Protestant view of the reformation

[FabiusMaximus]

The second sentence of the second paragraph you posted is a matter of interpretation. I believe there was a liturgy of the word and a breaking of the bread (communion/Eucharist) and praises to God. I believe there was confessions, baptisms, marriages, holy orders, confirmations, annointing of the sick and communion performed by the early Church.

Who would deny this?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who would deny this?

That my friend, is Catholicism.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

That my friend, is Catholicism.

If Catholicism were defined purely by those things, I would be the first to say “sign me up.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If Catholicism were defined purely by those things, I would be the first to say “sign me up.”

I’ve described the Mass and the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church…

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I’ve described the Mass and the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church…

It’s the other stuff - Marian dogma, Purgatory, the distinction between mortal and venial sins that keep me at bay.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s the other stuff - Marian dogma, Purgatory, the distinction between mortal and venial sins that keep me at bay.

The ‘Tradition’ stuff?

Seriously, Martin Luther initially accepted those, and other, teachings. So the ‘other stuff’ is older than Protestantism itself.

But we’re veering into new territory. If you want to discuss the ‘other stuff’, start a thread and send me a pm. I’ll join in the discussion. I even started a thread once entitled ‘Extra/other doctrines?’ I invited all to discuss the ‘extra/other’ doctrines of the Catholic Church and used scriptures to support the doctrines. See, I believe all doctrines are Biblical, the differences are interpretational. It was my intent to show people that, even if they disagreed with the interpretation. It seems to much to get some Protestants to even admit that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are referring to a physical and literal Church organization. Jesus never founded that.
The early Church Fathers referred to the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” that gradually developed. That “Church” resembled more Orthodoxy in organization than Catholicism.

No contradiction.

If that Church resembled Orthodoxy more than Catholicism, why aren’t you Orthodox?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The ‘Tradition’ stuff?

Seriously, Martin Luther initially accepted those, and other, teachings. So the ‘other stuff’ is older than Protestantism itself.

But we’re veering into new territory. If you want to discuss the ‘other stuff’, start a thread and send me a pm. I’ll join in the discussion. I even started a thread once entitled ‘Extra/other doctrines?’ I invited all to discuss the ‘extra/other’ doctrines of the Catholic Church and used scriptures to support the doctrines. See, I believe all doctrines are Biblical, the differences are interpretational. It was my intent to show people that, even if they disagreed with the interpretation. It seems to much to get some Protestants to even admit that.

I don’t know if I’d agree with the statement that they are all biblical. It’s not “Tradition” that’s the problem.

If that Church resembled Orthodoxy more than Catholicism, why aren’t you Orthodox?

Because I don’t accept the filioque nor Orthodoxy’s hostile opposition to the charismatic gifts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t know if I’d agree with the statement that they are all biblical. It’s not “Tradition” that’s the problem.

Because I don’t accept the filioque nor Orthodoxy’s hostile opposition to the charismatic gifts.

I’m open to correction on this, but I don’t think the Orthodox accept the filioque.

Referring to the tongues, once again, I’m going to read the scriptures on them again and a question comes to mind, if the tongues served a purpose other than speaking to people so that they could understand, why didn’t Christ ever speak in tongues, or teach it Himself? That’s not recorded anywhere. Again, it seems to support my view about the reversal of the tower of Babylon. After I’ve had more time to research it, I’ll start a thread if no one else does.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I’m open to correction on this, but I don’t think the Orthodox accept the filioque.

Referring to the tongues, once again, I’m going to read the scriptures on them again and a question comes to mind, if the tongues served a purpose other than speaking to people so that they could understand, why didn’t Christ ever speak in tongues, or teach it Himself? That’s not recorded anywhere. Again, it seems to support my view about the reversal of the tower of Babylon. After I’ve had more time to research it, I’ll start a thread if no one else does.

Sorry, I meant Orthodoxy’s rejection of the filioque.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’m open to correction on this, but I don’t think the Orthodox accept the filioque.

Referring to the tongues, once again, I’m going to read the scriptures on them again and a question comes to mind, if the tongues served a purpose other than speaking to people so that they could understand, why didn’t Christ ever speak in tongues, or teach it Himself? That’s not recorded anywhere. Again, it seems to support my view about the reversal of the tower of Babylon. After I’ve had more time to research it, I’ll start a thread if no one else does.

The first example of “tongues” was at Pentecost, when a crowd of 5000 heard Peter and the apostles speaking in their own language. Christ didn’t need to speak in “tongues”, since for one thing He was the Son of God and didn’t need angelic utterances, and secondly He was usually speaking to Hebrews.

Paul wrote about “tongues” and claimed he spoke in “tongues” more than any of those he was writing to. And frankly, I don’t care much because I’ve heard both Catholics and Protestants speak in “tongues”.

When Christ appointed Peter as the Rock on which He would found His church, He wasn’t doing it just for Peter’s sake. He was setting up an office, which endures to this day, and will endure to the end of time. The Gates of Hades will not prevail against either His church or the office He set up. That Christ clearly appointed Peter as the Rock is recorded in the Scriptures, in all four Gospels (one would wonder why Protestants can’t see the importance) and the Petrine supremacy is clearl demonstrated. He called Peter first, He affirmed Peter even after his denials, and Peter is always mentioned first in any Biblical list of apostles.

There’s a reason. Like a lot of things God intends, the intention only becomes clear with hindsight. Joseph didn’t know why he was abandoned by his brothers, sold into slavery, unjustly imprisoned and forgotten by those he helped in jail. But it became clear with hindsight that he was sent to save his own family in the long run.

Likewise it took the hindsight of the early years of the church for the message of the Petrine office to sink in, such that the church fathers emphatically declared that the Bishop of Rome was Peter’s heir and wore the shoes of the fisherman.

Although much earlier when Paul had to rebuke Peter over the circumcision question, he wrote that he had rebuked “even Peter” as though standing up to Peter was an exceptional thing to do. Peter’s authority was recognised even then. Peter went to Rome, and the rest is history.

And if you’re going to split an organisation or entity, the first thing you have to do is to deny the validity of its leader to rule over you. One would think the Confederate experience of the US Civil War would have been sufficient example to US Protestants to get the message at least.

This is why, by the way, the final hurdle to reunification of the Catholic and Protestants will be the office of the Pope. You can be absolutely sure of it.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The first example of “tongues” was at Pentecost, when a crowd of 5000 heard Peter and the apostles speaking in their own language. Christ didn’t need to speak in “tongues”, since for one thing He was the Son of God and didn’t need angelic utterances, and secondly He was usually speaking to Hebrews.

Paul wrote about “tongues” and claimed he spoke in “tongues” more than any of those he was writing to. And frankly, I don’t care much because I’ve heard both Catholics and Protestants speak in “tongues”.

When Christ appointed Peter as the Rock on which He would found His church, He wasn’t doing it just for Peter’s sake. He was setting up an office, which endures to this day, and will endure to the end of time. The Gates of Hades will not prevail against either His church or the office He set up. That Christ clearly appointed Peter as the Rock is recorded in the Scriptures, in all four Gospels (one would wonder why Protestants can’t see the importance) and the Petrine supremacy is clearl demonstrated. He called Peter first, He affirmed Peter even after his denials, and Peter is always mentioned first in any Biblical list of apostles.

There’s a reason. Like a lot of things God intends, the intention only becomes clear with hindsight. Joseph didn’t know why he was abandoned by his brothers, sold into slavery, unjustly imprisoned and forgotten by those he helped in jail. But it became clear with hindsight that he was sent to save his own family in the long run.

Likewise it took the hindsight of the early years of the church for the message of the Petrine office to sink in, such that the church fathers emphatically declared that the Bishop of Rome was Peter’s heir and wore the shoes of the fisherman.

Although much earlier when Paul had to rebuke Peter over the circumcision question, he wrote that he had rebuked “even Peter” as though standing up to Peter was an exceptional thing to do. Peter’s authority was recognised even then. Peter went to Rome, and the rest is history.

And if you’re going to split an organisation or entity, the first thing you have to do is to deny the validity of its leader to rule over you. One would think the Confederate experience of the US Civil War would have been sufficient example to US Protestants to get the message at least.

This is why, by the way, the final hurdle to reunification of the Catholic and Protestants will be the office of the Pope. You can be absolutely sure of it.

Peter surely held some form of leadership among the disciples. But this in no way supports that there is a supreme office to which all Christians must give adherence.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Peter surely held some form of leadership among the disciples. But this in no way supports that there is a supreme office to which all Christians must give adherence.

What’s the use of having a church if you don’t give it any authority, to bind and loose, to forgive sins, and to retain sins?

Christ didn’t found His church on Scripture either. All Scripture does is record Christ’s statement to Peter that he was the rock on which the church would be founded.

Christ was setting up an office.