Protestant Communion?

[Nyika]

Nyika:
Papacy[edit]

See also: Great Church

Irenaeus of Lyons believed in the 2nd century that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome and had appointed Linus as succeeding bishop.[6]

The four Eastern patriarchs affirmed Saint Peter’s ministry and death in Rome and the apostolic succession of Roman bishops.

However, they perceived this as a mark of honor rather than an overarching authority over belief and practices, as they still considered themselves to be the final authorities in their own regions, see for example Metropolitan bishops and Pentarchy, yet still under the overall guidance of the bishop of Rome.

Other patriarchs did turn to Rome for support in settling disputes, but they also wrote to other influential patriarchs for support in the same fashion. Outside of a few notable exceptions, the body of literature left from this period, and even as late as the 5th and 6th centuries, is said by Bernhard Schimmelpfennig to illustrate the generally limited scope of the Roman bishops’ authority but acknowledged the authority nonetheless.[7]

William Kling states that by the end of 2nd century that Rome was a significant, if not unique, early center of Christianity, but held no convincing claim to primacy

The Petrine proof text first occurs historically in a dispute between Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen. A bishop from Caesarea named Firmilian sided with Cyprian in his dispute, seething against Stephen’s “insulting arrogance” and claims of authority based on the See of Peter. Cyprian’s argument won out the day, with Pope Stephen’s claims meeting rejection.[8]

Cyprian’s claim was that bishops held the keys to the forgiveness of sins, with all bishops being the successors of Saint Peter. Jerome later took up the argument for the primacy of the Roman bishop in the 5th century, a position adopted by Pope Leo I.[9]

 

[Nyika]

Nyika:
It seems to me from what I have just been reading that both Protestants and Catholics acknowledge Peter as the First Bishop of Rome but whilst Protestants continue to consider all Bishops to be successors of Peter Catholics consider the Pope to be his successor. I find this confusing. Can someone explain please,at what stage Bishop became Pope for the Catholic tradition?

 

[Nyika]

I agree. Protestants do not have a valid consecration. Most think its just a symbol to their own detriment

But there are a lot of very spiritual good people who are actively working hard to help others in some very challenging situations who are not Catholics. So surely whether they believe in transubstantiation is neither here nor there if they are doing God’s work on earth anyway? I’m sure at the final judgement God will not condemn them for not believing in transubstantiation.

 

[Nyika]

So does this mean than anyone can start a Church, and then start ordaining people?

Yes, ‘starwars fan’ please can you explain this statement. It does imply anyone could ordain a priest!

 

[Nyika]

We believe in the real presence , Jesus is with , in and under the elements (Sacramental Union ) and our pastors are validly ordained. Apostolic succession is not mandated by the Holy Scriptures but apostolic teaching is . Ordination without so called apostolic succession is perfectly valid.

Apologies Starwarsfan my response to your information may have sounded rather disrespectful. I failed to read your post more carefully. I appreciate now that you are referring to ordination in the Lutheran Church. In which case I think you are saying that in the Lutheran Church someone can be ordained by a ‘lay’ person providing they hold to the apostolic faith? God Bless

 

[In_His_Grace]

I don’t think you read the article carefully.

I say this in all charity, to correct your perceptions

First it needs to be said

• The Catholic Church is Divinely instituted by Jesus Matthew 16:18. He is the one who said I will build my Church" His Church is NOT the invention of man nor is it manmade nor the tradition of men. The Catholic Church is here “in writing” from the beginning. #34 (lots of internal links there, please open them for context).
• The Church of Rome is Peter’s see. And Peter is over the entire Church worldwide, not just parts of it, ALL of it. It was there before Paul wrote Romans (his letter to the Church of Rome). The Catholic Church wrote the NT scriptures. You heard me right. Everyone who wrote NT scripture, was already in the Church they were writing to and for. The Catholic Church then, collected and canonized her books, and gave the 1st bible to us. It is the same Church that’s here today, and as Our Lord said, not even the gates of hell will prevail against it.
• It is the same Church where pope Francis is at the helm, 267th successor to St Peter’s see in Rome.

So what “seems to you” by looking back with Protestant lenses, at history and Tradition, long before your own Protestant tradition was even invented, your assessment is NOT accurate nor is it biblical…

• Protestantism is a 100% man made tradition. It’s not divinely instituted. It’s based on dissent and division, started in the 16th century by dividing from the only Church Our Lord established on Peter and gave all His promises to.
• In full disclosure, I have to tell you that, scripture condemns that.
• Where you ask? From the Greek NT διχοστασίας* dichostasia** = divide / dissent / cause factions, sedition, sects, Note that the same Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia * appears in the following scriptures.
• Romans 16:17-20 , [17] Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας* dichostasia * 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 speedily.
• Galatians 5:19-21 . [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας* dichostasia * sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God

Note: the consequences to that sin? shall not obtain the kingdom of God. IOW one won’t be going to heaven. i.e. division from the Church is condemned, as are those who knowingly do it or knowingly maintain it.

Also note

• there is no expiration date to that warning.
• iow, That warning is as valid when Paul taught it, as it is today, and forever.

With that in mind, maybe reread that article again

My wife is a 48 year old cradle Catholic. I spent a few years studying Catholicism, lots of books including reading through the CCC cover to cover a few times. I went through RCIA and three weeks before I was to be confirmed during the Easter Vigil I couldn’t go through with it. The Bible won the day. I don’t claim to be as knowledgable about Catholicism as some of the Catholics at CAF but I do have at least a basic to mediocre understanding of Catholicism. I can even say that I have come to admire so much about Catholicism.

God bless.

 

[Porknpie]

In other words, a man made law.

Lamb -

Please cite the book, chapter and verse where all of Christian faith is to be found in the bible alone?

Compare this thought with St. Paul’s :

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. (2 Thes 2:15)

 

[In_His_Grace]

I don’t think you read the article carefully.

I say this in all charity, to correct your perceptions

First it needs to be said

• The Catholic Church is Divinely instituted by Jesus Matthew 16:18. He is the one who said I will build my Church" His Church is NOT the invention of man nor is it manmade nor the tradition of men. The Catholic Church is here “in writing” from the beginning. #34 (lots of internal links there, please open them for context).
• The Church of Rome is Peter’s see. And Peter is over the entire Church worldwide, not just parts of it, ALL of it. It was there before Paul wrote Romans (his letter to the Church of Rome). The Catholic Church wrote the NT scriptures. You heard me right. Everyone who wrote NT scripture, was already in the Church they were writing to and for. The Catholic Church then, collected and canonized her books, and gave the 1st bible to us. It is the same Church that’s here today, and as Our Lord said, not even the gates of hell will prevail against it.
• It is the same Church where pope Francis is at the helm, 267th successor to St Peter’s see in Rome.

So what “seems to you” by looking back with Protestant lenses, at history and Tradition, long before your own Protestant tradition was even invented, your assessment is NOT accurate nor is it biblical…

• Protestantism is a 100% man made tradition. It’s not divinely instituted. It’s based on dissent and division, started in the 16th century by dividing from the only Church Our Lord established on Peter and gave all His promises to.
• In full disclosure, I have to tell you that, scripture condemns that.
• Where you ask? From the Greek NT διχοστασίας* dichostasia** = divide / dissent / cause factions, sedition, sects, Note that the same Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia * appears in the following scriptures.
• Romans 16:17-20 , [17] Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας* dichostasia * 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 speedily.
• Galatians 5:19-21 . [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας* dichostasia * sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God

Note: the consequences to that sin? shall not obtain the kingdom of God. IOW one won’t be going to heaven. i.e. division from the Church is condemned, as are those who knowingly do it or knowingly maintain it.

Also note

• there is no expiration date to that warning.
• iow, That warning is as valid when Paul taught it, as it is today, and forever.

With that in mind, maybe reread that article again

Note: the consequences to that sin? shall not obtain the kingdom of God. IOW one won’t be going to heaven. i.e. division from the Church is condemned, as are those who knowingly do it or knowingly maintain it.

Also note

• there is no expiration date to that warning.
• iow, That warning is as valid when Paul taught it, as it is today, and forever.

I’ll sleep like a baby tonight.

 

[Porknpie]

My wife is a 48 year old cradle Catholic. I spent a few years studying Catholicism, lots of books including reading through the CCC cover to cover a few times. I went through RCIA and three weeks before I was to be confirmed during the Easter Vigil I couldn’t go through with it. The Bible won the day. I don’t claim to be as knowledgable about Catholicism as some of the Catholics at CAF but I do have at least a basic to mediocre understanding of Catholicism. I can even say that I have come to admire so much about Catholicism.

God bless.

Grace,

My spouse was LCMS, raised in a German home by wonderful Christian parents. And similar to you, she went through RCIA and stopped three weeks before Easter. She wasn’t ready. But a couple of years later, out of the blue, in January, she decided she was ready and it was time for RCIA#2. Long story here but it shows how faith is a journey, not just of the intellect but of the heart. Some journey’s are shorter, some longer than others.

Of course, one of the main issues coming from her LCMS background was intercessory prayer, particularly that of praying to Mary. Interesting though today how strong her love of Mary is, some 20+ years later. Once one understands that there is only one Body of Christ, and that we are all connected to the Body, those living and those departed (who are alive in Christ), one can understand how we are to pray for one another. Those in heaven are praying for us. We can see this in the book of Revelation. And they can only offer our prayers if they know what our intentions are.

PnP

 

[In_His_Grace]

Grace,

My spouse was LCMS, raised in a German home by wonderful Christian parents. And similar to you, she went through RCIA and stopped three weeks before Easter. She wasn’t ready. But a couple of years later, out of the blue, in January, she decided she was ready and it was time for RCIA#2. Long story here but it shows how faith is a journey, not just of the intellect but of the heart. Some journey’s are shorter, some longer than others.

Of course, one of the main issues coming from her LCMS background was intercessory prayer, particularly that of praying to Mary. Interesting though today how strong her love of Mary is, some 20+ years later. Once one understands that there is only one Body of Christ, and that we are all connected to the Body, those living and those departed (who are alive in Christ), one can understand how we are to pray for one another. Those in heaven are praying for us. We can see this in the book of Revelation. And they can only offer our prayers if they know what our intentions are.

PnP

I appreciate your thoughtful and gracious feedback Porknpie and yes, “faith is a journey, not just of the intellect but of the heart.”

Here are two of my all time favorite quotes from one of my favorite books …

“Great are you, O Lord, and exceedingly worthy of praise; your power is immense, and your wisdom beyond reckoning. And so we men, who are a due part of your creation, long to praise you – we also carry our mortality about with us, carry the evidence of our sin and with it the proof that you thwart the proud. You arouse us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you.”

“Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.”

Can you tell me the book and author?

 

[KjetilK]

I agree. Protestants do not have a valid consecration. Most think its just a symbol to their own detriment

What do you mean by ‘Protestant’? And what do you mean by ‘most’? This seems to be what Wikipedia calls a Weasel word.

 

[pablope]

I read the article you posted and my response is probably the standard Protestant response. I don’t have a problem with traditions, we all have them whether we realize it or not right? Where in the New Testament do Jesus or the apostles condone traditions or doctrines that don’t conform to Scripture? It seems to me they do just the opposite. The Catholic Church holds to traditions, doctrines and dogmas etc. that do not conform to Scripture.

Thanks

According to who and what? What is your basis? Your interpretation?

You confess that our Pope is the anti-Christ…so where is this in the Bible? Does this conform to Scripture?

You may want to read this…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[pablope]

In other words, a man made law.

You are talking about he Episcopal church? Which was borne from the rejection of Henry VIII…of the Catholic Church…

Would you then consider what the Episcopal Church holds and confess as man-made law?

 

[GKC]

The Old Catholic Church still exists.

That it does, most noticeably in the OCs/Utrecht.

 

[glad2bhome]

Neither do the Orthodox use the word Transubstantiation. Neither did the RCC for many centuries. The word is merely trying to explain what we cannot explain.

Thank you. That was very well stated.

 

[Michael68]

What do you mean by ‘Protestant’? And what do you mean by ‘most’? This seems to be what Wikipedia calls a Weasel word.

Protestant—Non Catholic

Most if not all protestants think communion is just a symbol when clearly it is not

 

[steve_b]

My wife is a 48 year old cradle Catholic. I spent a few years studying Catholicism, lots of books including reading through the CCC cover to cover a few times. I went through RCIA and three weeks before I was to be confirmed during the Easter Vigil I couldn’t go through with it. The Bible won the day.

In a sense, you’re arguing that the prodigal son story that Jesus told, decides instead of coming home, the prodigal son instead chooses to stay away, and you argue there’s not only no consequences to him for that decision, but scripture (i.e. Jesus) justifies that.

FAT CHANCE proving THAT from scripture.

Here’s a part of that story that Jesus told, that is seldom accented

Luke 15:24

That is, until the son returned home, Jesus said, the Father said of that son

“this my son was dead, … he was** lost**”

Jesus is always applying in His stories the bigger picture. In this case, to the next life. So IOW, Jesus is saying this prodigal son was going to hell in his current state, AND if he stayed away…

Speaking of another warning, about being away,

Paul warned the Church of Rome on those who divide from the Church. They didn’t serve Our Lord Jesus but served Satan. Protestants left the Church of Rome in the 16th century and from that rebellion, spun off all the rebellions of all stripes, we see down to this day. IOW all THAT is condemned and I gave the scriptural quotes (from Romans, & Galatians ) in my previous response that makes that point. steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif ].

The bible does not support your division theory, or continuance of your division, or your peculiar assumptions seeing things through Protestant lenses… As you can see scripture condemns it.
IHG:

I don’t claim to be as knowledgable about Catholicism as some of the Catholics at CAF but I do have at least a basic to mediocre understanding of Catholicism.

You say you were 3 weeks from finishing RCIA. Therefore, you are knowlegable enough to know about the Catholic Church, and that it traces and proves its roots with evidence, and in historical writing, going back to Jesus. Yet you choose to remain separated and outside Our Lord’s Church?

Your decision is not uninformed. You knowingly choose to remain outside the Catholic Church after being educated in the truth. Full disclosure, and in all Charity, that has huge consequences. 846

Having said that, using this to make another point Re: the topic, “Protestant communion”

communion also means union of community

By definition then, there is no union of community in Protestantism, a system that is division on steroids.

 

[Nyika]

What do you mean by ‘Protestant’? And what do you mean by ‘most’? This seems to be what Wikipedia calls a Weasel word.

‘one who is protesting’

i.e. Henry V111 protested because the Pope Clement V11 would not annul his marriage to his first wife Catherine of Aragon. Henry V111 wanted to remarry a women who could give him a son. Although Henry was eventually excommunicated from the Catholic church his religion became a baffling mixture of his inherited Catholicism and whatever suited him. Henry V111 became supreme head of the Church in England under Thomas Cromwell , the Church of England was formed and the monasteries were duly closed down (The Reformation)

 

[In_His_Grace]

In a sense, you’re arguing that the prodigal son story that Jesus told, decides instead of coming home, the prodigal son instead chooses to stay away, and you argue there’s not only no consequences to him for that decision, but scripture (i.e. Jesus) justifies that.

FAT CHANCE proving THAT from scripture.

Here’s a part of that story that Jesus told, that is seldom accented

Luke 15:24

That is, until the son returned home, Jesus said, the Father said of that son

“this my son was dead, … he was** lost**”

Jesus is always applying in His stories the bigger picture. In this case, to the next life. So IOW, Jesus is saying this prodigal son was going to hell in his current state, AND if he stayed away…

Speaking of another warning, about being away,

Paul warned the Church of Rome on those who divide from the Church. They didn’t serve Our Lord Jesus but served Satan. Protestants left the Church of Rome in the 16th century and from that rebellion, spun off all the rebellions of all stripes, we see down to this day. IOW all THAT is condemned and I gave the scriptural quotes (from Romans, & Galatians ) in my previous response that makes that point. steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif ].

The bible does not support your division theory, or continuance of your division, or your peculiar assumptions seeing things through Protestant lenses… As you can see scripture condemns it.

You say you were 3 weeks from finishing RCIA. Therefore, you are knowlegable enough to know about the Catholic Church, and that it traces and proves its roots with evidence, and in historical writing, going back to Jesus. Yet you choose to remain separated and outside Our Lord’s Church?

Your decision is not uninformed. You knowingly choose to remain outside the Catholic Church after being educated in the truth. Full disclosure, and in all Charity, that has huge consequences. 846

Having said that, using this to make another point Re: the topic, “Protestant communion”

communion also means union of community

By definition then, there is no union of community in Protestantism, a system that is division on steroids.

Your decision is not uninformed.

Correct.

You knowingly choose to remain outside the Catholic Church after being educated in the truth.

Yes, the truth that the Catholic Church is not the “one true church” established by Jesus Christ. I understand that you believe this to be true with all of your heart, but at the end of the day your belief is really a matter of faith on your part. Also, good luck proving what you believe to be true from Holy Writ or history.

CCC
811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic."256 These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other,257 indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

812 Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source. But their historical manifestations are signs that also speak clearly to human reason. As the First Vatican Council noted, the "Church herself, with her marvelous propagation, eminent holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in everything good, her catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission."258

Full disclosure, and in all Charity, that has huge consequences. 846

Like I said in an earlier post, I’ll sleep like a baby tonight.

 

[In_His_Grace]

According to who and what? What is your basis? Your interpretation?

You confess that our Pope is the anti-Christ…so where is this in the Bible? Does this conform to Scripture?

You may want to read this…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

I’ll check out your link tomorrow and thanks.