Orthodox Church. There are many Churches all claiming autonomy. Does their “ecumenical patriarch” have any authority over all of them? No. No one does. The EP has a seat of honor but that’s it.
g:

On the contrary, they want the successor of Peter to abandon the innovations that have separated them from the One Faith that used to be shared across all the known world.

Are you lecturing me about innovations in the West , as if the East has none?
g:

All this demonstrates it shat I know the point of view of non-Catholics.

And I gave responses to those points of view
g:

Your posts seem to indicate that you reject this point of view categorically, and I have not seen anything in your posts that would indicate you can even articulate it.

What part of my responses are not understandable?
g:

I am not trying to “convince” you of the other pov, just to raise your awareness.

you ARE trying to convince me. Which means you think their position is correct.
g:

Your information on this appears to be limited. The circumstances around which many of these occurred, and the sacrifices that needed to be made by those bodies for political and economic reasons were severe. The majority of the EO felt like they had to compromise too much of their identity to come into unity.

My information came with Church links. Therefore, I gave the context to the circumstances with links I referred to. The folks I’m talking about knew their issues and still chose unity.
g:

The major factor is the hubris of men, which, though it only takes a small amount, is a bitter and effective poison. The consequent development of doctrine continues to cause a problem…the more the CC adds to the deposit of faith, the further the wedge is driven.

When Paul wrote to the Church of Rome, he warned them about those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to doctrine which the Church of Rome learned.

Romans 16:17-20

[17] Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them . [18] For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly ; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent [19] For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil . [20] And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet"
g:

Both sides believe they have received the Apostolic faith, and cannot depart from it, and yet, each sides understanding of that divine deposit prevent them from relinquishing what they have. God help us!

The prefigurment of this division over authority already played out in the upper room. [Lk 22:23-32]

• The apostles got in an argument over who is greatest among THEM. Sound familiar?
• Jesus validated one of THEM would be greatest among THEM
• Who was it? The only apostle Jesus names and says He will pray for, and the one who is to strengthen his brothers. Simon Peter.
• And who is it that got them in an argument? Satan

For further explanation on [Lk 22:23-32] #153

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe! How are you?

Do we as Lutherans and Catholics not agree that there is but one Church, that the Communion of Saints are indeed one?
It seems to me, Joe, that for the gates of Hell to prevail over His Church, the Church Militant, Church Triumphant, and if you wish, Church Suffering, must all be overcome.

Jon

Hey brother hope you are doing well. :thumbsup:I’m doing OK. The only thing that confuses me is the idea that the gates of hell could prevail against the church triumphant, if in fact the church triumphant** is heaven**? The devil can’t touch anyone in heaven, I guess is my point. Is the church triumphant comprised of saints in heaven? That’s my typical take on it; I could be wrong?

 

[guanophore]

Allegiance to what Jesus established is a good thing.

Definitely. But it was not, and is not necessary to force them to give up what they received from their Apostles, their culture, theological approaches, language, and liturgy, ,

Fortunately our modern leadership is much more educated and understanding about these matters.

  What's interesting, all the previous unity occured 100's of years ago. What's happened after that period till today? And especially after the all the hyper ecuminism of the last 50 years ?

I don’t think you understand the relations between East and West, and how the Eastern Catholic Churches still struggle to maintain their identity and be in communion with Rome.

 specifically, your playing the non Catholic Eastern advocate.

Apparently you believe there are no problems and difficulties among those who have given the pledge to the successor of Peter.

And as far as thing having happened a long time ago, it is true. The East is still smarting from the Roman Crusades sacking Constantinople. When the Crusaders finally arrived, they Eastern Catholics looked, dressed, an spoke like the Muslims, so they got slaughtered before they could thank the Romans for coming.

There is a lot of healing that needs to take place, and it will not happen by lording over power, jurisdiction, and supremacy over our siblings.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

-]/-]

In the Protestant sphere, who definitively determines what is false and what is not?

Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

-]/-]

Scripture.

What you mean is your interpretation of Scripture.

Which means, ultimately, you are your authority.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

What you mean is your interpretation of Scripture.

Which means, ultimately, you are your authority.

Not anymore than the Catholic who interprets the magisterium.

Who is the final authority, the magisterium or the person’s interpretation of the magisterium?

 

[PRmerger]

Not anymore than the Catholic who interprets the magisterium.

Who is the final authority, the magisterium or the person’s interpretation of the magisterium?

Can you give an example of 2 Catholics interpreting the magisterium differently?

Please cite the document that is being interpreted, as well as the differing interpretations of this.

 

[PRmerger]

Can you give an example of 2 Catholics interpreting the magisterium differently?

Please cite the document that is being interpreted, as well as the differing interpretations of this.

In fairness, I will offer an example of Scripture being interpreted completely differently by 2 Bible Alone denominations:

Romans 9:
The Reformed view uses that to profess that we are predestined, and that God hardens our hearts.
reformationtheology.com/2006/10/did_god_harden_pharaohs_heart.php

And the non-Reformed view that says that God does not harden our hearts.
insearchoftruth.org/articles/romans_9.html

2 totally contradictory points of view about the same passage in Scripture.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Can you give an example of 2 Catholics interpreting the magisterium differently?

Please cite the document that is being interpreted, as well as the differing interpretations of this.

Sure. In fact we saw it blatantly a few days ago.

“Hooray, the RC is more accepting in of gays”

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/stunning-change

“Oh my God the RCC is more accepting of gays”

pewsitter.com/view_news_id_185171.php