Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[Don_Ruggero]

half of Christendom carries a different history and meaning than what CC gives for herself, and vice versa.

This is very true and very well said. It was fundamental to the Council Fathers in Unitatis Redintegratio. It was fundamental also to Pope Saint John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint when he acknowledged, again, how the Petrine ministry has failed to accomplish its mission as a service of unity and that the Office needed to be revisited by the theological communities of all confessions in order to suggest ways by which it could be more effective from the perspective of all the baptised.

What you write about the perspective of how history is seen and viewed also is fundamental to the work of the Holy See in the area of Christian unity. It reminds me of the passage in From Conflict to Communion.
18. Research has contributed much to changing the perception of the past in a number of ways. In the case of the Reformation, these include the Protestant as well as the Catholic accounts of church history, which have been able to correct previous confessional depictions of history through strict methodological guidelines and reflection on the conditions of their own points of view and presuppositions. On the Catholic side that applies especially to the newer research on Luther and Reformation and, on the Protestant side, to an altered picture of medieval theology and to a broader and more differentiated treatment of the late Middle Ages. In current depictions of the Reformation period, there is also new attention to a vast number of non-theological factors—political, economic, social, and cultural. The paradigm of “confessionalization” has made important corrections to previous historiography of the period.
It is for good reason that previous histories are today seen and judged through very different lenses…that they are no longer deemed to be of service…and that historians today have their own very valuable contribution to make to how people today and tomorrow see and understand what was.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Well the types as in “rock” all leads to Christ being the rock , both petra and petros.
That a church is built on Peter is unusual to any foreshadowing. What is explicitly in texts is the Christ is the rock, the chief cornerstone, and that the twelve apostles are next for our foundation, and finally we are living stones being laid upon those before us. It is not Christ rock , then Peter rock on top of Christ , then eleven apostles on top of Peter, then the rest of us (yet understand the CC interpretation of said one text making Peter rock, but many disagree with that today and" yesterday" ).

Blessings

benhur,

the following are all quick reads. As I’ve said in the past, I see my job as passing on solid information. What anyone does with it is their business. But the information is solid as a rock pardon the pun

Peter the Rock, Keating

Peter the Rock , Akin

Peter the Rock , Staples

 

[Wannano]

This is very true and very well said. It was fundamental to the Council Fathers in Unitatis Redintegratio. It was fundamental also to Pope Saint John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint when he acknowledged, again, how the Petrine ministry has failed to accomplish its mission as a service of unity and that the Office needed to be revisited by the theological communities of all confessions in order to suggest ways by which it could be more effective from the perspective of all the baptised.

What you write about the perspective of how history is seen and viewed also is fundamental to the work of the Holy See in the area of Christian unity. It reminds me of the passage in From Conflict to Communion.
18. Research has contributed much to changing the perception of the past in a number of ways. In the case of the Reformation, these include the Protestant as well as the Catholic accounts of church history, which have been able to correct previous confessional depictions of history through strict methodological guidelines and reflection on the conditions of their own points of view and presuppositions. On the Catholic side that applies especially to the newer research on Luther and Reformation and, on the Protestant side, to an altered picture of medieval theology and to a broader and more differentiated treatment of the late Middle Ages. In current depictions of the Reformation period, there is also new attention to a vast number of non-theological factors—political, economic, social, and cultural. The paradigm of “confessionalization” has made important corrections to previous historiography of the period.
It is for good reason that previous histories are today seen and judged through very different lenses…that they are no longer deemed to be of service…and that historians today have their own very valuable contribution to make to how people today and tomorrow see and understand what was.

Your last paragraph is a truth all people’s of the world need to grasp.

I see this truth and understanding evolving in other areas as well as religion. For example, in the United States it has always been thought and taught that anybody with a conscience formed against killing another human being in war was weak, yellow and a coward. The recently released movie called Hacksaw Ridge vividly portrays a true story revealing that those concepts are in fact not realistic and false. In fact the conscientious objector may indeed be a braver person. This true story ends with the CO being the first CO ever in history of the USA to receive a medal of honor. This is a very different lense to look through at the history of the attitudes to participation in warfare.

 

[Peter_J]

This is very true and very well said. It was fundamental to the Council Fathers in Unitatis Redintegratio. It was fundamental also to Pope Saint John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint when he acknowledged, again, how the Petrine ministry has failed to accomplish its mission as a service of unity and that the Office needed to be revisited by the theological communities of all confessions in order to suggest ways by which it could be more effective from the perspective of all the baptised.

What you write about the perspective of how history is seen and viewed also is fundamental to the work of the Holy See in the area of Christian unity. It reminds me of the passage in From Conflict to Communion.
18. Research has contributed much to changing the perception of the past in a number of ways. In the case of the Reformation, these include the Protestant as well as the Catholic accounts of church history, which have been able to correct previous confessional depictions of history through strict methodological guidelines and reflection on the conditions of their own points of view and presuppositions. On the Catholic side that applies especially to the newer research on Luther and Reformation and, on the Protestant side, to an altered picture of medieval theology and to a broader and more differentiated treatment of the late Middle Ages. In current depictions of the Reformation period, there is also new attention to a vast number of non-theological factors—political, economic, social, and cultural. The paradigm of “confessionalization” has made important corrections to previous historiography of the period.
It is for good reason that previous histories are today seen and judged through very different lenses…that they are no longer deemed to be of service…and that historians today have their own very valuable contribution to make to how people today and tomorrow see and understand what was.

Very challenging passage.

 

[GKC]

Your last paragraph is a truth all people’s of the world need to grasp.

I see this truth and understanding evolving in other areas as well as religion. For example, in the United States it has always been thought and taught that anybody with a conscience formed against killing another human being in war was weak, yellow and a coward. The recently released movie called Hacksaw Ridge vividly portrays a true story revealing that those concepts are in fact not realistic and false. In fact the conscientious objector may indeed be a braver person. This true story ends with the CO being the first CO ever in history of the USA to receive a medal of honor. This is a very different lense to look through at the history of the attitudes to participation in warfare.

I rather think that your assertion as to was always taught re: conscientious objectors, is an exaggerated and simplistic one, to the extent it implies that was the only opinion generally held. WWII has been a reading hobby of mine for 60 years. I knew of Doss and his heroics 50 years ago. The fact of refusing to actively participate in combat does not in itself, establish the nobility and conviction, or lack there of, of motive. Any COs who were willing to risk their lives, as did Doss, would never logically be accused of cowardice.

 

[Wannano]

I rather think that your assertion as to was always taught re: conscientious objectors, is an exaggerated and simplistic one, to the extent it implies that was the only opinion generally held. WWII has been a reading hobby of mine for 60 years. I knew of Doss and his heroics 50 years ago. The fact of refusing to actively participate in combat does not in itself, establish the nobility and conviction, or lack there of, of motive. Any COs who were willing to risk their lives, as did Doss, would never logically be accused of cowardice.

The movie clearly brings out that Doss’ position was not found to have acceptance until after he proved himself. No soldier had to personally prove himself to be seen as a hero. One was always seen as a hero in his community the minute he enlisted for combat. Not quite the same experience for a CO .

 

[benhur]

benhur, I’m quoting my sources, properly referenced, I’m not giving my opinion.

Did you miss the references showing the differences in that function of binding and loosing that Peter had vs what the others had? Clearly it is referenced and differentiated, in scripture

I think you may have missed this point.

In post #192 I gave this link ( #3 ) showing scriptural references that there is an obligation by the apostles to follow Peter’s leadership role that was given Him by Jesus. And in extension, that obligation also extends to everyone in the Church as well

As you will see when you read that link, #3
Jesus gave the leadership ἡγούμενος role to Peter over the Apostles ergo leadership over the entire church as well. Looking at the meaning behind that word for leader, (hegeomai) ἡγούμενος

Definition

1. **to lead,**a. to go before;
   b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: a (royal) governor, viceroy, chief, controlling in counsel, the overseer or leader of Christian churches: official who leads") carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led
   What is in bold emphasis, is a definition, it’s not my opinion. It’s a quote from ἡγούμενος. Therefore, Peter holds this position over not just THEM (the other apostles) but the whole Church.

And who backs Simon up through this so he doesn’t fail? JESUS.

That extends to Peter’s successors because the Church succeeds

Kinda sounds like Jesus instituted the papacy here

Hi steve,

Good job in presenting case. As you know it is an old dialogue . Others have studied and have case for their views also.

No one denies that Peter was a “leader” of the twelve. The Orthodox say it nicely, “first amongst equals”. Even your definition of leader gives many types , many functions. You assume many of them(beyond “leader” or “go before”) to develop papacy. You also assume that in Luke 22 Jesus was referring to Peter soley for the role, because he prayed for him alone. Never the less not denying that Peter did stabilize , make stand , the twelve. Just that Paul is said to have done exact same thing(same greek word) for the Roman church and the Thessalonian church etc. A simple search also reveals that the same Greek word you primarily attach to Peter is the exact term used for Barnabas and Paul and really all elders,bishops ,even a council (Acts 14, Hebrews 13).

Understand any reference to be in line with Peter, as a literal and symbolic unity in spirit and truth. Just do not see the current papacy in all of this, nor the succession part. Folks have to admit the unique and crucial aspect of the beginning and establishing of the church. The trajectory is given, "we have lift off’ and the booster rocket has done its job. Of course leadership is always needed, but it was shown to be shared (bishops, elders) , and councils resolved matters when needed.

We all know for sure Jesus gave us the twelve apostles , and Peter as leader. Can not say that Jesus gave us any pope thereafter (bishops yes, even bishops of Rome). Certainly not all of them. But He does give us a “man for all seasons” , as times and trials may call for. Just do not want to strictly institutionalize God’s appointments as the CC does.

Blessings

 

[GKC]

The movie clearly brings out that Doss’ position was not found to have acceptance until after he proved himself. No soldier had to personally prove himself to be seen as a hero. One was always seen as a hero in his community the minute he enlisted for combat. Not quite the same experience for a CO .

I assume that might hold for those who refused any sort of service that did not expose them to danger. To those who did go in harm’s way i.e., as medics), or served in support or service capacities, it was not cut and dried. Lew Ayres was a noted example.

 

[Peter_J]

I assume that might hold for those who refused any sort of service that did not expose them to danger. To those who did go in harm’s way i.e., as medics), or served in support or service capacities, it was not cut and dried. Lew Ayres was a noted example.

This may be a bit pedestrian, but I’m reminded of “My Dog Skip”:

Dink:
You think I don’t know what folks are saying? That old Dink’s a coward? Huh? Well I know. And you know what? They’re right. I got scared. And I ran. You think it was 'cause I was afraid of dying? Because I wished I was dead plenty of times.

Willie Morris:
Then what was it?

Dink:
It ain’t the dying that scary, boy. It’s the killing.

 

[GKC]

This may be a bit pedestrian, but I’m reminded of “My Dog Skip”:

Dink:
You think I don’t know what folks are saying? That old Dink’s a coward? Huh? Well I know. And you know what? They’re right. I got scared. And I ran. You think it was 'cause I was afraid of dying? Because I wished I was dead plenty of times.

Willie Morris:
Then what was it?

Dink:
It ain’t the dying that scary, boy. It’s the killing.

Respectable attitude.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Good job in presenting case.

:tiphat:thanks benhur,

but I can’t take credit. I give copious kudos to the references I credit
bh:

As you know it is an old dialogue . Others have studied and have case for their views also.

Understood.

As an analogy, I like using Jn 6: and the bread of life discourse. Most of Jesus disciples walked away from Him saying this is too hard to listen to. So they left Him

Using that example, I’m thinking who is little ole me, to get flustered or upset with ANYONE who disagrees with what I say/write/wrote etc etc.
bh:

No one denies that Peter was a “leader” of the twelve. The Orthodox say it nicely, “first amongst equals”.

Back a decade ago, I had many conversations with Fr Ambrose, an Orthodox priest in the ROCOR

I liked his answer on this issue of 1st among equals because it’s absolutely true

#[129 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129)

I provide this as well,

Then pope Benedict XVI wrote the following about that issue of 1st among equals. It poked it’s head up around the 5th century in the Eastern mindset.

Excerpt (emphasis mine)

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the *Pentarchy *gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that *no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. *
As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

From: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…orelle_en.html

I would also add this from Bishop John

“Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.”

From
bh:

even your definition of leader gives many types , many functions. You assume many of them(beyond “leader” or “go before”) to develop papacy. You also assume that in Luke 22 Jesus was referring to Peter soley for the role, because he prayed for him alone.

Remember it’s not my definition, it’s a quote from a source I used

The context of Luke can’t be denied. Simon was clearly singled out…AGAIN…from the others as Jesus often did for Peter in front of the others so that everyone was witnesses, and heard Jesus. and what He did for Peter… Remember it was Jesus who broke up their argument.
bh:

Never the less not denying that Peter did stabilize , make stand , the twelve. Just that Paul is said to have done exact same thing(same greek word) for the Roman church and the Thessalonian church etc. A simple search also reveals that the same Greek word you primarily attach to Peter is the exact term used for Barnabas and Paul and really all elders,bishops ,even a council (Acts 14, Hebrews 13).

in Luke THEY (all the apostles) just finished the last supper. Satan got them in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM. Did you miss that? One of THEM is the greatest among THEM and Jesus validated that point…

Re: Paul.
After Paul converted, after he had his come to Jesus moment , who among the apostles did Paul specifically go to see to check if his teaching was correct? Peter.
bh:

Understand any reference to be in line with Peter, as a literal and symbolic unity in spirit and truth. Just do not see the current papacy in all of this, nor the succession part.

I must not have been clear enough in my links.

For space I need to give a link & previous conversation

in ~180 a.d. Bp Irenaeus names 12 bishops in succession from Peter in Rome down to his day. Count them yourself. Notice in his teaching here, who he says he got it from.

• The context Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-3 ,
• shows importance of succession, where the teaching comes from, supremacy of Church of Rome #[645 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6434844&postcount=645), and where that teaching came from

 

[Zeno11]

Yet this is not the impression given when folk talk of Mary, “praying TO” is the usual expression used and taught .

And all over Ireland there are wayside shrines to Mary and very few to Jesus

I also tell folk it is not mandatory either.

Was there not a move recently re “co-Mediatrix with Jesus”?

If that happens?

:dts::sad_bye:

Hi Rosebud,

You are so right. I know lots of Irish Catholics who pray to Mary and hardly ever to Jesus. (I’m Irish but I live in London at the moment)
There is a lot of talk on the thread about the one catholic doctrine you disagree with most about Mary as co-redemptrix with Christ, even worse than the title you quoted. Have a look and see what you think!
Greetings to the Kingdom

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t see any reason to think it will happen, though I agree that there are Catholics who pray to Mary more often than to Jesus.

Of course, the thing is, if every time they pray to Mary they’re automatically praying to Jesus, then it could be said that they pray to Jesus more often.

 

[benhur]

in Luke THEY (all the apostles) just finished the last supper. Satan got them in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM. Did you miss that? One of THEM is the greatest among THEM and Jesus validated that point…

Hi steve,

See how we read same text and find different truths ?. Jesus just could have flat out told them, rebuked them, for forgetting that it was Peter that had the keys etc… He didn’t . Instead He leaves the whole thing open, open to the love, and initiative, and gifting that each apostle had. The invitation to be greater, or the greatest, and the invitation to be chief, was put forth to all twelve. The idea was for all of them to strive to be "servants’’, and whoever could do that the best , well was the winner ? Yet it is also that all twelve would be great , would be chiefs , and will judge Israel , all twelve. * All *twelve had a kingdom appointed unit them:

“And I appoint unto you (all) a kingdom,That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on* thrones* judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” luke 22:30

Again, no one denies that one could be greater , or receive a higher reward, or that one was the “leader”. Institutionalizing the greatest "servant’’ however goes against the grain of the whole text.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi steve,

See how we read same text and find different truths ?. Jesus just could have flat out told them, rebuked them, for forgetting that it was Peter that had the keys etc… He didn’t . Instead He leaves the whole thing open, open to the love, and initiative, and gifting that each apostle had. The invitation to be greater, or the greatest, and the invitation to be chief, was put forth to all twelve. The idea was for all of them to strive to be "servants’’, and whoever could do that the best , well was the winner ? Yet it is also that all twelve would be great , would be chiefs , and will judge Israel , all twelve. * All *twelve had a kingdom appointed unit them:

“And I appoint unto you (all) a kingdom,That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on* thrones* judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” luke 22:30

Again, no one denies that one could be greater , or receive a higher reward, or that one was the “leader”. Institutionalizing the greatest "servant’’ however goes against the grain of the whole text.

Blessings

I think Jesus was raising attention to the greater “greatness”, not the greatness of rank. He speaks to the deeper greatness, which includes the lowest of rank to the highest of rank.

He immediately refers to Peter, not only as representing all of them, who are to be tempted, but then singles Peter’s role as “strengthener” of “the others”. Why do the Apostles need an “equal among themselves” to strengthen them? Why didn’t Jesus tell them, “I, myself, will strengthen you when I rise from the dead and see you again.”? How did Peter strengthen them?

In an earlier chapter we see Jesus talking about “the wise and faithful servant”. I think there is a similar principal there.

Luke 12
Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?43Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.44Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.*

Who does Jesus set over His house, to feed them?

Jesus gives Peter His keys, tells him to feed his sheep, and to strengthen the others. Take this, and apply the Tradition of the early Church and how there was a recognition of “the Church across the sea” to have this primary role within the Church, and the Catholic position seems the most Scriptural and Historical based Tradition that has existed.

 

[benhur]

Re: Paul.
After Paul converted, after he had his come to Jesus moment , who among the apostles did Paul specifically go to see to check if his teaching was correct? Peter.

Hi steve,

Well…it was three years after his conversion, and even after he had already preached the gospel message. And he went to “see”, as in to make “acquaintance” of the most famous Peter and leader of the twelve Peter. Beyond that, ( as in seeking approval,correction) is conjecture at this encounter.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Well…it was three years after his conversion, and even after he had already preached the gospel message. And he went to “see”, as in to make “acquaintance” of the most famous Peter and leader of the twelve Peter. Beyond that, ( as in seeking approval,correction) is conjecture at this encounter.

Blessings

In Gal 2, Paul wanted confirmation he was not running in vain with his teaching. As Paul put it “by revelation” iow he was sent by the HS to seek confirmation his teaching was correct

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

See how we read same text and find different truths ?. Jesus just could have flat out told them, rebuked them, for forgetting that it was Peter that had the keys etc… He didn’t . Instead He leaves the whole thing open, open to the love, and initiative, and gifting that each apostle had.

benhur,

Yes we are reading this differently.

I’ve added the Greek words for context behind Jesus statement to the apostles . Jesus was gentle but direct. He confirmed ** one of them **is to be all of this. There was no equalization of positions here among the apostles. No hint that they are considered all equal to each other in authority. Just look at the language used.

(links are operational)

ἡγούμενος , στήρισον

Lk 22:
24A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

1. 
   *]Did Jesus confirm one would rule? Yes
   *]Did He say anyone else would rule? No
   *]Did Jesus promise to pray especially for one who would rule and strengthen the others? Yes
   *]Did Jesus name or pray for anyone else in that position He names? No
   *]Who is this one He names to rule, and that Jesus is going to pray for? Peter.
   *]the one who rules ἡγούμενος , open the link and see the explanation. Part of the understanding of that word is, hence Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by him
   
   that said,
   
   for Peter then to do the job Jesus commanded of him, all must be willing to be led by Peter. In extension, those who do this are cooperating with the will of Jesus.
   bh:
   

   The invitation to be greater, or the greatest, and the invitation to be chief, was put forth to all twelve.

   With respect, If all are equals, why is one made to be στήρισον and commanded to στήρισον the others?
   bh:
   

   The idea was for all of them to strive to be "servants’’, and whoever could do that the best , well was the winner ?

   Servants yes. But one is the leader. ἡγούμενος , who is also to στήρισον
   the others
   BTW one of the titles of the pope is “servant of the servants of God” which takes nothing away from his authority
   bh:
   

   Yet it is also that all twelve would be great , would be chiefs , and will judge Israel , all twelve. * All *twelve had a kingdom appointed unit them:

   Yet Jesus made one of them the chief over the others ἡγούμενος
   and the one who is the leader. ἡγούμενος , also is to στήρισον
   the others
   bh:
   

   “And I appoint unto you (all) a kingdom,That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on* thrones* judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” luke 22:30

   Yet one of them is to be over all the others ἡγούμενος
   bh:
   

   Again, no one denies that one could be greater , or receive a higher reward, or that one was the “leader”. Institutionalizing the greatest "servant’’ however goes against the grain of the whole text.
   
   Blessings

   Jesus established the papacy.
   
   Various fictions however, come from this subject
   
   Fiction 1 - Peter was not the first Pope
   Fiction 2 - The Pope cannot be the Successor of Peter
   Fiction 3 - The Papacy is a medieval invention

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As you know it is an old dialogue . Others have studied and have case for their views also.

No one denies that Peter was a “leader” of the twelve. /…/ Blessings

I just wanted to avail myself of the opportunity to remark that I enjoy reading your posts and that upon which you comment. I find your interventions well presented as well as thoughtful in content.

 

[spedteacherita]

And so it is not literally true. I’m not sure the claim was to literalism.
Which passages of the bible do you know by heart? Which do you not? Do you really know “the whole book of the bible”?

At the Mass we have the living Word of God. Everyday the Catholic Church has a scripture study in a context that can be had nowhere else on earth.
Everyday we have scripture, OT and NT. Psalms, Revelation. Hosana.
The Mass is one long tour of Scripture, but in the only context that matters, that of Christ himself.
No other Church has the living Word of God, body blood soul and divinity.

Our Divine Services follow a similar liturgy as the Catholic Mass as do some others such as the Anglicans.