Proof Paul was a Protestant

[Mystophilus]

Angainor:

I have wrestled with this myself. Should I be posting things like this on a Catholic forum?

I am not really sure, but, being also a dissenter, I have thought about it a little. The people here are generally either sufficiently well-insulated by their own belief structure to ignore any new problems, or sufficiently flexible to adapt to them.

I feel the same way. If Catholic conscience tells them they need to get Eucharist from a priest, that is their affair. The problem is that Catholics insist that me and mine need to get the Eucharist from a priest, among other stuff. I can’t keep quiet.

I see your point, but it causes me to wonder about something. Do these Catholics, the ones who insist that you and yours follow their ways, come into your church? My reason for asking this is the fact that we are in a Catholic website here: surely, in their home, they should say whatever they feel comfortable saying. We, as guests, have the right to disagree with that up until the point at which they decided that we are no longer welcome, and remove us from the premises. Obviously, I am not saying that we should stay silent, but rather that our right to speak here is a privilege afforded to us by them (for which I would like to belatedly thank you all out there: I am learning a lot).

 

[Singinbeauty]

One point that was pointed out to me is on this site:
Was Peter Ever Pope?

**THE APOSTLES NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED PETER AS POPE **

Paul is silent about Peter’s primacy. He wrote some thirteen or fourteen epistles, and never once refers to Peter’s authority over the others. If such authority had existed would he not have spoken of it?

Paul considers himself Peter’s equal. He says: ‘I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.’ 2 Corinthians 11:5. If Peter had been Pope would he have dared to speak after this fashion?

Paul censured Peter openly. He says: ‘When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ See Galatians 2:11-16. How would Paul have dared to censure Peter openly for failure to practice what he preached in his action toward the Gentiles, if Peter had been Pope?

Peter was considered only as one of the pillars of the Church. See Galatians 2:8-10. He was like James and John, one of the pillars of the Church, not its head.

No writer of the New Testament speaks of Peter as Pope. What does their silence mean? Can it be a conspiracy against him? Why do they ignore his authority? Why? Because Peter never was Pope. All the apostles were brethren.

I don’t know quite what to make of this but I thought it is interesting…

 

[mercygate]

Mystophilus:

I am not really sure, but, being also a dissenter, I have thought about it a little. The people here are generally either sufficiently well-insulated by their own belief structure to ignore any new problems, or sufficiently flexible to adapt to them.

I see your point, but it causes me to wonder about something. Do these Catholics, the ones who insist that you and yours follow their ways, come into your church? My reason for asking this is the fact that we are in a Catholic website here: surely, in their home, they should say whatever they feel comfortable saying. We, as guests, have the right to disagree with that up until the point at which they decided that we are no longer welcome, and remove us from the premises. Obviously, I am not saying that we should stay silent, but rather that our right to speak here is a privilege afforded to us by them (for which I would like to belatedly thank you all out there: I am learning a lot).

When I was a Protestant, I never felt the sense of insult non-Catholics often express at the Church’s belief in her absolute centrality. The position always made perfect sense to me: If you are THE Church (and somebody once said that the Catholic Church is the only THE Church), then you would be committing a terrible offense against everybody not to proclaim that truth to the world.

I didn’t LIKE the idea but I never challenged the logic of it. As I learned more about the Church, my objections were leveled one-by-one.

That’s why I’m Catholic today.

 

[Lillith]

:clapping:

Well said mystophilius…but I can tell you already by your well thought up responses that you kind sir…or maybe lady…will never get the boot…

And neither will angainor…both so respectful as you are…it really takes a lot to get suspended…like name calling or over aggression…

 

[Mystophilus]

Angainor:

What dialogue? He had a chance to object to that phrase in Jerusalem. Why didn’t he object in Jerusalem?

I do not know. Why did Galileo Galilei not stand up in Rome and say, “We orbit the Sun! Get over it already!”? I suspect that the reason may be the same: he was afraid to disagree with ‘them’ in ‘their’ centre of power, but felt more comfortable doing it from a distance. However, the fact that Paul put his views into a publicised letter does constitute dialogue, because the publication of the message invites response.

I think Paul didn’t want to do anything that might cause his brothers to stumble.You are right that there is more to it. I didn’t want to reproduce the whole passage in a post; I counted on you to look it up.

…which I will do. However, there are others posting and lurking here who will not do that, and it is for their benefit that I think we ought to present our sources as fully as practicable.

You are also right that Paul is immediatly speaking about a fellow Christian the Corinthian may meet. I did extrapolate. Paul is telling the Corintians they should not limit their freedom according to another’s conscience about the dietary restriction. However, this is exactly what Paul did on the bigger picture. He did not limit his freedom according to another’s conscience as outlined in the decree.

I agree completely. I apologise: I mistook what you wrote, and thought that you were making a specific point about what the text simply said, rather than about how it could be read in a wider sense.

I consider Protestantism a philosophy.

While I can certainly see how it might be described as such post-1527, I think that I would refer to earlier instances as “dissent”, so as to avoid confusion of terms between expressed heterodoxy and actual separatism.

 

[Angainor]

Atreyu:

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 10 has Paul nullified or disagreed with the decree from Acts 15, as can be seen when Paul says: “if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it”. What Paul has done is to clarify the decree, by discussing the case where it is possible (but not known) that the food before you has been offered in sacrifice.

Lady Cygnus:

This is always how I’ve read the passage as well. If you don’t know, don’t worry about it

This is from [post=820766]another thread[/post]:

rwoehmke:

In Paul’s time food offered to idols was often sold at a discount in the market place by the priests of that particular god.(idols not having life can’t consume food offerings and even when some was burnt some was left over.) Paul was wise enough to see that such food was perfectly good and a bargain, but at the same time told his followers not to eat such food if it might scandalize other believers in God. Jewish converts would most likely be easily scandalized in this manner while gentile converts would not.

Paul wrote: eat anything sold in the meat market… 1 Cor 10:25

Paul is saying it OK to knowingly buy and eat food sacrificed to idols.

This directly contradicts Acts 15–You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…

 

[Mystophilus]

mercygate:

When I was a Protestant, I never felt the sense of insult non-Catholics often express at the Church’s belief in her absolute centrality. The position always made perfect sense to me: If you are THE Church (and somebody once said that the Catholic Church is the only THE Church), then you would be committing a terrible offense against everybody not to proclaim that truth to the world.

I didn’t LIKE the idea but I never challenged the logic of it. As I learned more about the Church, my objections were leveled one-by-one.

That’s why I’m Catholic today.

So, the fact that the Catholic Church’s position always made sense to you had a significant role in your conversion. It sounds as if you were not a Protestant because you had any particular objection to Catholicism, in which case I might guess that the first church which you entered was Protestant and that you initially knew no difference between them. I might also guess that you had one of the (too rare) Protestant ministers who did not preach against the evils of idolatrous Rome.
Is it really a sin to want to smack someone upside the head? Always? <sigh!>

 

[E.E.N.S]

Mystophilus:

So, the fact that the Catholic Church’s position always made sense to you had a significant role in your conversion. It sounds as if you were not a Protestant because you had any particular objection to Catholicism, in which case I might guess that the first church which you entered was Protestant and that you initially knew no difference between them. I might also guess that you had one of the (too rare) Protestant ministers who did not preach against the evils of idolatrous Rome.
Is it really a sin to want to smack someone upside the head? Always? <sigh!>

What about an anti-Catholic becoming Catholic? (5 years ago I converted) I used to say many of the exact same things said by many of the protestants and anti-Catholics on this site and many others. In fact, I live very near Dr. James White and got much of my material from him.

(I know what you mean about the smack in the head thing - I get that feeling all the time, especially when I here the same arguments that I used to give myself, lol.)

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Mystophilus:

So, the fact that the Catholic Church’s position always made sense to you had a significant role in your conversion. It sounds as if you were not a Protestant because you had any particular objection to Catholicism, in which case I might guess that the first church which you entered was Protestant and that you initially knew no difference between them. I might also guess that you had one of the (too rare) Protestant ministers who did not preach against the evils of idolatrous Rome.
Is it really a sin to want to smack someone upside the head? Always? <sigh!>

I’ll try to clarify what Mercygate said…although I’m sure he/she’ll do a better job

If someone believes in objective Truth and believes they are following it, then they want to spread that word to others. That is not offensive. The position does make sense and has nothing to do with conversion to that faith.

I don’t get offended when Mormon’s come to my door saying they have the Truth, because I know they believe it. This does not mean I believe they have the truth, only that I understand why they are trying to convert me. I only get offended when they missrepresent my faith.

 

[mark_a]

Angainor:

Catholics say the council in Jerusalem made a decree in the form of a letter to the Gentile Christians. Included in that decree was a dietary restriction:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…

Acts 15:29

Paul disagreed:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

1 Corinthians 10:25-26

Paul goes on to explain why he does not consider himself bound by a decree from Jerusalem:

Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?

1 Corinthians 10:29

Who is the “another” that Paul is talking about? Catholics say it was Peter that decreed the dietary restriction.

Paul does not consider himself bound by Peter’s conscience.

Therefore Paul is a Protestant.

 

[mercygate]

Mystophilus:

So, the fact that the Catholic Church’s position always made sense to you had a significant role in your conversion. It sounds as if you were not a Protestant because you had any particular objection to Catholicism, in which case I might guess that the first church which you entered was Protestant and that you initially knew no difference between them. I might also guess that you had one of the (too rare) Protestant ministers who did not preach against the evils of idolatrous Rome.
Is it really a sin to want to smack someone upside the head? Always? <sigh!>

I’m not quite sure whom you wish to smack upside the head. Actually, anti-Catholicism of a rather poisonous English sort, was mother’s milk to me. I was taught all the usual tripe about Mary-worship, statue-worship, the evils of confession to a mere man, underground tunnels between the convent and rectory . . .

Thank you Lady Cygnus. Your summary is exactly what I meant.

 

[Angainor]

Mystophilus:

me:

I feel the same way. If Catholic conscience tells them they need to get Eucharist from a priest, that is their affair. The problem is that Catholics insist that me and mine need to get the Eucharist from a priest, among other stuff. I can’t keep quiet.

I see your point, but it causes me to wonder about something. Do these Catholics, the ones who insist that you and yours follow their ways, come into your church? My reason for asking this is the fact that we are in a Catholic website here: surely, in their home, they should say whatever they feel comfortable saying.

No, no Catholic has ever come into my home or church and tell me I must get the Eucharist from a priest, but I know this information nonetheless. It is sort of common knowledge and Catholics do not hide their thoughts on this subject. Simply by having such a doctrine, my conscience is getting insulted on a steady basis.

I do not claim Catholics must get Holy Communion from a Lutheran Minister, so Catholics do not have the same grievance against me.

 

[Mystophilus]

(Singinbeauty: this is not directed at you, just at the quoted material)

THE APOSTLES NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED PETER AS POPE

Which is unsurprising, because the term “pope” did not come into use until later: “It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Paul is silent about Peter’s primacy. He wrote some thirteen or fourteen epistles, and never once refers to Peter’s authority over the others. If such authority had existed would he not have spoken of it?

Paul never once referred to Alexandria either, and we are pretty sure that the city did not temporarily cease to exist in the mid-C1st. Considering that Mark reputedly founded a church there, it would certainly have been relevant. Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence. Most importantly, the New Testament does not contain all of the things ever written by the apostles:
“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,” (1 Corinthians 5:9)We do not have that letter.

Paul considers himself Peter’s equal. He says: ‘I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.’ 2 Corinthians 11:5. If Peter had been Pope would he have dared to speak after this fashion?

Possibly not, however, the comment quoted does refer to a hierarchy among apostles: “the chiefest”.

Paul censured Peter openly. He says: ‘When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ See Galatians 2:11-16. How would Paul have dared to censure Peter openly for failure to practice what he preached in his action toward the Gentiles, if Peter had been Pope?

I hope that Paul would have had the moral courage to stand up for what he believed, regardless of the position of the person to whom he was speaking. In the OT, Abraham, Moses, Job and an angel all withstood Almighty God to the face.

Peter was considered only as one of the pillars of the Church. See Galatians 2:8-10. He was like James and John, one of the pillars of the Church, not its head.

Yet when the apostles are listed by name, Peter consistently comes first, and Peter is named more than any of the others. While he may not have been the “leader”, in the sense of commanding the others, he was certainly the pre-eminent figure, “princeps” rather than “imperator”.

No writer of the New Testament speaks of Peter as Pope. What does their silence mean? Can it be a conspiracy against him? Why do they ignore his authority? Why? Because Peter never was Pope. All the apostles were brethren.

See all points above.

 

[E.E.N.S]

(Singinbeauty: this is not directed at you, just at the quoted material)

Which is unsurprising, because the term “pope” did not come into use until later: “It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Paul never once referred to Alexandria either, and we are pretty sure that the city did not temporarily cease to exist in the mid-C1st. Considering that Mark reputedly founded a church there, it would certainly have been relevant. Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence. Most importantly, the New Testament does not contain all of the things ever written by the apostles:“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,” (1 Corinthians 5:9)We do not have that letter.

Possibly not, however, the comment quoted does refer to a hierarchy among apostles: “the chiefest”.

I hope that Paul would have had the moral courage to stand up for what he believed, regardless of the position of the person to whom he was speaking. In the OT, Abraham, Moses, Job and an angel all withstood Almighty God to the face.

Yet when the apostles are listed by name, Peter consistently comes first, and Peter is named more than any of the others. While he may not have been the “leader”, in the sense of commanding the others, he was certainly the pre-eminent figure, “princeps” rather than “imperator”.

See all points above.

Excellent post, Mystophilus!

 

[Mystophilus]

mercygate:

I’m not quite sure whom you wish to smack upside the head.

People who want to condemn other people to Hell simply because these other people disagree with their views. I have walked out of two churches. In the first, the pastor was preaching about how glad he was that homosexuals were all going to burn in Hell. In the second, the pastor was preaching about how glad he was that Catholics were all going to burn in Hell.

Actually, anti-Catholicism of a rather poisonous English sort, was mother’s milk to me. I was taught all the usual tripe about Mary-worship, statue-worship, the evils of confession to a mere man, underground tunnels between the convent and rectory . . .

papist, papistry, popish, popery, Romish: the very language is inflected by the prejudice.

 

[deb1]

Angainor:

No, no Catholic has ever come into my home or church and tell me I must get the Eucharist from a priest, but I know this information nonetheless. It is sort of common knowledge and Catholics do not hide their thoughts on this subject. Simply by having such a doctrine, my conscience is getting insulted on a steady basis.

I do not claim Catholics must get Holy Communion from a Lutheran Minister, so Catholics do not have the same grievance against me.

If no Catholic is coming to your home and church and telling you that you must take the Eucharist from a priest then I don’t understand your point. Catholics would not tell a Protestant that he has to take Communion in a Catholic church. It would be considered wrong if you did.

Also, your post are always polite, so please don’t worry about offending anyone. This forum is refreshingly open to debate and different opinions.

 

[Mystophilus]

Lady Cygnus:

I don’t get offended when Mormon’s come to my door saying they have the Truth, because I know they believe it. This does not mean I believe they have the truth, only that I understand why they are trying to convert me.

You have a rare and precious gift: love for those with whom you disagree.

 

[mark_a]

Angainor:

Catholics say the council in Jerusalem made a decree in the form of a letter to the Gentile Christians. Included in that decree was a dietary restriction:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…

Acts 15:29

Paul disagreed:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

1 Corinthians 10:25-26

Paul goes on to explain why he does not consider himself bound by a decree from Jerusalem:

Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?

1 Corinthians 10:29

Who is the “another” that Paul is talking about? Catholics say it was Peter that decreed the dietary restriction.

Paul does not consider himself bound by Peter’s conscience.

Therefore Paul is a Protestant.

Hello Angainor,

Is this the magic bullet?

Are you familiar with Rosalyn Moss? She’s a Catholic convert, a former Evangelical from Judaism.

On one of her radio shows, she advised a (former Catholic) caller who just couldn’t believe Catholicism anymore, to go to a church, and open himself to the truth.

If he still could not believe the truth of the Catholic Church, then he is under no obligation to God to follow the teaching of the Church.

The show is archived at Catholic Answers. Sorry- I don’t have a link.

Just thought this might interest you.

 

[Ignatius]

Angainor:

Therefore Paul is a Protestant.

:whacky:
Lady Cygnus:

don’t get offended when Mormon’s come to my door saying they have the Truth, because I know they believe it. This does not mean I believe they have the truth

 

[Mystophilus]

Lazerlike42:

This is the argument that is used against all of Christianity by Muslims.

It is unfortunate of them if they do that, because there is as much disunity within Islam as there is within Christianity, and the 1400-year-old Sunni-Shiite feud is only the tip of it.

If you are right, then Christianity itself falls apart completely… Christ founded the Church through these men. It was through Peter and Paul and John and the other apostles that Christ started His church and His faith. If these men were disunified, then Christ did not exist.

I am sorry, but that conclusion does not logically follow from those premisses.

If these men taught different doctrines, then the Holy Spirit did not guide them. If these men were opposed to one another, then our faith and our lives are based off of a group of competing cult leaders, each of whom wanted to impose his ideas on the world.

…or they were based upon the ideas of a group of mortals, each of whom perceived God in his own imperfect way, but all of whom managed to agree on the most fundamental aspects of their faith. They neither disintegrated nor fled from open, honest debate. True unity comes from equality in love, not conformity under domination.

Be careful what you claim. Remember that Satan is the author of chaos, and the composer of disunity, and be careful what you claim.

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.
By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-7)

 We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him.
In this is love brought to perfection among us, that we have confidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world.
There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love. ([1 John 4:16-8](http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1john/1john4.htm))

Fear not, nor cease to question, nor cease to love.