Protestant opinion on where Roman Catholic Church went into apostasy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brianjmc1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet they ARE still referred to as disciples, and Judas WAS an Apostle…

Which is further proof of tares among the wheat. The difference being those tares walked away from Jesus and His teachings even though they actually did know Him personally.

God DOES let us decide for ourselves!
 
MarkRome said:
You are referring to the East/West schism and the Eastern Orthodox Churches which are not Catholic, not in communion with the Pope, but are still considered “Churches” with valid Sacraments.

I am referring to the 23 Easter Rite Catholic Churches which are in full communion with the Pope. They are not considered “Roman Catholic” as that (primarily) refers just to the Latin Rite Churches.

en.wikipedia.org

Eastern Catholic Churches​

The Eastern Catholic Churches or Oriental Catholic Churches, also called the Eastern-rite Catholic Churches, or simply the Eastern Churches and in some historical cases referred to pejoratively as Uniates,[a] are twenty-three Eastern Christian sui iuris (autonomous) particular churches of the Catholic Church, in full communion with the pope in Rome. They are united with one another and with the Latin or Roman Church (also known as the Western Church). In particular, they recognize the central rol…
Click to expand...
I am aware of that distinction, and I do realize that the Eastern Catholic rites constitute a relatively small part of the entire Catholic Church that is in union with the Pope of Rome. My thumbnail description was basically “if you had to fit an explanation of the Catholic-Orthodox schism on the back of a postcard for someone who had never heard of it before”.
 
sainteriksrose said:
The difference being those tares walked away from Jesus and His teachings even though they actually did know Him personally.
Click to expand...
Yes, but knew Jesus personally as what? A shallow biography (a rabbi from Nazareth, Mary and Joseph as parents), a teacher, a miracle worker, a Rome kicker outer? They did not know Him fully, as spiritual Savior, not just from God, but God incarnate, as only revealed by the Spirit, drawn by the Father.
 
Last edited:
sainteriksrose said:
God DOES let us decide for ourselves!
Click to expand...
Absolutely, else Christ would not have asked, "Who do men, (and then “you,”) say that I am. " Parenthetically every human who has heard anything about Jesus will be asked this.

This is not just for the magisterium(s), or councils or rabbis and priests but more fundamentally to each individual, one on one…quite personal, quite dignifying.

Each heart must open up to Him, as sup with Him and His salvation and new birth.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
40.png
sainteriksrose:
We have to keep praying that those whose souls are in jeopardy, wake up and stay awake! (Matthew 25:1-13)
Click to expand...
Indeed, we have to have our own “oil”, a personal filling.( of the Spirit)…can’t be somebody else’s…we must know Him personally and declare Him as such (Savior), and He will declare us as His when we come knocking at the door of the “wedding”.

It can’t be about knowing Him a little bit, thru others, like His biography. That is like those with a little oil in their lamps, that we are given thru tradition and religion from a youth.

We must have a personal full encounter with the saving Lord, getting our own oil, drawing from the well we have been led too by others and by the Holy Spirit. Being born of the Spirit.

We can not be like Nicodemus who had some ancestral, religious oil, some light, being a leader of God’s people, yet not born again, not born of Spirit. He saw Jesus only biographically (as a great teacher from God). He had not rested his salvation ( thought he was already saved with his little oil) fully on Jesus and gotten His fill dose of oil.

“Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev 3:20
Click to expand...
I truly believe that these are the very words that God would want all men everywhere thru all the ages to hear and understand. This is the church Jesus started…the universal collection of individual lamps whose light is not hidden…even under the comfort of familiar institutionalized structure.
 
“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (A.D. 96).

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
-St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“…the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…”
-St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
 
Last edited:
“…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”
-St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae , 4 (A.D. 251).

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325)

The only time the keys are used in the OT, or in the Gospels, they have to do with dynastic succession and authority of office. Jesus purposely used the language of Isa 22:22 when demonstrating this purpose in Mt 16:19.

In the Old Davidic kingdom, the king had a prime minister on whose shoulder was placed the keys of the kingdom. Similarly, the new kingdom of Christ also has a prime minister (Peter and his successors) who is given the keys of the kingdom. The keys not only represent the authority the prime minister has to rule over God’s people in the king’s absence, but also the means of effecting dynastic succession to the prime minister’s office.

In that verse(Isa 22:22), the keys are passed on from Shebna to Eliacim as prime minister/steward of the Kings house. So too is Peter the steward in Christs house in his absence. Christ did not give this authority to everyone. He gave it to Simon and renamed him Cephas just as Abram became Abraham and Jacob became Israel. When God chooses a new vocation for you, He gives you a new name.

Mt 16:19 • ‘And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’
Isa 22:22 • ‘And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.’
 
Last edited:
I think we was referring that its wierd that the church who was the persecuted and pacifist became the persecutors in the 4th century
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
I think we was referring that its wierd that the church who was the persecuted and pacifist became the persecutors in the 4th century
Click to expand...
Yeah, I clicked on the wrong reply 🙂 But its good you responded. I was actually referring to some of the comments you made earlier about there being no bishop of Rome who exercised universal jurisdiction
 
WelL yeah I never saID they didnt since papal primacy was a thing it was the diference of supremacy.

primacy of the Bishop of Rome , is an ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the respect and authority from other bishops and their Episcopal sees.

This does not contradictis with iranius words.

Example when pope Victor’s said thst he would excommunicate the Asian churches this showed papal primacy and authority in the early Church, and the bishops questioned his wisdom.
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
WelL yeah I never saID they didnt since papal primacy was a thing it was the diference of supremacy.

primacy of the Bishop of Rome , is an ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the respect and authority from other bishops and their Episcopal sees.

This does not contradictis with iranius words
Click to expand...
You asserted this quote

“If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.”

Which I have demonstrated as being false.
 
Well that was a catholic theologian

But either way my point was to show the histórical concensus that papal supremacy evolved over time
 
Last edited:
That university is a bad one then lol

Then agiain my point is that supremacy is an evolved concept not primacy , primacy is founded early on while the historical con censencus say supremacy evolved over time.

But the author of the quote was refering to asking a chirstian that meant that this concept was not universal

And seeing how I pointed out the things that are aginst it and there is more validates the concensus
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
Then agiain my point is that supremacy is an evolved concept not primacy , primacy is founded early on while the historical con censencus say supremacy evolved over time.
Click to expand...
You asserted
First phase of papal supremacy begining in the late 4th and early 5th century to the late 8th
and the second phase from rom the middle of the 11th century and extending to the middle of the 13th century
Click to expand...
Universal jurisdiction was demonstrated by Pope St. Clement of Rome in the 1st century with his correction of the Corinthians.
 
historyfan81 said:
WelL yeah I never saID they didnt since papal primacy was a thing it was the diference of supremacy.

primacy of the Bishop of Rome , is an ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the respect and authority from other bishops and their Episcopal sees.

This does not contradictis with iranius words.

Example when pope Victor’s said thst he would excommunicate the Asian churches this showed papal primacy and authority in the early Church, and the bishops questioned his wisdom.
Click to expand...
Its bad form to edit and add to your posts after a person already replied to them
 
Eh I do it every time since Iit just takes time to do it since I commit many typos
 
Agian this does not against the concensus where the congregation had deposed certain elders (presbyters). The author called on the congregation to repent, to restore the elders to their position, and to obey their superiors. He said that the apostoles had appointed the church leadership and directed them on how to perpetuate the ministry.

Its not like clement imposed this but rather guide them

Clement wrote like paul here and guiding them ( you dont need papal authority to do this church fathers did this and they where not popes well at least the majority)

not an edict or an imposition its not like Pope Victor case and if even if where victors case it wold it be evidence for papal supremacy
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top