The end of Protestantism

[SyroMalankara]

Lol

From the Catholic angle, I would be the seperated brother because I am not a member of the Catholic Church.

From my Evangelical viewpoint, we are not seperated in the Catholic view because we both are members of the Body of Christ (Christian Church)…

We are “seperate” only in our faith traditions. You are my brother in Christ…not my half brother but my brother!

From the Catholic side, you’re separated not a half. This is why our Church desires unity, because we love you and don’t want any separation. We see you as sincere, but you’ve taken the family Traditions, left our home, attempted to reconstitute some of the family traditions but according to your terms. Our other separated siblings have tried the same attempt, according to their terms. Christmas tree without the lights or decorations, Thanksgiving without the meal, New Year without the party, etc… they are nice attempts, but not the same thing. They are only a shadow of the full family Traditions.

 

[spedteacherita]

From the Catholic side, you’re separated not a half. This is why our Church desires unity, because we love you and don’t want any separation. We see you as sincere, but you’ve taken the family Traditions, left our home, attempted to reconstitute some of the family traditions but according to your terms. Our other separated siblings have tried the same attempt, according to their terms. Christmas tree without the lights or decorations, Thanksgiving without the meal, New Year without the party, etc… they are nice attempts, but not the same thing. They are only a shadow of the full family Traditions.

Hi!

I was watching a teaching on Acts this morning and on Pentecost 3,000 people were convicted that Christ was the Messiah by the Holy Spirit and were baptized that day. How does this fit into the teachings and traditions of the CC? They broke bread in their homes and went to the temple daily in order to worship. Just doesn’t seem to coordinate in any of the Catholic teachings and traditions.

I ask this respectfully as I’m here to learn and understand but it just hit me that they started in homes and the temple and not all the liturgical, vestments, and other things that the liturgical churches use…more studying…

Blessings,

Rita

 

[PRmerger]

Hi!

I was watching a teaching on Acts this morning and on Pentecost 3,000 people were convicted that Christ was the Messiah by the Holy Spirit and were baptized that day. How does this fit into the teachings and traditions of the CC? They broke bread in their homes and went to the temple daily in order to worship. Just doesn’t seem to coordinate in any of the Catholic teachings and traditions.

I ask this respectfully as I’m here to learn and understand but it just hit me that they started in homes and the temple and not all the liturgical, vestments, and other things that the liturgical churches use…more studying…

Blessings,

Rita

Firstly, how do you know that they didn’t have all the liturgical vestments and other things?

These Christians in Acts were mainly Jews, and Judaism was very…liturgical.

Their priests wore vestments.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I think it’s highly unlikely that these Christians, who were brought up steeped in Jewish tradition, would have abandoned all, or any, of their liturgical rituals.

 

[spedteacherita]

Firstly, how do you know that they didn’t have all the liturgical vestments and other things?

These Christians in Acts were mainly Jews, and Judaism was very…liturgical.

Their priests wore vestments.

http://www.academicapparel.com/choir/images/jewishhighpriest.jpg

I think it’s highly unlikely that these Christians, who were brought up steeped in Jewish tradition, would have abandoned all, or any, of their liturgical rituals.

Good point! Let me ponder some more!

Thanks PR

 

[eightydeuce82]

Good point! Let me ponder some more!

Thanks PR

Have you ever considered reading the writings of these very early Christians? I mean really if you are interested in finding out what the practices of the early church were then maybe its a good idea to read what they were doing. Simply staying with the bible gives you a small window into the life and practice of those early believers (a very very small window).

 

[spedteacherita]

Have you ever considered reading the writings of these very early Christians? I mean really if you are interested in finding out what the practices of the early church were then maybe its a good idea to read what they were doing. Simply staying with the bible gives you a small window into the life and practice of those early believers (a very very small window).

Oh, I have been reading them. I haven’t seen anything within the first 2 centuries that tell me about the Church as it is today.

In fact, at the Council of Nicea, the Bishop of Rome was compared to the Bishop of Alexandria (which had authority over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.

Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Where is the Pope? Still trying to understand!

Thanks!

Rita

 

[eightydeuce82]

Oh, I have been reading them. I haven’t seen anything within the first 2 centuries that tell me about the Church as it is today.

In fact, at the Council of Nicea, the Bishop of Rome was compared to the Bishop of Alexandria (which had authority over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.

Where is the Pope? Still trying to understand!

Thanks!

Rita

The pope can be found in the bible you don’t need ECF for that lol!

Read the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp. You need to get to the Fathers that were direct descendants of the apostles. Literally the men ordained and placed by an apostle

 

[spedteacherita]

The pope can be found in the bible you don’t need ECF for that lol!

Read the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp. You need to get to the Fathers that were direct descendants of the apostles. Literally the men ordained and placed by an apostle

Well, Peter is in the Bible, true, but…

I have read Clement and Polycarp and have seen nothing there.

Doesn’t the Council of Nicea count as importance?

 

[eightydeuce82]

Well, Peter is in the Bible, true, but…

I have read Clement and Polycarp and have seen nothing there.

Doesn’t the Council of Nicea count as importance?

Yes of course but if youre looking for the word Pope you are going to be lost. All of them identify the Church at Rome set up by Peter and Paul as the primacy. They all write about it. The bishop of Rome would have held this seat. This was very important to all of them. Clement was a sitting Pope (bishop of Rome) BEFORE the last apostle died and was making authoritative decisions for the church in other areas while an apostle was still alive.

The point here is the office existed it was authoritative and it was looked upon to exert orthodoxy and authority amongst the churches.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Well, Peter is in the Bible, true, but…

I have read Clement and Polycarp and have seen nothing there.

Doesn’t the Council of Nicea count as importance?

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).*

 

[spedteacherita]

Yes of course but if youre looking for the word Pope you are going to be lost. All of them identify the Church at Rome set up by Peter and Paul as the primacy. They all write about it. The bishop of Rome would have held this seat. This was very important to all of them. Clement was a sitting Pope (bishop of Rome) BEFORE the last apostle died and was making authoritative decisions for the church in other areas while an apostle was still alive.

The point here is the office existed it was authoritative and it was looked upon to exert orthodoxy and authority amongst the churches.

Oh, sure, I understand that they were bishops. But what I read in Canon 6 gave the Bishop of Alexandria the same authority as was in Rome…what did that mean?

This is the reference for Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea. You just have to scroll down to Canon 6.

newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

 

[eightydeuce82]

Oh, sure, I understand that they were bishops. But what I read in Canon 6 gave the Bishop of Alexandria the same authority as was in Rome…what did that mean?

This is the reference for Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea. You just have to scroll down to Canon 6.

newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

DO you want to get into that or do you first want to understand the papal claims? I can go into the whole orthodox conundrum and disprove all of what they claim but I think it pertinent that you understand the ECF understanding of the papacy first before you move to the political claims of the Orthodox.

 

[spedteacherita]

DO you want to get into that or do you first want to understand the papal claims? I can go into the whole orthodox conundrum and disprove all of what they claim but I think it pertinent that you understand the ECF understanding of the papacy first before you move to the political claims of the Orthodox.

I’m not seeing any political issues. I was just quoting the Council of Nicea. If you can give me quotes from the ECF I would love to see them. I’m honestly interested.

Thanks!

 

[eightydeuce82]

Oh, sure, I understand that they were bishops. But what I read in Canon 6 gave the Bishop of Alexandria the same authority as was in Rome…what did that mean?

This is the reference for Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea. You just have to scroll down to Canon 6.

newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

This might help if you want to skip ahead to the Orthodox stuff…

"in terms of the Canon making a logical argument, an interpretation that renders the Canon something to the effect, “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule Egypt since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to rule Italy” is a non-sequitur fallacy.* In other words, it’s irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome governs Italy, since that says nothing about who should rule elsewhere and especially what land they should govern. The same can be said if it is taken to mean “since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” which brings out the logical fallacy all the more. For a Council that just got done addressing one of the most pernicious heresies of all time, including using precise and deliberate language for the Creed, we should expect a far more reasonable argument in Canon 6 than what Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have to offer.

If Canon 6 excludes some kind of “territory of Italy” over which Rome has primacy, what is the correct interpretation? The Catholic interpretation understands the Canon as follows:

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, since assigning this jurisdiction is an ancient custom established by the Bishop of Rome and reiterated now by this Nicene Council.”

All of the sudden, this Canon has some “teeth”. The appeal of the Council is to an ancient custom, which surely must have originated on some solid basis (i.e. not accepted simply “because it’s old”), and this basis is none other than the delegation of the Bishop of Rome. Without question, only the Catholic interpretation of this Canon satisfies the intellect and confirms the Faith"

unamsanctamcatholicam.com…-councils.html

 

[SyroMalankara]

Oh, sure, I understand that they were bishops. But what I read in Canon 6 gave the Bishop of Alexandria the same authority as was in Rome…what did that mean?

This is the reference for Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea. You just have to scroll down to Canon 6.

newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

Rome has universally acknowledged primacy - the how and why are in dispute between Latins/Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and AssyrianCoE.

The Earliest Councils give authority to Alexandria and Antioch - as these Sees were succeeded by those ordained by St. Peter personally - as primatial over all the other bishops in their regions.

 

[spedteacherita]

This might help if you want to skip ahead to the Orthodox stuff…

"in terms of the Canon making a logical argument, an interpretation that renders the Canon something to the effect, “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule Egypt since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to rule Italy” is a non-sequitur fallacy.* In other words, it’s irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome governs Italy, since that says nothing about who should rule elsewhere and especially what land they should govern. The same can be said if it is taken to mean “since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” which brings out the logical fallacy all the more. For a Council that just got done addressing one of the most pernicious heresies of all time, including using precise and deliberate language for the Creed, we should expect a far more reasonable argument in Canon 6 than what Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have to offer.

If Canon 6 excludes some kind of “territory of Italy” over which Rome has primacy, what is the correct interpretation? The Catholic interpretation understands the Canon as follows:

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, since assigning this jurisdiction is an ancient custom established by the Bishop of Rome and reiterated now by this Nicene Council.”

All of the sudden, this Canon has some “teeth”. The appeal of the Council is to an ancient custom, which surely must have originated on some solid basis (i.e. not accepted simply “because it’s old”), and this basis is none other than the delegation of the Bishop of Rome. Without question, only the Catholic interpretation of this Canon satisfies the intellect and confirms the Faith"

unamsanctamcatholicam.com…-councils.html

Your link didn’t work.

Ahhhh, so this is the issue between the CC and the OC. Thanks for helping me understand that…

 

[eightydeuce82]

Your link didn’t work.

Ahhhh, so this is the issue between the CC and the OC. Thanks for helping me understand that…

So in reality it becomes very political…Governing and authority to rule.

So let me understand better here your understanding of the CC.

We are aware that the Apostles were ordained by Christ and that they ordained Bishops. We know that those Bishops carried on with the authority of Christ himself. They in turn ordained bishops. We know that Rome was held by all of the as the primary see. this is expounded by all fathers as early as we can get. We know that there was a sitting Pope (bishop of Rome) before the apostles had passed on and that the ECF wrote significantly on these topics. Specifically when fighting heretics. Historically councils are only called to combat a heresy and before the age of the bible (and after) how did they do that? Apostolic succession is your answer. Only those validly ordained going back to the apostles were taken seriously. Others that used early writings twisted them and tradition (apostolic) was used to combat these heretics. They even write about those that twist scripture writings to their own interpretation outside of the traditional understanding of them. This is identical to what is happening today in the protestant world.

So im a little off target what you are trying to verify?

 

[SyroMalankara]

They broke bread in their homes and went to the temple daily in order to worship. Just doesn’t seem to coordinate in any of the Catholic teachings and traditions.

It’s that way in some countries were open religious expression is forbidden. Mass/Divine Liturgy is celebrated discretely in people’s homes, Bible study conducted secretly. In countries like protestant England, Mass would be celebrated by a clandestine priest in homes, while the secret Catholics worshipped with their English protestant neighbors to avoid detection.

I ask this respectfully as I’m here to learn and understand but it just hit me that they started in homes and the temple and not all the liturgical, vestments, and other things that the liturgical churches use…more studying…

When you are attending a formal dinner party, it is customary to use a linen napkin, salad fork, entree fork, soup spoon, dessert spoon, coffee/sugar spoon, etc.
When you are rushing to work and grab a breakfast sandwich at mcDs you might just eat while you drive.

One doesn’t define the other.

 

[spedteacherita]

So in reality it becomes very political…Governing and authority to rule.

So let me understand better here your understanding of the CC.

We are aware that the Apostles were ordained by Christ and that they ordained Bishops. We know that those Bishops carried on with the authority of Christ himself. They in turn ordained bishops. We know that Rome was held by all of the as the primary see. this is expounded by all fathers as early as we can get. We know that there was a sitting Pope (bishop of Rome) before the apostles had passed on and that the ECF wrote significantly on these topics. Specifically when fighting heretics. Historically councils are only called to combat a heresy and before the age of the bible (and after) how did they do that? Apostolic succession is your answer. Only those validly ordained going back to the apostles were taken seriously. Others that used early writings twisted them and tradition (apostolic) was used to combat these heretics. They even write about those that twist scripture writings to their own interpretation outside of the traditional understanding of them. This is identical to what is happening today in the protestant world.

So im a little off target what you are trying to verify?

Well, I now understand why the Orthodox don’t accept the Papacy as the sole authority. I am understanding the Apostolic succession but there were 12 apostles, weren’t there? What happened to the successors of the other apostles?

Can you try posting the link to your last post?

What I understand, as I’m seeing it, is that there were Bishops who were placed in the different areas that Christians lived. The CC sees Clement as a Bishop because he was placed there by Peter. You understand Peter as Pope by what Jesus says in Matthew, right?

Thanks!

 

[eightydeuce82]

It’s that way in some countries were open religious expression is forbidden. Mass/Divine Liturgy is celebrated discretely in people’s homes, Bible study conducted secretly. In countries like protestant England, Mass would be celebrated by a clandestine priest in homes, while the secret Catholics worshipped with their English protestant neighbors to avoid detection.

When you are attending a formal dinner party, it is customary to use a linen napkin, salad fork, entree fork, soup spoon, dessert spoon, coffee/sugar spoon, etc.
When you are rushing to work and grab a breakfast sandwich at mcDs you might just eat while you drive.

One doesn’t define the other.

I think the biggest thing here is the church that was erected really wasn’t much different than what they already had. They were Jews. Ask any Jewish convert what they experienced the first time they went to a Catholic Church for mass…most will say Temple.

Catholicism is just the continuation of Temple in the new covenant. Except we celebrate Passover every Sunday.

Its all so simple the Jews had the OT and the Talmud (tradition) We have the Bible and Sacred Tradition. Our vestments are the same our practices are similar. It is just a continuation of the Jewish Traditions.