Liturgy, Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter kburkot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kburkot

Guest
Hi. I recently heard a Protestant pastor’s sermon and I think he was wrong on a couple of points. Please help me in a response to him. First point: he said that the liturgy began (or was invented) in the sixth century by Pope Gregory, and specifically made the point that this was after Constantine made Christianity the official religion and the church therefore had become corrupted. His point was that the Christian service is not supposed to be Liturgical. How can I respond as to the timing of the introduction of the Liturgy into the church?
The second point is that he ridiculed the idea of Peter being the first Pope. What is the best way to defend this? I thought I remembered something about early churches deferring to the authority of the Bishop of Rome even though the apostle John was still living. Anyone have any details on this?

Thank you!
 
I would just ask why is it important for you to respond to him?

The reason I ask is because you are dealing with a person who, like 1ke said, is totally ignorant of history.

It is very difficult and near impossible to get through to someone who makes their mind up without ever acknowledging history.

If you are concerned about what he is saying because you have friends or family that go to his church then I would probably just mention to them in passing that Pastor Bob sure doesn’t seem to know much about Church history. If they ask why you could explain to them. If they don’t I would probably just drop it and not return to listen to any more of his sermons on what he thinks happened.

Hope this helps,

God Bless
 
All times and everywhere, each and every uniquely Protestant aspect of theology is in error. Period. They can be correct on the agreed-on aspects, but when they veer off the path, they are simply wrong. Notice that they must constantly justify their separation from the Church. All such theories are one man’s opinion and nothing more, since they have zero authority to interpret scripture, not being a Church council a la Acts 15.
 
Last edited:
kburkot said:
I thought I remembered something about early churches deferring to the authority of the Bishop of Rome even though the apostle John was still living. Anyone have any details on this?
Click to expand...
You may be thinking of St. Clément’s First Letter to the Corinthians (AD 96 or there abouts). Clement was the third successor to St. Peter on the See of Rome. He receives a letter from the Corinthians saying that some young men had tried to take over the church at Corinth and was causing problems for the bishop and the presbyters. Clement, in his reply, talks about the authority of the bishops comes from God. He talks about the Apostolic Succession. The Letter was read in Corinth at the mass for nearly a century afterwards.

The point of the letter for your situation is that at the time the letter was written, John the Apostle was still alive. Why not go to him for advice? Not only is he an apostle, he is also a lot closer to Corinth than Clement is in Rome. Further, the question can be asked, what business does Clement have in getting involved in the affairs of a different church (i.e. the church at Corinth)? Clement must have had some recognized authority.

The document is an interesting read and can be found here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top