Persecutions from Protestants?

[wisdomseeker]

You can’t make a credible link between the Key of David and the pope. Or Peter, for that matter. The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. Here’s one from the OT:

“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Isaiah 22:22

This is clearly a Messianic prophecy. It’s perfectly obvious that this is not talking about Peter. No one would even try to make that argument. And here’s the only other place the Key of David is mentioned, in Revelation.

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” Revelation 3:7

According to the Book of Revelation, who is it that has the key of David? It is the holy one, the true one, the one who is giving these words to the angel of the church in Philadelphia. Again, there is no credible link to Peter, to the papacy, or to anyone besides Jesus.

Quick recap: The Key of David is mentioned twice in Scripture. In Isaiah, it is perfectly clear that ownership of this Key is granted to Jesus in a Messianic prophecy. And in Revelation, ownership of this same Key is claimed by the holy one, the true one, him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars, the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

That’s who has the Key of David. Is his identity any mystery? Is there any doubt that the one who claims the Key of David cannot possibly be anyone but Jesus?

This line of reasoning came briefly into favor among some of the Catholic apologists affiliated with this site. And within a pretty short period of time, it fell out of favor because this interpretation was easily destroyed in debates- 20 years ago. In my position, all I really have to do is say “Look at these two passages- the only two that mention the Key of David.” And that’s pretty much it. They kind of speak for themselves- the Key of David belongs to Jesus, there’s no credible argument for equating this Key with the keys to the kingdom, and there’s absolutely no reason to think anyone besides Jesus has ever been (or will ever be) in charge of possessing this Key.

Are you saying that in Isaiah the keeper of the keys was Jesus? There was a king and the keeper of the keys. can you make the distinction here?

But Jesus built One Church. If Jesus is the King then It must have also a prime minister nad a cabinet to lead the Kingdom. do you agree with this? Jesus also said that a Kingdom divided is a Kingdom destroyed.

The Catholic Church is not divided. There is the CC and there is sect outside the Church battle against the Church and among themselves.

you need to read how St Paul describes teh Church.

 

[Stepson]

The Pope is only the representative (vicar of Christ/King/Anointed One). We belong to Christ for the Pope is just a man (carnal) who sins like all of us and must go to confession just like any other Catholic.

I have a serious question about Catholic teachings when it comes to the Holy Father. The more I study the book of Concordia, Martin Luther and Phillip Melanchthon, the more I see how the Lutheran Church (not ELCA) and the Catholic Church have more in common then they do not have in common.

I am tired of the way secular society keeps creeping it’s way into the Church and changing it so the Church can be more “relevant” to society regardless of what the Gospel says. This can be seen clearly with the ELCA and now the Presbyterian ordaining non-celibate homosexuals.

I must admit, I am drawn closer to the CC because of it’s commitment to it’s belief. However, I cannot get my head around papal infallibility. I am having a hard time understanding how a person born of man cannot error when interpreting scripture. Is this a correct understanding? Or have I’ve misunderstood it?
I have an especially hard time understanding since this in a relatively new teaching in the Church’s long history.

I would very much like to understand this.

Dan

 

[Hail_Linus]

I have a serious question about Catholic teachings when it comes to the Holy Father. The more I study the book of Concordia, Martin Luther and Phillip Melanchthon, the more I see how the Lutheran Church (not ELCA) and the Catholic Church have more in common then they do not have in common.

I am tired of the way secular society keeps creeping it’s way into the Church and changing it so the Church can be more “relevant” to society regardless of what the Gospel says. This can be seen clearly with the ELCA and now the Presbyterian ordaining non-celibate homosexuals.

I must admit, I am drawn closer to the CC because of it’s commitment to it’s belief. However, I cannot get my head around papal infallibility. I am having a hard time understanding how a person born of man cannot error when interpreting scripture. Is this a correct understanding? Or have I’ve misunderstood it?
I have an especially hard time understanding since this in a relatively new teaching in the Church’s long history.

I would very much like to understand this.

Dan

Although I am a revert, this was a problem for me. It turns out I completely misunderstood the doctrine.

Here are somethings I came to learn:

1. The Pope does not have authority to override previous dogmatic teachings whether from Tradition, Ecumenical Council, or even Prior Infallible doctrines from previous Popes.
2. Papal infallibility is rarely used. Not everything that comes from the Popes mouth is infallible. In fact, in Pope Benedict VI book, Jesus of Nazareth, he explicitly states the book is based on his own opinions and that it is not written under Papal Infallibility and Catholics are free to disagree.
3. What made me come to love Papal infallibility was that it was the opposite of what I understood. In fact it turns out that the Pope is actually weaker than any Protestant Leader. Let’s look at the Anglican Church as an example. The Anglican Church ordains women as priests, permits ordained priests to marry, permits the use of contraception. People are always trying to get the Catholic Church to change its position on these issues but the simple truth is that the Pope has no authority to change these positions and neither do ecumenical councils.

The fact is that the Catholicism has the same problem of secular society trying to creep in. The difference is that there is no one in the Catholic Church has the authority to permit the changes secular society is seeking.

 

[Stepson]

I never saw it this way. Thank you so much for the insight.

 

[ajpirc]

The Catholic Church is not divided. There is the CC and there is sect outside the Church battle against the Church and among themselves.

Could you clarify this sentence, please? I understand the first half, but not the second.

 

[Newsy]

Let’s look at the Anglican Church as an example. The Anglican Church ordains women as priests, permits ordained priests to marry, permits the use of contraception. People are always trying to get the Catholic Church to change its position on these issues but the simple truth is that the Pope has no authority to change these positions and neither do ecumenical councils.

The fact is that the Catholicism has the same problem of secular society trying to creep in. The difference is that there is no one in the Catholic Church has the authority to permit the changes secular society is seeking.

Part of what drew me to convert to the CC was this. Truth is always truth, it doesn’t change. If something was sin in the 1st century, then it’s still sin today. Society wants to change christian thinking, and it has always wanted to, it has succeeded in some cases. For example PCUSA, which I formerly belonged to, has changed many ideas from gay clergy to abortion and so on. If these ideas were wrong 50 or 100 years ago and they were wrong in the 1st century, that means they are still wrong. You can’t change the truth just because you don’t like it.
Just my :twocents:
Newsy

 

[Stepson]

Speaking of change. I do not like how the Lutheran Church has changed a part of the Nicene Creed. I grew up in the old ALC. I remember saying the Nicene Creed to include believing in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church. I went off to college and became too busy and caught up in the world to have time for God.

Many years later, I came back to the Lutheran Church under the MS. I saw how the worship book now reads the Holy Christian Church. My dad and I were discussing this and he used the argument that the Council used the term Catholic to mean universal church. Not the Catholic Church itself. The whole upper case c vs. lower case c thing.

I added that it was my understanding that when the Creed was written, the Catholic Church was the Church the Council of Constantinople was speaking of and meant what they wrote.

If this is true, the Lutheran worship book should keep it exactly the way it was written and not change it to meet modern times. Things like this give me heart burn because where does it stop? What else are we going to change in the name becoming modern?

 

[hn160]

Speaking of change. I do not like how the Lutheran Church has changed a part of the Nicene Creed. I grew up in the old ALC. I remember saying the Nicene Creed to include believing in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church. I went off to college and became too busy and caught up in the world to have time for God.

Many years later, I came back to the Lutheran Church under the MS. I saw how the worship book now reads the Holy Christian Church. My dad and I were discussing this and he used the argument that the Council used the term Catholic to mean universal church. Not the Catholic Church itself. The whole upper case c vs. lower case c thing.

I added that it was my understanding that when the Creed was written, the Catholic Church was the Church the Council of Constantinople was speaking of and meant what they wrote.

If this is true, the Lutheran worship book should keep it exactly the way it was written and not change it to meet modern times. Things like this give me heart burn because where does it stop? What else are we going to change in the name becoming modern?

I found this explanation on the web:

It all depended - at least in the 16th and 17th century - on whether one was singing in German or in Latin. If the Creed was sung in German - and that means, Luther’s “Wir Glauben All” - then one confessed that the Holy Spirit “die ganz’ Christenheit auf Erden hält in einen Sinn gar eben.” But if one sang the Latin Creed, then one confessed “unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.” And Lutherans for a couple centuries were totally at ease with confessing it either way; in many services confessing it both ways as the German was often sung by the people after the Latin was led by the choir. The notion that “christian” is preferred over “catholic” because that’s how the Creeds were rendered in the German Book of Concord does not jive with the actual history of Lutheran liturgy.

I always say Catholic in the Creeds.

 

[WesleyF]

So when a Protestant is persecuting someone for being Catholic or even the Church herself, are they persecuting Christ?

Yes, they are!

 

[Hail_Linus]

Yes, they are!

Perhaps the question should re-phrased for Protestants. Also, for the sake of the argument I am going to ask Protestants to temporarily suspend their disbelief and accept the Catholic Church is in fact the one true Church established by Jesus. Now answer the question below:

If the Catholic Church is in fact the one true Church established by Jesus and therefore the body/bride of Jesus Christ, would it not be true that anyone persecuting the Catholic Church is in fact persecuting Jesus?

 

[Hail_Linus]

I never saw it this way. Thank you so much for the insight.

You are very welcome.

By the way, I also want to add that the two of the most recent examples of the use of Papal Infallibility were actually more like informal long distance ecumenical councils. The Pope relied on the opinion of the Bishops.

1. The Immaculate Conception: First, this is a doctrine we actually got from the East who were the first to establish a feast day for this doctrine. When the Pope wanted to define it as dogma he asked all of the Bishops to please give their opinion as to whether or not they agreed. The overwhelming majority of Bishops agreed with defining it as Dogma.
2. The Assumption of Mary: The Bishops were actually the ones that requested this be defined as dogma. The Pope even went out of his way to define it in a way that did not contradict the Eastern version of the Tradition.

 

[cooterhein]

I think you’re confusing the owner of the keys–Jesus Christ the King–with the keeper of the keys who received them from their owner in Matthew 16:19. Regardless of how you look at the papacy, Jesus gave the keys to Peter.

I think you’re confusing the Keys to the Kingdom with the Key of David.

 

[ajpirc]

I think you’re confusing the Keys to the Kingdom with the Key of David.

I think the Key of David (OT) is just the prefigurement of the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven (NT) which is the Catholic Church.

 

[Inishfree]

Among Southern Baptists it’s truly rare. I have been a Southern Baptist all my life and have never heard anything in my church that is negative toward Catholics.

A neighbor of mine is Baptist and we talk of how we love for our saviour Jesus. I greatly respect her parish and she respects mine. We both view each other as Christians.

I never heard anything negative about Catholics, Baptist, Lutherans, etc. When I attended a Methodist church as a child.

 

[gcnuss]

Perhaps the question should re-phrased for Protestants. Also, for the sake of the argument I am going to ask Protestants to temporarily suspend their disbelief and accept the Catholic Church is in fact the one true Church established by Jesus. Now answer the question below:

If the Catholic Church is in fact the one true Church established by Jesus and therefore the body/bride of Jesus Christ, would it not be true that anyone persecuting the Catholic Church is in fact persecuting Jesus?

– Disbelief temporarily suspended –

Yes, indeed. When those who follow Christ are persecuted Christ himself is persecuted. Saul (Paul) is the prime example. Saul’s actions were directed toward followers of “The Way” here on earth but Christ felt that persecution himself.

– Disbelief reinstated –

I would also posit that when anyone, of whatever branch of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, is persecuted because they follow Jesus, Jesus himself is also persecuted. I believe he feels pain whenever anyone who follows him is persecuted.

 

[ajpirc]

I would also posit that when anyone, of whatever branch of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, is persecuted because they follow Jesus, Jesus himself is also persecuted. I believe he feels pain whenever anyone who follows him is persecuted.

I don’t think that different denominations are just different branches of the ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. If the Church is one, then why has she been divided 30,000 times?

 

[Hiskid1973]

A neighbor of mine is Baptist and we talk of how we love for our saviour Jesus. I greatly respect her parish and she respects mine. We both view each other as Christians.

I never heard anything negative about Catholics, Baptist, Lutherans, etc. When I attended a Methodist church as a child.

That the way with my neighbors…One catholic man was my best neighbor till we moved, together we helped a sickly neighbor who was a prodigal…I help another catholic neighbor
load a microwave cart in his car ans out of the blue he says I know you love Jesus ,I see it in the way you live…We both put banners out about God…Another catholic neighbor prayed together with me in the middle of the street with a lady and her husband that need to know the Lord…The husband was having heath problems and she wanted us to pray…It’s all about knowing Jesus. and following Him…

 

[Hiskid1973]

I don’t think that different denominations are just different branches of the ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. If the Church is one, then why has she been divided 30,000 times?

Here’s my thoughts from studying history…I mean now offense but have a random thoughts.
Catholic, orthodox and protestants all have different groups/divisions…Personally I see that sin begets more sin…No one has good history but I don’t see half the issues/serious problems in the orthodox church as I see in the catholic…I think the cc church was having some serious error even before the schism…They also wanted more authority over the rest of the sees…Like someone that wanted their way they pulled away and blamed the problem on the rest of the sees…Since the problem never was fixed more division followed…Even wonder why the protestant movement didn’t come from the orthodox…I have been walking with Christ since 1973 and If I felt ANY prompting from the Holy Spirit to be part of an acient church I would chose the orthodox as I see them operate more closely to what I read in the scriptures

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s my thoughts from studying history…I mean now offense but have a random thoughts.
Catholic, orthodox and protestants all have different groups/divisions…Personally I see that sin begets more sin…No one has good history but I don’t see half the issues/serious problems in the orthodox church as I see in the catholic…I think the cc church was having some serious error even before the schism…They also wanted more authority over the rest of the sees…Like someone that wanted their way they pulled away and blamed the problem on the rest of the sees…Since the problem never was fixed more division followed…Even wonder why the protestant movement didn’t come from the orthodox…I have been walking with Christ since 1973 and If I felt ANY prompting from the Holy Spirit to be part of an acient church I would chose the orthodox as I see them operate more closely to what I read in the scriptures

Take a look at the numbers my friend. If I run a class with 10 students I won’t any issues either. If I run a class with 40 all of sudden the dynamics change?

I don’t how much difference it makes its sounds like logic to me.

 

[ajpirc]

Here’s my thoughts from studying history…I mean now offense but have a random thoughts.
Catholic, orthodox and protestants all have different groups/divisions…Personally I see that sin begets more sin…No one has good history but I don’t see half the issues/serious problems in the orthodox church as I see in the catholic…I think the cc church was having some serious error even before the schism…They also wanted more authority over the rest of the sees…Like someone that wanted their way they pulled away and blamed the problem on the rest of the sees…Since the problem never was fixed more division followed…Even wonder why the protestant movement didn’t come from the orthodox…I have been walking with Christ since 1973 and If I felt ANY prompting from the Holy Spirit to be part of an acient church I would chose the orthodox as I see them operate more closely to what I read in the scriptures

The Orthodox also seem to be more sacred and ritualistic in everything they do including the Divine Liturgy, the Sacraments, and even just living their daily lives.