Should protestants find their way into the CC now that they know that their religion was made from men who rebelled against the Church

[CMatt25]

This is not true. All the five major Patriarchies have this, and there is also a line from Peter that orignated out of Antioch before Peter went to Rome.

It is not the line of succession exclusively that sets apart Rome as the center of orthodoxy and unity.

Guan, so Peter currently has at least 5 successors in addition to the line going back to his earlier days in Antioch? How many successors currently does Peter have counting the line traced back to Antioch?

 

[guanophore]

Guan, so Peter currently has at least 5 successors in addition to the line going back to his earlier days in Antioch? How many successors currently does Peter have counting the line traced back to Antioch?

Honestly, CM, do you really know that little about Apostolic succession?

Think about your scriptures. Where were the followers of The Way first called “christians”?

Now, from that city, and from that day, until this, do you really think the time span could be covered by only five successors? It has been about 2000 years…what kind of life span would they have to have?

All of the Aposltes ordained bishops, who in turn, chose faithful men who could teach others also. This happened all over the known world, and has been going on ever since. If you want to count them, I guess you could. It sounds like a lifelong task, though.

 

[Cat]

The Catechism would disagree with the theory that the Protestants have “stolen” the Creed. The Creed is what Christians believe. It is not unique to the Catholic Church. Anyone who

Paragraph 819 says, "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”

There is a footnote after the phrase "visible elements,’ which refers us to Paragraph 274, which says, “Nothing is more apt to confirm our faith and hope than holding it fixed in our minds that nothing is impossible with God. Once our reason has grasped the idea of God’s almighty power, it will easily and without any hesitation admit everything that the Creed will afterwards propose for us to believe.”

In other words, non-Catholic Christians can and should believe in the Creed.

 

[josephback]

josephback;7948387:

The doctrines of imputed righteousness and Justification by faith alone are lies. QUOTE]

This is what I meant… lies are when you know what you’re saying is not the truth. Whereas, Protestants are attempting to tell the truth.

If you think they’re wrong, as you are entiltled to, then correct them but you shouldn’t accuse them of lying.

Ok, the doctrines are misleading. Lies are intentional, and no most Protestants don’t intentionally try to mislead. But the doctrines are still wrong.

 

[josephback]

Can you back up your notion of lies that Protestants or Lutherans have or are they just your way of becoming Roman Catholic?

Well I could, but I’ve generally found it unfruitful to debate. It too often becomes a war of opinions and Scripture interpretation. Some things you might want to investigate yourself are like I said the teaching of imputed righteousness and Sola Fide. Rejection of the papacy too is an error. None of these have support when the Bible is read in its full context. I’ll let you look into things and see whether I’m telling the truth. Also, as someone else pointed out to me, the doctrines are lies, but that doesn’t mean they’re intentionally spread. My apologies if it’s come across that way.

 

[CMatt25]

Honestly, CM, do you really know that little about Apostolic succession?

Think about your scriptures. Where were the followers of The Way first called “christians”?

Now, from that city, and from that day, until this, do you really think the time span could be covered by only five successors? It has been about 2000 years…what kind of life span would they have to have?

All of the Aposltes ordained bishops, who in turn, chose faithful men who could teach others also. This happened all over the known world, and has been going on ever since. If you want to count them, I guess you could. It sounds like a lifelong task, though.

What I honestly believe is you misunderstood my question Guan. But that would not be a first. Yes I know there have been far more than 5 men who have been considered to be successors of Peter in 2000 yrs. Your response to Gabriel was it is not true the bishop of Rome is the only apostolic successor that has an unbroken line of apostolic succession to Peter. That all the five major Patriarchies have this, and there is also a line from Peter that orignated out of Antioch before Peter went to Rome. So I was presuming you believe there have been more successors to Peter in 2000 yrs than Gabriel does. But proclaimed succession is not as important to me as the fruits we shall know them by. So nevermind.

 

[guanophore]

Well I could, but I’ve generally found it unfruitful to debate. It too often becomes a war of opinions and Scripture interpretation. Some things you might want to investigate yourself are like I said the teaching of imputed righteousness and Sola Fide. Rejection of the papacy too is an error. None of these have support when the Bible is read in its full context. I’ll let you look into things and see whether I’m telling the truth. Also, as someone else pointed out to me, the doctrines are lies, but that doesn’t mean they’re intentionally spread. My apologies if it’s come across that way.

The doctrines are wrong, and do mislead the faithful. And I think they are most certainly intentionally spread. Those that spread them, though, believe they are right, and they spread them with the best of intentions. This delights the evil one to no end.

 

[guanophore]

What I honestly believe is you misunderstood my question Guan.  But that would not be a first.

Who me? Misunderstand you, CM? Surely not!

Yes I know there have been far more than 5 men who have been considered to be successors of Peter in 2000 yrs.

And the Apostolic succession is not dependent upon the Petrine line, either. The other four Patriarchies also have valid lines of succession from Apostles.

Your response to Gabriel was it is not true the bishop of Rome is the only apostolic successor that has an unbroken line of apostolic succession to Peter. That all the five major Patriarchies have this, and there is also a line from Peter that orignated out of Antioch before Peter went to Rome.

Yes.

So I was presuming you believe there have been more successors to Peter in 2000 yrs than Gabriel does.

Why would you think that? Why would that matter?

But proclaimed succession is not as important to me as the fruits we shall know them by. So nevermind.

You seem to be unable to separate the doctrine from the people charged with it’s preservation. Jesus promised to preserve His Church in “all Truth”. Individuals can benefit from this promise to the extent that they remain in unity with His One Church. This Church is identified by unity with the successor of Peter.

Some individuals have departed from the One Faith, but their departure does not mar the Truth. They may not bear the fruit that is expected, but there is nothing wrong with the Vine.

 

[john_aurelius]

john_aurelius;7948438:

Ok, the doctrines are misleading. Lies are intentional, and no most Protestants don’t intentionally try to mislead. But the doctrines are still wrong.

Thankyou for your recognition of the possibility of their intentions being noble on a personal level

My original question to the OP still remains however,

Why should the Protestants specifically return to the CC?

Not that we don’t want them but how does organisational unity matter? They should be seen as allies in the battle against Satan and the secularisation of our world.

An example is found in Australian history. In its early days the Govenor from England wanted to make the Anglican church the established Church of Australia. The Irish Catholics, who were mostly convicts had no say but they convinced the Presbyterian Church (the church of Scotland) to join them in resisting this move and the Anglican church had to back down as the monarch is a member of the church of Scotland as well as the head of the church of England.

Thus Australia has no established church and over time the Catholic Church has grown and is now the number 1 churchin Australia (in terms of member numbers) with 30% of the population in the census claiming to be Catholic.

I understand America has more of the Puritan background due to their leaving England and Continental Europe because of the Reformation.

Maybe its time to make peace with our seperated brethren and join as Christian brothers in taking on the world in a display of Christian unity and charity towards each other.

 

[CMatt25]

Who me? Misunderstand you, CM? Surely not!

Why would you think that?

Well you shall surely notice though Guan this time I did not apolgize for your misunderstanding since you previously directed me not to.

I only thought that because I thought Gabriel was talking only about the Apostle Peter when he said the bishops of Rome are the only apostolic successors to Peter. But you said this is not true and talked about others and referred to all Apostles naming bishops.

So I quite possibly misunderstood you Guan or Gabriel or both of you. Nevertheless as always peace.

 

[Morpheous90]

Ok so 500 years after this break apart and people still argue about the “ways of worship”. Jesus Christ is The Son Of God, you all worship him so technically you all are one religion. See what humanity does to a concept? So Christians, please stop burning each other (awful pun ) and realize you all are Christians.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is not true. All the five major Patriarchies have this, and there is also a line from Peter that orignated out of Antioch before Peter went to Rome.

It is not the line of succession exclusively that sets apart Rome as the center of orthodoxy and unity.

Not true? Let us be clear here. It is true Peter ordained a bishop in Antioch before establishing his episcopacy in Rome with Paul.

Recorded history proves that this apostolic succession in Antioch fell into heresy, thereby broke with apostolic succession.

Your five Patriarchates is very debatable? for one the Patriarch of Constantinople is never apostolic, this patriachate is Ecclessial, now the topic has changed here from the three major apostolic see’s. Constantinople usurped other apostolic sees, but again this is another topic.

History records at one time or another that all apostolic sees fell into heresy at one time or another, Rome is the only see that has never fell into heresy, thus she remained “Rock”.

Rome is the only (apostolic see) bishop that can trace her popes all the way back to the apostle St.Peter without unbroken apostolic succession.

The validity of apostolic succession is maintained by the ordaination from an apostolic successor, thus those apostolic sees which fell into heresy, broke with apostolic succession, but is regained apostolical by the ordaining of a bishop from a “true” apostolic successor.

The bishop of Rome does not have a broken apostolic succession, she is unbroken.

Can you please clarify as to what you believe is to be untrue? and please produce your evidence.

Peace be with you

 

[josephback]

The doctrines are wrong, and do mislead the faithful. And I think they are most certainly intentionally spread. Those that spread them, though, believe they are right, and they spread them with the best of intentions. This delights the evil one to no end.

Basically wha tI meant. To be ‘charitable’ or call a spade? What is truly “charitable”?

 

[Sandalwood]

Whoa. Wait a minute.

What are you talking about?!

I am a convert from evangelical Protestantism. I can tell you right now, with absolute certainty, that most evangelical Protestants know nothing of the sort!

They have no idea that “their religion was made from men who rebelled against the Church.”

In fact, they consider these men heroes of the faith because they had the courage to speak out against a Babylonian mystery cult that worshipped a goddess instead of God, added the burden of works to faith, re-sacrificed the Lord Jesus over and over again, and inserted pagan rituals such as eating flesh and drinking blood to Christian gatherings.

So how did you get the idea that Protestants know that their “religion” is a sham?

In fact, do you realize that** most evangelical Protestants would deny that Christianity is a “religion?” Evangelical Protestants object to the word “religion” to describe Biblical Christianity. To them, Christianity is a Person, Jesus Christ, and our faith in Him. **
So I don’t get your post at all.

WOW! I don’t know what church you went to but I can’t tell you with 100% certainty that growing up Baptist (for 48 years), that nonsense was NOT a part of our belief!

Maybe you should specify what church you belonged to instead of generalizing all Protestants into that heap!

 

[hn160]

Thank you. many dont realize the deceit being spreaded to others. we only need the one Church.

You are pretty presumptuous, can you explain the Orthodex Churches? Are the Othodox Churches that are not in communion with Rome not Christian? Did they steal from the Roman Church? Give me a break.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are pretty presumptuous, can you explain the Orthodex Churches? Are the Othodox Churches that are not in communion with Rome not Christian? Did they steal from the Roman Church? Give me a break.

Any True Eastern Orthodox will inform you that they are “Catholic” Christians. They maintain their Catholic doctrine and Traditions, whereby non-catholics and protestants removed themselves from their Catholic doctrines and Traditions, and picked and chose what they wanted to believe for themselves, not what Jesus taught and revealed to the apostles who handed them down to the Catholic Church.

Most Orthodox Eastern Catholics remain in communion with the popes, some Orthodox communities have returned in communion with the pope, some have never left communion with the pope since apostolic times. The “tear” =schism between Eastern Orthodox Church’s deals with “authority and loose” doctrine issues. Some of these Eastern Orthodox communities are not in communion with each other, let alone the pope, but they are all Catholic.

For one to explain the Orthodox Churches? is a grand of a task, your question may have to be more specific.

 

[Cat]

WOW! I don’t know what church you went to but I can’t tell you with 100% certainty that growing up Baptist (for 48 years), that nonsense was NOT a part of our belief!

Maybe you should specify what church you belonged to instead of generalizing all Protestants into that heap!

I apologize. I didn’t intend to generalize all Protestants. I’m usually more careful, but this time my post was not clear.

Keep in mind that there are several hundred different varieties of Baptist, and even within Baptist denominations, there are differences in what individuals believe.

My denomination, the Conference Baptists, were actually pretty favorable in their view of the Catholic Church, but many of the individuals in that church were NOT favorable, and went along with some of the teachings that I listed. E.g., I remember quite a few classes in which Sunday school teachers pointed out the similiarities between Babylonian cults who worshipped goddesses, and Marian “worship” in the Catholic Church.

I will say, though, that many Protestants DO have the idea that the Catholic Church is a “works-based” church that believes we are saved through works, not faith. I don’t consider this “extreme” Protestant misconception about Catholics. We were taught that this is what Catholics teach.

And many, many Protestants in the evangelical churches believe that Catholics sacrifice Jesus over and over again in the Mass rituals. I don’t this is “extreme” Protestant teaching. We were taught this in almost all the Protestant churches that we were part of over the years (Conference Baptist, Christian church, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free Church in America).

And same for “pagan rituals” and “cannibalism.” We were taught that Catholics practice “cannabilism” by eating flesh and drinking blood," and both practices are specifically forbidden in the Bible.

You are fortunate that your Protestant church didn’t teach you these misconceptions about Catholicism.

 

[Sandalwood]

apology accepted and I’m sorry your Protestant church taught you those things. That’s terrible! I talked with my Mom recently and she said the pastor mentioned that those (meaning Catholic) that place a great importance on Mary are on the mark and that everyone should learn more about her. I thought that was really good!

I’ve had a lifelong CATHOLIC tell me that Catholicism is a works based faith! So, it’s not just Protestants that think that!