Protestants, just what did the early Church look like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dennisknapp:
What exactly is your point? What if two duly appointed teacher teach two different things? Who are we to listen to?

Your point makes no sense whatsoever. The CCC is the Catholic Churches official teaching on all matters. How is this hard to understand.

Peace
Click to expand...
Sorry, typo.
 
I have to poke in here.

T Moore… you ared constantly manipulating the Catholic Faith.

First… If ANY leader in a Catholic Church preaches that which is contrary to Catholic Teaching… THEY are the problem. Not the Church. And WE as laity can point out their B.S.

For example… using this statement… “Chirst has risen.”

If a priest finds this to be nonsense… WE can turn to the Church. She holds the teachings. I don’t need to sit around and wait for the pope to step in. I KNOW MY FAITH. The Church has spoken.

Second… your constant “American Catholic Church” is getting old. Same thing. American, Cuban, Lithuanian… DOES NOT matter… Catholic is Catholic. One Church, One Body, One Teaching.

If a group of Armenian bishops discuss how contraception is “okay”… they have gone against CHRUCH teaching.

Third… your “spirit of VII” comment was very annoying. As if you can pull they old… “hey… I will get them back with their VII!”

You don’t know squat about VII. The council did not really CHANGE anything regarding what YOU keep manipulating. We still hold the Church to be the authority. YES… the Church is always reforming… always moving… but, once a dogma is made… she can not contradict herself.

YES…we are looking for ways to unify with our seperated bretheren… but, we will not compromise the faith left behind by our Lord.

Final… I am sure there is some bad theology going on in certain semenaries. So? your point? Does that mean the Church has derailed?

With this type of thinking… NO WONDER there was a “protestant rebellion!” This type of thinker sees INDULGENCES SOLD… and thinks the WHOLE CHURCH is in on it… and SPLITS.
 
"What exactly is your point? What if two duly appointed teacher teach two different things? Who are we to listen to?

You point make no sense whatsoever. The CCC is the Catholic Churches official teaching on all matters. How is this hard to understand."

It is relevant in two ways.

First, a Catholic’s failure to submit is rebellion. There can be multiple interpretations of Catholic dogma, whether expressed in the CCC, conciliar decision or eldewhere. Rome has approved of teachers of this dogma and the faithful are obligated to submit to them and to not exalt private interpretations over them. These are the lviing voices of the Church.

Second, your selection of one source of Catholic dogma (the CCC) to trump the living voices of the Church rests again on your private judgment and not on submission. It is simply your private opinion of which source of dogma is best, a duly authorized (by Rome) teacher or a document. You should submit to the teacher, not the document. The teacher is trained in theology and his training has been approved by Rome and he has been authorized by Rome to teach. His understanding of the CCC is not only better than yours but his teaching authority has Rome’s approval. Yours does not.

T. More
 
“What if two duly appointed teacher teach two different things?”

Youc an say this about any two sources of authority. What is the Pope says something different than the CCC. Or what if the CCC teaches somethign different than the Bible? How do you resolve this?
 
“Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, et al, all understood Matthew 16 this way.”

Not is terms of a papacy. They actually affirmed the typical Protestant understanding that the reference to Peter concerned his confession. I am reluctant to get into cutting and pasting patristic quotes as that never seems to produce anything, but here goes . . .
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by “not in terms of a papacy.” If you mean they didn’t really believe the Church was built on Peter, I’d have to say, “C’mon.” In an absolute sense, of course, it’s built on Christ, and Peter’s “thou art the Christ,” but it is also on the person of Peter for the purpose of unity. Many Fathers say so directly, and none, certainly, deny it.
And that these Fathers held the typical Protestent understanding of Matthew 16? Almost every Protestant I’ve discussed it with denies that Peter was in any sense “The Rock” on whom Christ would build his Church. They fall into the “Petros is a small pebble” fallacy, which is entirely untenable alongside a reading of the Fathers. (Recently, I actually have come across a few who do agree that Peter’s name had to do with his role, but have numerous other objections to the modern papacy.)

Your citations don’t contradict Catholic understanding of Peter’s role. As Chrysostom makes clear in his Homilies on Matthew, Christ’s church was to be built on Peter’s profession as well as on the person of Peter himself. Chrysostom refers to “On this Rock” as an “honor” Christ was bestowing on Peter. Further…

Augustine, whom you believe was saying (I think) that Christ didn’t mean to be building his Church on the person of Peter:

“The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.”
Against the Epislt of Manichaeus, Ch 4
and,

“For, if the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, tryly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock I will build my church…” For, to Peter succedded Linus, to Linus Clement…” (and so on).
Letters, no. 53

and Tertullian
"The Lord (conferred) this gift personally upon Peter. ‘On you,’ He says, ‘will I build my church’; and, "I will give to you the keys,’ not to the Church.
On Modesty, Ch21

Peace.
John
Cyprian:
The Lord speaks to Peter: “I say to you,” He says, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…” Upon him, being one, He built His Church, and although after his resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: ‘as the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,’ that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one."
On the Unity of the Catholic Church, Ch. 4

This same Cyprian wrote [to Florentius, 254]: “Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ…” Letters, No. 66.
 
T. More said:
"What exactly is your point? What if two duly appointed teacher teach two different things? Who are we to listen to?

You point make no sense whatsoever. The CCC is the Catholic Churches official teaching on all matters. How is this hard to understand."

It is relevant in two ways.

First, a Catholic’s failure to submit is rebellion. There can be multiple interpretations of Catholic dogma, whether expressed in the CCC, conciliar decision or eldewhere. Rome has approved of teachers of this dogma and the faithful are obligated to submit to them and to not exalt private interpretations over them. These are the lviing voices of the Church.

Second, your selection of one source of Catholic dogma (the CCC) to trump the living voices of the Church rests again on your private judgment and not on submission. It is simply your private opinion of which source of dogma is best, a duly authorized (by Rome) teacher or a document. You should submit to the teacher, not the document. The teacher is trained in theology and his training has been approved by Rome and he has been authorized by Rome to teach. His understanding of the CCC is not only better than yours but his teaching authority has Rome’s approval. Yours does not.

T. More
Click to expand...

So, according to you I am supposed to obey a dissenting priest because he is ordained? According to you, if my local priest says the Eucharist is just a symbol and nothing else I am supposed to take that as the official teaching of the Church? Hogwash!

I am part of the Faithful. And as part of the Faithful it is my duty to remain in line with Church teaching. The Church teaches that the Eucharist actually become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If I am taught otherwise by anyone, be they priest or deacon or whoever, it is my duty to not believe them and to report them.

I picked the CCC because it summerizes the voice of the living Church. It is a summery of the Councils, Scripture, the Popes, and is the OFFICIAL interpretation of all these things.

Also, a Catholic who does not submit to a dissenting priest in not in rebellion, the priest is. The Catholic would BE in rebellion if he/she obeyed the dissenting priest if he/she knew the priest was teaching dissenting OPINIONS contrary to Catholic Dogma. The Catholic would be in obedience to the Church for not following this priest.

You make it as if a priest is an individual Pope, which he is not! And the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, and this has only happened twice.

I think I see what you are trying to do here. You are trying to say that a Catholic need not use his/her mind because the Church is there to think for them. Is this correct? Can you provide me with an argument to show how this would follow?

Peace
 
john ennis:
Almost every Protestant I’ve discussed it with denies that Peter was in any sense “The Rock” on whom Christ would build his Church.
Click to expand...
Has it ever crossed your mind that “almost every Protestant you’ve discussed it with” may be as unrepresentative of the best Protestant thought on the subject as “almost every Catholic” a Protestant happens to run into would be of the best Catholic thought?

Edwin
 
“I picked the CCC because it summerizes the voice of the living Church. It is a summery of the Councils, Scripture, the Popes, and is the OFFICIAL interpretation of all these things.”

Sola Catechism. 🙂
 
“Almost every Protestant I’ve discussed it with denies that Peter was in any sense “The Rock” on whom Christ would build his Church.”

Edwin has a point. I am sure you are right about most Protestants, at least from an evangelical bent. However, a large section of Protestantism does agree that Peter is some sense as a person represented the visible unity of the Church. Augustine also wrote about Judas, suggesting that he is as representative of the world in a way similar to Peter’s representing the church. Eastern Orthodox believe that the Peter as a person represented the visible unity of the Church and yet they do not understand this to imply the papacy or papal powers. I think the point is that this does not matter. Agreeing that Peter represents the visible unity of the Church does not imply the papacy, as hundreds of millions of Eastern Orthodox (not to mention numerous Protestants, including many Anglicans and other high church Prots) can tell you.

The Patristic writings are largely devoid of use of Matt 16 to justify a Roman papacy. That is telling given that this is a sine qua non of Roman Catholicism.

T. More
 
“Second… your constant “American Catholic Church” is getting old. Same thing. American, Cuban, Lithuanian… DOES NOT matter… Catholic is Catholic. One Church, One Body, One Teaching.”

I thought that you would actually like this. I think all can agree that the Church in America (Catholic, Protestant, etc.) is in a dismal state. Outside of America things are brighter. For example, a Catholic bishop in China was recently seen to be a stalwart of the faith. He operated an orphange, was subjected to prison and suffering for keeping true to Christ and resisting secular dogma, etc. He is representative of something larger and better happening in less developed parts of the world. There is a life in the Church outside the West, and I did not want to imply to the problems of the West are seen everywhere.
 
T. More:
Does the laity drink of the cup in your parish?
Click to expand...
Yes. We physically drink from the cup… as has every Catholic parish I’ve ever attended or seen on television.

-Michael
 
Michael: Glad to hear it. Others on the list (and others I have talked with elsewhere) do not.
 
T. More:
Michael: Glad to hear it. Others on the list (and others I have talked with elsewhere) do not.
Click to expand...
Who on this list do not?

And you never fully answered by previous post.

Peace
 
40.png
tkdnick:
They do at mine too.
Click to expand...
But, the one I visited in the San Francisco Bay Area didn’t. They withheld. It seems to be parish or Diocese dependent.
Michael
 
T. More said:
“As opposed to spiritually drinking? Or emotionally drinking?”

Scott: I forget the name of the doctrine of the unity of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. But that is what I am talking about (eating the bread is understood to simultaneously include the wine). What is this doctrine called?
Click to expand...

T. More,

If you’re going to take the name of a well venerated Catholic Saint, you’d better get this one right! LOL

The Doctrine’s called Transubstantiation. What that means is that the Sustance of the bread and the wine are changed into the substance of our Lord’s Body and Blood, One of the Ecumenical Councils, Florence I believe, determined that both Substances are present under both species.

Blessings, Michael
 
T. More:
homiletic teaching is often minimized in many Catholic Churches (thought it does not have to be).
Click to expand...
What does this mean? Is it minimized or not?
 
40.png
jimmy:
No it is not consistent with any protestantism. Look at the liturgies I gave above, which show the liturgies that the early Church used. They are very Catholic, and can not be considered similar to protestants. The Anglicans may be able to say it looks like them, but that is because they had a reform in the 1800s to make there liturgy more Catholic.
Click to expand...
Jimmy:

You are correct. The reform was called the Oxford Movement, although GKC informs me that there were 2 reform movements that happened at about the same time.

Blessings, Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top