Protestants declare Peter is the Rock, Rock on

[AbideWithMe]

It is not an adequate comparison in your opinion.

Coptic—

I think it’s more than my opinion. There’s no equivalent office among Protestants, such that one Protestant leader would have that much power or influence, or universal jurisdiction over all Christians.

When it comes to scandals, as grievous as it is that any Protestant leader would be involved in a scandal that causes stumbling, those sins affect a smaller number of people. “No man is an island” indeed, though, and scandals----whether among Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Christians, are a thing we should all grieve over together.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The faith that St. Hilary is referring to is the faith that Jesus is God. Even the worst Popes never denied that. Those bad Popes never tried to change the dogma of the Trinity (nor any other dogma). In other words, the Trinity is the foundation of our Religion. It is so much a foundation that it is the reason why Catholics look at Trinitarian Protestants as Christians. That said, I am not going to defend the bad Popes; they are probably in Hell. While I would not agree with, I can appreciate why they would make you question the papacy. This was also a problem for me for a long time.

Hail_Linus—

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I can respect where you’re coming from, in that you’ve gotten over this stumbling block. But for me it still stands, and I say that in a descriptive, not a prescriptive way…IOW, I’m just describing my own viewpoint, not prescribing for anyone else how they should see this issue.

I still have a problem with the idea, if I understand you correctly, that some of the very worst of the bad popes are likely to have made Peter’s confession in any sort of a meaningful way. For some of them, their manner of living makes it hard to believe they had much reverence for, or belief in, Christ. I’m reminded of James’ words :“Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and tremble.”

Paul sets out the requirements for a bishop—just a regular bishop with responsibility for a limited area—and they’re pretty tough. In Titus 1:7—“Since a bishop is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless…” and then in 1 Timothy 3:2----“A bishop must be above reproach…” Reading the details of the requirements for bishops that follow on those instructions from Paul in 1 Timothy and Titus, well…some popes lived in a way that was pretty clearly against Paul’s instructions. It’s extremely hard for me believe that the Holy Spirit was behind the choice of those bad popes.

So I guess what I’m trying to say as I ramble here is that I don’t see how Peter’s confession can be divorced from Peter’s faith, while still presuming that Peter’s authority carries over.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

I meant that you haven’t heard of the deathbed conversion of Luther because serious Catholic and Protestant scholars recognize that there’s no evidence for it but there is evidence against it. So if you’re reading decently even-handed, careful historical material you’d probably never even hear of the alleged conversion.

Abide,

Then I should conclude that Luther did indeed have a deathbed. This is true. I should conclude that the notion of a conversion is open to discussion. This would mean that it is partially true and partially false. Would you agree with that?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

I think it’s more than my opinion. There’s no equivalent office among Protestants, such that one Protestant leader would have that much power or influence, or universal jurisdiction over all Christians.

When it comes to scandals, as grievous as it is that any Protestant leader would be involved in a scandal that causes stumbling, those sins affect a smaller number of people. “No man is an island” indeed, though, and scandals----whether among Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Christians, are a thing we should all grieve over together.

Abide,

You confuse authority with blind obedience. If my parish priest says that I must engage in communion at the Non-denominational church down the street. I can question that. If I question that and he insists then I can go to the Bishop. If the Bishop agrees and the Bishop insists then I have recourse to question further. You conclude that a sinful Pope leads people into sin.

Give me an example or two where the sins of the Pope caused the Church to falter and accept false teachings. I am open to your understanding.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hail_Linus—

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I can respect where you’re coming from, in that you’ve gotten over this stumbling block. But for me it still stands, and I say that in a descriptive, not a prescriptive way…IOW, I’m just describing my own viewpoint, not prescribing for anyone else how they should see this issue.

I still have a problem with the idea, if I understand you correctly, that some of the very worst of the bad popes are likely to have made Peter’s confession in any sort of a meaningful way. For some of them, their manner of living makes it hard to believe they had much reverence for, or belief in, Christ. I’m reminded of James’ words :“Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and tremble.”

Paul sets out the requirements for a bishop—just a regular bishop with responsibility for a limited area—and they’re pretty tough. In Titus 1:7—“Since a bishop is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless…” and then in 1 Timothy 3:2----“A bishop must be above reproach…” Reading the details of the requirements for bishops that follow on those instructions from Paul in 1 Timothy and Titus, well…some popes lived in a way that was pretty clearly against Paul’s instructions. It’s extremely hard for me believe that the Holy Spirit was behind the choice of those bad popes.

So I guess what I’m trying to say as I ramble here is that I don’t see how Peter’s confession can be divorced from Peter’s faith, while still presuming that Peter’s authority carries over.

Abide,

Since this is the difficulty you are having elaborate the names of the “Some” you describe and the sins you speak of as it concerns their Faith that you quesiton.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

I think it’s more than my opinion. There’s no equivalent office among Protestants, such that one Protestant leader would have that much power or influence, or universal jurisdiction over all Christians.

When it comes to scandals, as grievous as it is that any Protestant leader would be involved in a scandal that causes stumbling, those sins affect a smaller number of people. “No man is an island” indeed, though, and scandals----whether among Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Christians, are a thing we should all grieve over together.

Abide,

I just started a thread in light of your concern about bad Popes…lets go there and discuss how they changed Church doctrine…Bad Popes…Pulp fiction…just getting rolling…

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

Then I should conclude that Luther did indeed have a deathbed. This is true. I should conclude that the notion of a conversion is open to discussion. This would mean that it is partially true and partially false. Would you agree with that?

Well, no, I don’t think it is open for discussion. I think historians already have enough evidence to say conclusively that the conversion story is fiction.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

Since this is the difficulty you are having elaborate the names of the “Some” you describe and the sins you speak of as it concerns their Faith that you quesiton.

Coptic----

I went over to the new thread.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

You confuse authority with blind obedience.

Actually, no, I don’t confuse authority with blind obedience. I understand the difference.