What Do Protestants Believe About the Early Church?

[Starwarsfan2]

Actually, the Assumption of the Virgin has quite a lot of history it. From Wikipedia:

So, it isn’t like it was just forcibly introduced with no precedent – the belief has a long history.

I wouldn’t word it as strongly – for example, note that the Catholic Church considers valid the Eucharist celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, and these churches don’t have a “Transubstantiation” doctrine of themselves, though they do profess the reality of the change.

As for St. John of Damascus’s quote, yes, what he seems to be saying is that we can afffirm that the change occurs but it is ultimately a mystery, that is to say, the manner in which the substance of the bread and the wine change into the Body of Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity is the mystery, but not the fact that the substance changes.

That’s an interesting observation – for that, if it’s OK with you, I’ll refer you to a blog post I did a while ago:

proselytizingpapist.blogspot.com.es/2015/05/there-aint-no-pope-in-bible.html

In there, I point out some scripture that seems to suggest a Papal office as we see now, so I am not sure it is fair to say that the Bible is totally mute on Peter or his successors being infallible.

The Church is also similar in that way – personal devotions like the rosary, Stations of the Cross, etc. are personal and are not requirements to be a Catholic. However, you say that “Lutherans won’t ‘develop’ any doctrine further than Scripture does.” Let me ask, what of the Christians of the first centuries who didn’t even have a Bible? Where did they get their teachings from?

I raise the following objections :

1. Peter being first on the list of apostles doesn’t give him more power than the rest
2. Peters confession was by faith and due to the preaching of the Word not because of a charism of infallibility
3. Ananias and Sapphira died due to lying to the Holy Spirit
   4.The apostles as a group decided who to replace judas , and ultimately Jesus decided, not Peter alone
   5.Peter often spoke for the apostles because any group needs someone to d that , sure it’s evidence of the primacy of honor , but nothing More
   6.councils may overrule popes , and be called without their consent and have in the past
   7.constantinople and Rome are equal ( Chalcedon canon 28)
4. Despite apologists claiming otherwise , honorus 1 , was condemned for teaching heresy not for tolerating heresy , as was pope liberius ,
   9 Nicea canon 6
5. Multiple eastern church fathers reject papal supremacy
6. Many have argued for Peters confessing as the foundation , not Peter himself
7. The pope was only supposed to have authority in his own church ( the Church of Rome) and was not supposed to mix political power and pastoral power .

As for the bible they DID have the bible incomplete yes , they had the Old Testament ( including the deuterocanonical books ) and by the end of the first century the entire New Testament was written, being quoted by apostles , used by the majority of the church as scripture, and in the early second century was already being used by the church fathers , yes later people started to question some of the books so the church stepped in , but the scriptures were already in use as a functioning canon .

Keep the faith Micosil , and Happy Hanukkah
Starwars

 

[steido01]

Actually, the Assumption of the Virgin has quite a lot of history it.
So, it isn’t like it was just forcibly introduced with no precedent – the belief has a long history.

Right. I didn’t mean to give the impression that it simply appeared out of nowhere, if that’s how it came across. No error is ever born in a vacuum; why would we expect a [not necessarily erroneous and, indeed, potentially correct] pious belief to have come about with no basis in reality? My point was only that it was not required belief for Catholics until 1950.

I wouldn’t word it as strongly – for example, note that the Catholic Church considers valid the Eucharist celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, and these churches don’t have a “Transubstantiation” doctrine of themselves, though they do profess the reality of the change.

I wouldn’t word it as strongly either, but Trent is rather blunt:
Chapter VIII, CANON lI
If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
Thankfully, the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues have noted our common belief in the Real Presence, and have come strikingly close to resolution --and only 17 years after the dogmatization of the Assumption, to boot! It’s good that times are changing.

As for St. John of Damascus’s quote, yes, what he seems to be saying is that we can affirm that the change occurs but it is ultimately a mystery, that is to say, the manner in which the substance of the bread and the wine change into the Body of Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity is the mystery, but not the fact that the substance changes.

Sure.

That’s an interesting observation – for that, if it’s OK with you, I’ll refer you to a blog post I did a while ago:
In there, I point out some scripture that seems to suggest a Papal office as we see now, so I am not sure it is fair to say that the Bible is totally mute on Peter or his successors being infallible.

Thank you for sharing! I’ve got another blog to add to my regular reads. Unfortunately, I’ve read these arguments before. And, again, I read a proof for primacy, but not supremacy. To your three arguments:

1. • Yes, being given a name means a change has taken place in the person. The practice of taking the name of a Saint Triumphant at confirmation or being given a Christian name at baptism is a good reminder stemming from this practice.
   • 1st point: Naming Peter as the [first] rock on which Christ builds His Church is not proof of supremacy. Could just as easily be taken as mere primacy. Or even less, if we understand the Church in general to have received that same power to bind and loose at Pentecost.
   • 2nd point: Israel required an absolute ruler because Israel was absolutely bound to the Law. Why would He impose a new ‘absolute’ human lawgiver when He has already fulfilled the Law? To say that the new priesthood would have the same powers as the old is… contrary to Christ’s purpose (to complete the Law on our behalf).
   • 3rd point: I’m intrigued. How can you say that when Christ bestows a power to His disciples using certain words, He actually means something different when nearly the exact same words are said to Peter?
   • 4th point: Peter was the first to profess it. We presume that he was also the first to know it. When it comes to Holy Scripture, we do not say that the writers themselves were infallible, but that the Spirit used them as instruments to write the infallible Word.
   • Peter’s assertiveness to be the first proves, certainly, a primacy. Not Divinely-instituted supremacy.

   The Church is also similar in that way – personal devotions like the rosary, Stations of the Cross, etc. are personal and are not requirements to be a Catholic. However, you say that “Lutherans won’t ‘develop’ any doctrine further than Scripture does.” Let me ask, what of the Christians of the first centuries who didn’t even have a Bible? Where did they get their teachings from?

   They still heard the Word. Whether it was compiled, and in groups of how many books makes no real difference. The Apostles, and then the church, still stood as an authority to teach that unchanging Word.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t believe that was Don’s point. Luther believed most of the Marian teachings, but wasn’t required to. Cardinal Cajetan believed the DC books to not be canonical, and he was allowed to. The point I think is that there are some Catholic teachings that may have always been there, but the conscience of the believer was not bound to them.

Cherry picking? You yourself posted two posts filled with cherry pickings on the topic

That disagreement over the teaching authority began long before the Reformation.

Jon

Interesting perspectives Jon.

I think the question that comes up for me in reading this is;

If the church Catholic has always taught something about an issue (let’s say the Marian dogmas or deuterocanonicals), then why would one NOT want to be bound by that?

I just am not at a position to say “I know better than 2000 years of tradition” even though there are dogmas that I wrestle with. In wrestling with them I try to learn and appreciate why they are dogma, as opposed to try to discredit them because I know better.

Sincere questions here, would love to hear your reasoning/perspective.

 

[guanophore]

I raise the following objections :

1. Peter being first on the list of apostles doesn’t give him more power than the rest

I agree. He clearly has primacy in every list, but that does not denote “power”. He was given authority and responsibilty that was peculiar to him and graces that were specific to those Petrine gifts.

 2. Peters confession was by faith and due to the preaching of the Word not because of a charism of infallibility

I think it is both. It is only the Holy Spirit who can move any person to make an infallible statement. This is how all the writers of scripture were moved.

The charism of infallibilty is given to the Church. The succcessor of Peter exercises it on behalf of the flock, whose care was given to Peter by Christ.

1. Ananias and Sapphira died due to lying to the Holy Spirit

Yes…

And God worked through Peter to show that Peter was in a position to make the pronouncement.

4.The apostles as a group decided who to replace judas , and ultimately Jesus decided, not Peter alone

Yes. Peter clearly leads the apostles to pray and make the choice, but Peter never operates alone. This is why his successor today is called the servant of the servants of God.

5.Peter often spoke for the apostles because any group needs someone to d that , sure it's evidence of the primacy of honor , but nothing More

I am glad you can see that any group needs this. I think it is this basic need of humans that Jesus was meeting in appointing shepherds for the flock.

6.councils may overrule popes , and be called without their consent and have in the past

This relates to protocol. I think we can see from the first council in Jerusalem that the ideal is for everyone to work together.

7.constantinople and Rome are equal ( Chalcedon canon 28)

Not sure what point you are trying to make, here. There should not be a competition of power. Jesus did not want his disciples to vie with one another.

1. Despite apologists claiming otherwise , honorus 1 , was condemned for teaching heresy not for tolerating heresy , as was pope liberius ,
   9 Nicea canon 6

It is certainly distressing that he seemed to be inclined toward heresy, but he never taught this to the Church, thanks be to God.

1. Multiple eastern church fathers reject papal supremacy

The opening of your post states that you are raising objections. It seems like this statement lends support to your recjection of the papacy. One has to wonder, what keeps you from being a member of an Eastern Church?

11. Many have argued for Peters confessing as the foundation , not Peter himself

Yes, but Peter as a person cannot be separated from his confession, anymore than any of us can. Peter is also not separated from Christ, who is his Rock.

Jesus created the foundation of the Church upon the Apostles and Prophets - human persons - with himself as the cornerstone.

1. The pope was only supposed to have authority in his own church ( the Church of Rome) and was not supposed to mix political power and pastoral power .

Jesus gave Peter authority for His flock. There were no jurisdictional boundaries placed. That being said, I do agree that the Popes should never have mixed secular and spiritual responsibility.

As for the bible they DID have the bible incomplete yes , they had the Old Testament ( including the deuterocanonical books ) and by the end of the first century the entire New Testament was written, being quoted by apostles , used by the majority of the church as scripture, and in the early second century was already being used by the church fathers , yes** later people started to question some of the books so the church stepped in **, but the scriptures were already in use as a functioning canon. Starwars

It is interesting you say this about the need to develop dogmatic pronouncements. This is always the case when there are serious questions that may negatively damage the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

 Right. I didn't mean to give the impression that it simply appeared out of nowhere, if that's how it came across. No error is ever born in a vacuum; why would we expect a [not necessarily erroneous and, indeed, potentially correct] pious belief to have come about with no basis in reality? My point was only that it was not *required* belief for Catholics until 1950.

Starwars refutes this position in the post above yours by pointing out that the Scriptures of the NT were already accepted and in use for centuries before the canon was closed. After the canon was closed, the decision was made binding. This is the case with all such dogmatic pronouncements. Christians were not required to confess the Nicean creed prior to the Arian heresy, but afterward, it became a litmus test for orthodoxy.

Thankfully, the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues have noted our common belief in the Real Presence, and have come strikingly close to resolution -

The Eastern Churches never adopted the term or the concept of Tr. either. When many Eastern communities were reunited with Rome, they were not required to abandon their Eucharistic Theology, but just agree not to argue about Tr. I think this will be also a way we can eventually be reconciled with the EO.

• 1st point: Naming Peter as the [first] rock on which Christ builds His Church is not proof of supremacy. Could just as easily be taken as mere primacy. Or even less, if we understand the Church in general to have received that same power to bind and loose at Pentecost.

Clearly changing someone’s name in Scripture is the sign of a huge impact on their identity and mission. It certainly sheds light on what Jesus may have meant about calling him “Rock”.

   * 2nd point: Israel required an absolute ruler because Israel was absolutely bound to the Law. Why would He impose a new 'absolute' human lawgiver when He has already fulfilled the Law? To say that the new priesthood would have the same powers as the old is... contrary to Christ's purpose (to complete the Law on our behalf).

I agree. Peter was not appointed to be a “lawgiver” but a shepherd. His priesthood is not “like the old” at all. In the NT, priests are caught up into the one priesthood of Christ, which is after the order of Melchizedek.

    * 3rd point: I'm intrigued. How can you say that when Christ bestows a power to His disciples using certain words, He actually means something different when nearly the exact same words are said to Peter?

I would not separate them, but everything is contingent upon unity with Peter. When Peter’s faith was about to fail, Jesus told all of them they would flee. Jesus told Peter "I have prayed for you (singular) that your faith not fail, and when you have turned, strengthen your brethren. " So, all that want to make it through the trial need to get in on the prayer with Peter. This is why the early church spoke of it as the Barque or Boat of Peter. Unity is necessary.

    * 4th point: Peter was the first to profess it. We presume that he was also the first to know it. When it comes to Holy Scripture, we do not say that the writers themselves were infallible, but that the Spirit used them as instruments to write the infallible Word.

We say that they acted infallibly when writing. The Word cannot be infallible, since infalliblity requires the alternative of fallibility. It relates to actions, movements of the will, decision making and authority. The Scriptures do not have these qualities as they are not persons. The Scriptures are inerrant and inspired.

• Peter’s assertiveness to be the first proves, certainly, a primacy. Not Divinely-instituted supremacy.

Peter was given specific responsibilities, and the gifts to fulfill them.

 

[friardchips]

Marian devotion is a fine example of personal Christian piety; I don’t argue with that. And Lutherans have always considered her Theotokos, Mother of God. My beef was with the dogmatization of her Assumption. That wasn’t required belief in the Roman Church until 1950. Up until then, it was fine for Catholics to believe in her Assumption, or her Dormition, or anything else that pointed to her being currently in heaven. The means did not matter. To quote Luther;

​

Another example is Transubstantiation, which wasn’t officially declared the only non-anathematized way to describe the truth of the Real Presence until Trent (1551). Lutherans, instead, stick closer to St. John of Damascus’s explanation:

​

Lutherans understand themselves to be old-old-old fashioned pre-Tridentine Catholics.

Not wishing to get into arguments in which everyone already knows the true answers, just to interject here, and say to you that with use of faith-filled reason The Assumption was made Dogma because it was true and so had to be defined, as there could be no other teaching, and any other teaching would be a false teaching; obviously, in order to come to this conclusion, he who finally made the declaration needed to be in receipt of the extra graces necessary for understanding such a mystical truth by being able to reason the truth with the help of divine wisdom. Alternatively, had not this person not been in receipt of the graces necessary to understand sacred truths, then this might have been due to some denial of divine truth to some degree, and these denials would have posed as obstacles in the way of insight, and the use of the higher reasoning faculties; that said, had this been the case, such and such a Pope would not have been Pope and someone else who was in receipt of divine wisdom would have been Pope instead and would have made the declaration of the Dogma of the Assumption.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

We say that they acted infallibly when writing. The Word cannot be infallible, since infalliblity requires the alternative of fallibility. It relates to actions, movements of the will, decision making and authority. The Scriptures do not have these qualities as they are not persons. The Scriptures are inerrant and inspired.

Infallibility means that the Scriptures cannot fail , that is all , and it is supported by the fact that it will not return void .

Keep the faith , Starwars

 

[Jon_S_1]

Infallibility means that the Scriptures cannot fail , that is all , and it is supported by the fact that it will not return void .

Keep the faith , Starwars

The scripture doesn’t fail

Man’s interpretation often does.

That’s why God gives us his church protected by the Holy Spirit (John 15).

 

[guanophore]

Infallibility means that the Scriptures cannot fail , that is all , and it is supported by the fact that it will not return void .

Keep the faith , Starwars

This reference is to the Word of God (Jesus). The Word does not return void. Jesus is infallible because He is a Person. The scriptures are writings, and cannot act on their own, and therefore, cannot be fallible or infallible.

This is why the Scriptures are described as “profitable” for teaching, in the hands of the persons God gave the responsibility for teaching. Teachers can be fallible.

1And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. (Eph. 4:11)

 

[JonNC]

=Jon S;13489787]Interesting perspectives Jon.

I think the question that comes up for me in reading this is;

If the church Catholic has always taught something about an issue (let’s say the Marian dogmas or deuterocanonicals), then why would one NOT want to be bound by that?

Thanks, Jon.
A couple of points.

1. I think there is something to be said for this. When you mention the DC books, however, keep in mind that, historically, they fall into the category of disputed, as opposed to rejected on the one hand, and universally attested on the other. Lutherans, generally, keep that status in mind. The fact is there never has been universal agreement on the canon of scripture.
2. The same applies to many of the Marian doctrines. Theotokos, yes. Virgin birth, certainly. Perhaps semper virgo, as well. But the others have had differing levels of agreement long before the Reformation. And the question is, why are they now defined as articles of faith, binding the conscience of the believer?

I just am not at a position to say “I know better than 2000 years of tradition” even though there are dogmas that I wrestle with. In wrestling with them I try to learn and appreciate why they are dogma, as opposed to try to discredit them because I know better.

It’s curious, because the Lutheran would argue why was there a need for Pope Pius XII to state a dogma that 1900 years of Church Tradition felt no need to declare? Why did he feel he knew better than all the popes before him? I don’t mean that flippantly, but as a serious question.

Sincere questions here, would love to hear your reasoning/perspective.

I appreciate the questions, and the manner presented.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks, Jon.
A couple of points.

1. I think there is something to be said for this. When you mention the DC books, however, keep in mind that, historically, they fall into the category of disputed, as opposed to rejected on the one hand, and universally attested on the other. Lutherans, generally, keep that status in mind. The fact is there never has been universal agreement on the canon of scripture.
2. The same applies to many of the Marian doctrines. Theotokos, yes. Virgin birth, certainly. Perhaps semper virgo, as well. But the others have had differing levels of agreement long before the Reformation. And the question is, why are they now defined as articles of faith, binding the conscience of the believer?

It’s curious, because the Lutheran would argue why was there a need for Pope Pius XII to state a dogma that 1900 years of Church Tradition felt no need to declare? Why did he feel he knew better than all the popes before him? I don’t mean that flippantly, but as a serious question.

I appreciate the questions, and the manner presented.

Jon

My understanding is the church does not decide on dogmayic issues until they are challenged.

The church follows Matt 18 on this.

So one could say during the council of Nicea, “why the need to define this after 350 years!”

But it was disputed and needed clarity and the church was called upon to act.

Similarly after Protestantism increasingly rejected issues of Mary and these issues posed threat to future Catholics, the Pope (himself in this case as a council would be unanimous) declared the dogma clearly so future generations would not be led astray.

So I really don’t see it as coming out of no where or as some arbitrary thing.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

My understanding is the church does not decide on dogmayic issues until they are challenged.

The church follows Matt 18 on this.

So one could say during the council of Nicea, “why the need to define this after 350 years!”

But it was disputed and needed clarity and the church was called upon to act.

Similarly after Protestantism increasingly rejected issues of Mary and these issues posed threat to future Catholics, the Pope (himself in this case as a council would be unanimous) declared the dogma clearly so future generations would not be led astray.

So I really don’t see it as coming out of no where or as some arbitrary thing.

In the Scriptures The Trinity is clearly taught as a doctrine one must believe, heresy challenged it so Nicea stepped in .

The assumption of Mary is a Pius opinion that does not effect ones being a believer ( i.e. Your not a heretic if you deny it ) when another pius opinion challenged it Vatican 1 arbitrarily forced it on the whole church .

There is a clear difference between the two .

Keep the faith Jon , Starwars

 

[PJM]

[QUOT=Starwarsfan2;13489722]I raise the following objections :

1. Peter being first on the list of apostles doesn’t give him more power than the rest

Friend I’ll respond to as many as CAF space limits permits me to

REALLY that is not friend what Jesus thought

Have you actually READ mt. 18:-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER] this rock I will build my church Singular!, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.And I will give to [YOU: Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever** [YOU Peter] **shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever [YOU Peter] shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Peters confession was by faith and due to the preaching of the Word not because of a charism of infallibility{?QUOTE}

REALLY?

Jn. 17:26-20 "[16] They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18]** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.** [19]** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.** [20**] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

V18 has God passing on His own powers and Authority to Peter and through Peter** Jn 21: 15-17 for the connection to PETER]** **

V19 has Jesus giving HIMSELF as the warranty of Peter & successors NOT teaching in error

4.The apostles as a group decided who to replace judas , and ultimately Jesus decided, not Peter alone

Acts 1: 15-17 "In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, Brethren, the scripture must be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Even today; 2,000 years later the Pope works very much with and THROUGH the Curia, t& Bishops

Peter often spoke for the apostles because any group needs someone to d that sure it’s evidence of the primacy of honor

See #1.

councils may overrule popes

NOT lately!

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 439 §1. A plenary council, that is, one for all the particular churches of the same conference of bishops, is to be celebrated whenever it seems necessary or useful to the conference of bishops, with the approval of the Apostolic See.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

constantinople and Rome are equal ( Chalcedon canon 28)

NO! Jesus clearly and indisputably [historical and Bible] GAVE ALL of the KEY"S to heaven to PETER! Make a post of this and let me know the tile and we can discuss it further:thumbsup:

Despite apologists claiming otherwise , honorus 1 , was condemned for teaching heresy not for tolerating heresy , as was pope liberius

Honorus we agree; Liberius recanted and therefore MAY have? saved his soul; BUT was the 1st Pope not proclaimed to be a Saint

Multiple eastern church fathers reject papal supremacy

Of course they do. IMO [ME!] the Great Eastern Schism of 1054 A. D. ; was as much about POWER as it was Doctrine. MY opinion!

Many have argued for Peters confessing as the foundation , not Peter himself

Send me a PM & I’ll explain it for you

The pope was only supposed to have authority in his own church ( the Church of Rome) and was not supposed to mix political power and pastoral power

.

Please SEE the Canon’s posted above

Keep the faith Micosil , and Happy Hanukkah
Starwars

God Bless you,
Patrick**

 

[Jon_S_1]

In the Scriptures The Trinity is clearly taught as a doctrine one must believe, heresy challenged it so Nicea stepped in .

The assumption of Mary is a Pius opinion that does not effect ones being a believer ( i.e. Your not a heretic if you deny it ) when another pius opinion challenged it Vatican 1 arbitrarily forced it on the whole church .

There is a clear difference between the two .

Keep the faith Jon , Starwars

No not really. There were many faithful people, bishops, priests and laity who had no idea how to discern the Trinity.

It was not nearly as clear cut as you make it out. I mean bishops went to blows over this!!! Can you imagine.

The Trinity is about as clear in scripture as the Marian doctrines…a lot easier to see once you accept the premise.

But who knows maybe in a thousand years Christians will look back and not believe any faithful bible reader could deny the Marian doctrines.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

[QUOT=Starwarsfan2;13489722]I raise the following objections :

1. Peter being first on the list of apostles doesn’t give him more power than the rest

Friend I’ll respond to as many as CAF space limits permits me to

REALLY that is not friend what Jesus thought

Have you actually READ mt. 18:-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER] this rock I will build my church Singular!, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.And I will give to [YOU: Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever** [YOU Peter] **shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever [YOU Peter] shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Peters confession was by faith and due to the preaching of the Word not because of a charism of infallibility{?QUOTE}

REALLY?

Jn. 17:26-20 "[16] They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18]** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.** [19]** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.** [20**] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

V18 has God passing on His own powers and Authority to Peter and through Peter** Jn 21: 15-17 for the connection to PETER]** **

V19 has Jesus giving HIMSELF as the warranty of Peter & successors NOT teaching in error

Acts 1: 15-17 "In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, Brethren, the scripture must be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Even today; 2,000 years later the Pope works very much with and THROUGH the Curia, t& Bishops

See #1.

NOT lately!

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 439 §1. A plenary council, that is, one for all the particular churches of the same conference of bishops, is to be celebrated whenever it seems necessary or useful to the conference of bishops, with the approval of the Apostolic See.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

NO! Jesus clearly and indisputably [historical and Bible] GAVE ALL of the KEY"S to heaven to PETER! Make a post of this and let me know the tile and we can discuss it further:thumbsup:

Honorus we agree; Liberius recanted and therefore MAY have? saved his soul; BUT was the 1st Pope not proclaimed to be a Saint

Of course they do. IMO [ME!] the Great Eastern Schism of 1054 A. D. ; was as much about POWER as it was Doctrine. MY opinion!

Send me a PM & I’ll explain it for you

.

Please SEE the Canon’s posted above

God Bless you,
Patrick

1. I have read the verses in Matt it speaks nothing of Papal supremacy, you inserting words into the text does changes nothing.
2. Peter was not using some supremacy he was simply deferring to the Scriptures( ya know , the final authority on matters like this ) , and because the Scriptures cammanded a replacement, the apostles as a group picked Matthias , and ultimately Christ picked him.
3. I was reffering to the early councils , often called without papal consent , quoting a recent canon doesn’t help your position .
4. Of course the Great schism was about power ( not the only major issue , there was many ) one side usurping power , the other refusing to go beyond Scriptural bounds .

Keep the faith , Happy Chanukah and Advent .
Starwars**

 

[friardchips]

In the Scriptures The Trinity is clearly taught as a doctrine one must believe, heresy challenged it so Nicea stepped in .

The assumption of Mary is a Pius opinion that does not effect ones being a believer ( i.e. Your not a heretic if you deny it ) when another pius opinion challenged it Vatican 1 arbitrarily forced it on the whole church .

There is a clear difference between the two .

Keep the faith Jon , Starwars

*vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an** authentic interpretation of the Word of God**, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.

Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this** Magisterium** is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully.

All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87** Mindful of Christ’s words** to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes,** in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith**, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas.

Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52’…*

(Dogmas illumine and doctrines develop in our expression of the faith.

*’…The supernatural sense of faith

91 All the** faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth**. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."56
*

 

[Starwarsfan2]

This could take a while lemme get the popcorn ready

 

[guanophore]

In the Scriptures The Trinity is clearly taught as a doctrine one must believe, heresy challenged it so Nicea stepped in .

No, SWF, this is not the case. Not only is the word itself missing, but it is easy to twist the scriptures as the Arians, Gnostics, and Mormons do today to discount the Trinity.

You are right, heresy challenged it, so a dogmatic pronouncement had to be made.

The assumption of Mary is a Pius opinion that does not effect ones being a believer ( i.e. Your not a heretic if you deny it ) when another  pius opinion  challenged it Vatican 1 arbitrarily forced it on the whole church .

Really? what " another pius opinion challenged it’?

With all due respect, we are not the ones who decide what will affect our status as a believer. The faith is ONE. It is a whole garment. When one starts pulling out strands, it begins to disintegrate, which is why we have so many fragments now. The early church had no way of knowing what the role of Mary would be. The reason the Council of Ephesus formalized Dogma about her was because it impacted what we believe about Christ.

Who are we to determine that what we believe about Jesus’ mother does not impact our faith? If this were true, previous dogmatic proclamations would not have been made.

There is a clear difference between the two .

Starwars

I don’t think so. The book of Revelation is clear that the relationship between the mother of the Saviour and the disciples of her son is very important, and has immense spiritual impact. She is a key figure and defense against the one who makes war upon the disciples of her son.

 

[guanophore]

1. I have read the verses in Matt it speaks nothing of Papal supremacy, you inserting words into the text does changes nothing.

Maybe we are having a problem with the word “supremacy”? What exactly does it mean to you?

What part of the flock was NOT included when Jesus charged Peter with the care and feeding of the flock.

1. Peter was not using some supremacy he was simply deferring to the Scriptures( ya know , the final authority on matters like this ) , and because the Scriptures cammanded a replacement, the apostles as a group picked Matthias , and ultimately Christ picked him.

Do you honestly not believe that Peter and the other Apostles were in prayer, and that the HS did not reveal to Peter that this verse applied to the current situation?

I think you are minimizing the meaning of the phrase “Peter stood up among them”. They all deferred to Peter.

3. I was reffering to the early councils , often called without papal consent , quoting a recent canon doesn't help your position .

What council was called without papal consent?

4. Of course the Great schism was about power ( not the only major issue , there was many ) one side usurping power , the other refusing to go beyond Scriptural bounds .

No, it was not scripture as much as it was politics, economics and culture.

There have been people in the Church who have difficulty with authority since the beginning. We can see in the Scriptures how Apostolic authority was not respected by some.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Maybe we are having a problem with the word “supremacy”? What exactly does it mean to you?

What part of the flock was NOT included when Jesus charged Peter with the care and feeding of the flock.

Do you honestly not believe that Peter and the other Apostles were in prayer, and that the HS did not reveal to Peter that this verse applied to the current situation?

I think you are minimizing the meaning of the phrase “Peter stood up among them”. They all deferred to Peter.

What council was called without papal consent?

No, it was not scripture as much as it was politics, economics and culture.

There have been people in the Church who have difficulty with authority since the beginning. We can see in the Scriptures how Apostolic authority was not respected by some.

1.the fourth ecumenical council was called despite the opposition of the pope
2. What many hold to be the fifth ecumenical council was opposed by the pope
3. You are overstating that phase , the verse is stating the that Holy Scriptures tought that an apostle needed to be replaced , the Holy Spirit helped them understand what that meant , as he will help any believer understand the scriptures.
4. It was a combination of causes , but the split was primarily over theological differences.