How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok the primacy of The pope was very clear and need to confess to a priest
For guys like Cyprian, the primacy of the pope extended only insofar as the pope was teaching orthodox. It wasn’t unconditional, or in perpetuity for eternity (as Meyendorff explains).

I cannot speak for all Lutherans, but if the pope returned to correct doctrine, I would be happy to see him as having a primacy amongst equals again.

As for confession to a priest. We do it.
 
Your quotation is from the second edition of Cyprians letter. There is a first edition that reads:

“The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” and again He says to him after His resurrection: “Feed my sheep (2).” On him he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
(Cyprian’s First Edition).

Cyprian is used over and over again. You wrote ““As per the church being one under the pope, the early church fathers generally agreed that all bishops were equal, and that the bishop of Rome is first amongst equals.”

Have you quotes from any other Church Fathers showing that they generally agreed?

As for John Meyendorff he was an excellent scholar but of course was not a Church Father.

I will try to find time to address the marriage issue soon.

Annie
 
For guys like Cyprian, the primacy of the pope extended only insofar as the pope was teaching orthodox. It wasn’t unconditional, or in perpetuity for eternity (as Meyendorff explains).

I cannot speak for all Lutherans, but if the pope returned to correct doctrine, I would be happy to see him as having a primacy amongst equals again.

As for confession to a priest. We do it.
You don’t confess to a priest. You confess to a Lutheran minister. Would you give an example of a doctrine that you disagree with?

Annie
 
How do they explain it? Pretty poorly, in my experience.

From this Anglican’s perspective, there is no such gap: people have been worshipping God for a few thousand years, and have been both right and wrong about God for all of that time.
 
The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power*, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power;* but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff explains:
The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter…Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98).
*
IX. The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, Matthew 5:32 applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation with women, very strict expressions are to be found; as, for instance, the words of the apostle He which is joined to a harlot is one body 1 Corinthians 6:16 and of Jeremiah, If a wife become another man’s shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? Jeremiah 3:1 And again, He that has an adulteress is a fool and impious. Yet custom ordains that men who commit adultery and are in fornication be retained by their wives. Consequently I do not know if the woman who lives with the man who has been dismissed can properly be called an adulteress; the charge in this case attaches to the woman who has put away her husband, and depends upon the cause for which she withdrew from wedlock. In the case of her being beaten, and refusing to submit, it would be better for her to endure than to be separated from her husband; in the case of her objecting to pecuniary loss, even here she would not have sufficient ground. If her reason is his living in fornication we do not find this in the custom of the church; but from an unbelieving husband a wife is commanded not to depart, but to remain, on account of the uncertainty of the issue. For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? 1 Corinthians 7:16 Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned.* But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her. Letter 188, St. Basil the Great.
What a coincidence! I just started reading Jeremiah and was reading Chapter 3 earlier. What I got from this chapter is that God is the husband and that Israel is the bride. By praying to other gods such as Baal, Israel is committing adultery, they are playing the harlot. Even though Israel has betrayed God, God will forgive Israel or Judah or us, if we sincerely repent from our sins and sincerely go back to him. Read Jeremiah Chapter 4:

Jeremiah 4,1-4

If you return, Israel—oracle of the LORD— return to me. If you put your detestable things out of my sight, and do not stray, And swear, “As the LORD lives,” in truth, in judgment, and in justice,

Then the nations shall bless themselves in him and in him glory. For to the people of Judah and Jerusalem, thus says the LORD: Till your untilled ground, and do not sow among thorns. Be circumcised for the LORD, remove the foreskins of your hearts, people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Or else my anger will break out like fire, and burn so that no one can quench it, because of your evil deeds.
 
Great posts on this thread…
There have been some good ones and I’ve been pleased Protestants have come to explain as well rather than just Catholics offering their answers to the question. I was hoping to learn and I am.
 
Some Protestants wrongly believe that Constantine started the Catholic Church. This is demonstrably false though since there are numerous Church Fathers before Constantine was even born which are explicitly Catholic. That’s not to mention the fact that the Bible itself is Catholic.
 
Your quotation is from the second edition of Cyprians letter. There is a first edition that reads:

“The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” and again He says to him after His resurrection: “Feed my sheep (2).” On him he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
(Cyprian’s First Edition).

Cyprian is used over and over again. You wrote ““As per the church being one under the pope, the early church fathers generally agreed that all bishops were equal, and that the bishop of Rome is first amongst equals.”

Have you quotes from any other Church Fathers showing that they generally agreed?

As for John Meyendorff he was an excellent scholar but of course was not a Church Father.

I will try to find time to address the marriage issue soon.

Annie
Have you quotes from any other Church Fathers showing that they generally agreed?
Sure.

Chrysostom clearly speaks against the bishop or Rome or Peter himself being the ruler over the entire Church.

He speaks of the bishop of Antioch, referring to him as another Peter. Where all bishops have the authority of Peter.

“In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).”

In the modern Roman Catholic reckoning, is any other bishop besides the Roman one to be considered “another Peter” or equal to Peter?

I think Chrysostom referred to the bishop of Antioch as another Peter because he was the successor of Peter, AND all bishops and apostles had the keys as possessed by Peter. Observe what he wrote about John.

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence…” (NPNF Vol. XIV, p. 1)

All apostles and bishops have the keys are can be considered the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, and not the Pope alone.

Read what Chrysostom writes about the Council of Jerusalem:

“This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. And after that they had held their peace, James answered. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly; for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part…” (NPNF Vol. XI, p. 205, 207)
 
Simple. Evangelical churches draw inspiration from Jesus’ discipleship in the Gospels, and the book of Acts, rather than Catholic Church history.

As far as Catholic Church history, Evangelicals either believe that:
  1. Catholic Church history is great, but that’s a bygone era. Old traditions and saints are not necessary for salvation or a relationship with God
  2. The Catholic Church started out great, but lost its way, and that is why the Reformation was necessary
  3. There were always remnants of what is now the Evangelical church, but they have been forced underground due to Catholic oppression
In general though, Evangelical churches do not see much relevance with church history. There continue to be books written by Christian scholars on everything from theology to how to raise your children and manage your finances. Many Evangelicals enjoy reading these new books and discussing them in Bible studies and gatherings. Pastors will even cite them in sermons. (I admit, not all of them have been beneficial.) Evangelicalism is all about how to achieve the most modern, cutting edge of ministry to save today’s people.
 
My experience says with pure and blind faith.

The church I am familiar with believes they were always there, in the background, and it was not until the last century that God has brought them to organization and begun to move them.

That there is no historic record at all simply proves their view.

It is insane, but a healthy mistrust if not outright hatred of the Catholic church helps them hold center.
 
My experience says with pure and blind faith.

The church I am familiar with believes they were always there, in the background, and it was not until the last century that God has brought them to organization and begun to move them.

That there is no historic record at all simply proves their view.

It is insane, but a healthy mistrust if not outright hatred of the Catholic church helps them hold center.
ouch
 
You don’t confess to a priest. You confess to a Lutheran minister.
Lutheran ministers are priests of the gospel and sacraments just as surely as any Catholic or Orthodox priest. We can even trace our lines of succession all the way back per the requirements offered by the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore confession to a Lutheran minister is as legitimate as any other confession.
Would you give an example of a doctrine that you disagree with?
Papal universal, immediate jurisdiction and infallibility.
 
Simple. Evangelical churches draw inspiration from Jesus’ discipleship in the Gospels, and the book of Acts, rather than Catholic Church history.

As far as Catholic Church history, Evangelicals either believe that:
  1. Catholic Church history is great, but that’s a bygone era. Old traditions and saints are not necessary for salvation or a relationship with God
By who’s authority ??
  1. The Catholic Church started out great, but lost its way, and that is why the Reformation was necessary
Prove that the Protestant revolt was devinely inspired
  1. There were always remnants of what is now the Evangelical church, but they have been forced underground due to Catholic oppression
Prove it (you can’t)

In general though, Evangelical churches do not see much relevance with church history. There continue to be books written by Christian scholars on everything from theology to how to raise your children and manage your finances. Many Evangelicals enjoy reading these new books and discussing them in Bible studies and gatherings. Pastors will even cite them in sermons. (I admit, not all of them have been beneficial.) Evangelicalism is all about how to achieve the most modern, cutting edge of ministry to save today’s people.
 
Lutheran ministers are priests of the gospel and sacraments just as surely as any Catholic or Orthodox priest. We can even trace our lines of succession all the way back per the requirements offered by the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore confession to a Lutheran minister is as legitimate as any other confession.

Papal universal, immediate jurisdiction and infallibility.
BTW no Pope claims to be universal bishop if that is what you mean. As to infallibility do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God? If so, why?

Annie
 
Lutheran ministers are priests of the gospel and sacraments just as surely as any Catholic or Orthodox priest. We can even trace our lines of succession all the way back per the requirements offered by the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore confession to a Lutheran minister is as legitimate as any other confession.

Papal universal, immediate jurisdiction and infallibility.
What sacrifice does a Lutheran minister perform? Where did your ministers get the authority to pass on apostolic succession from?
 
What sacrifice does a Lutheran minister perform? Where did your ministers get the authority to pass on apostolic succession from?
What sacrifice does a Lutheran minister perform?
The sacrifice of the Mass.
Where did your ministers get the authority to pass on apostolic succession from?
From the laying of of hands of bishops and presbyters in ordination going back to Jesus and the apostles, and from the call of the local congregation to be a normal minister of the word and sacraments to that local congregation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top