Why are Roman Catholics afraid to admit to being the first Protestants?

[water]

Sixtus, I’ve read all your responses, but I wish you could provide more convincing evidences.

 

[Eden]

I would hazard a guess and say Antioch.

There were many churches in the very beginning. There was the church of Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem etc etc

T

When you are making the claim that the Catholic Church is the first Protestant Church, you have to have more evidence than a hazarded guess.

When you say Antioch, do you mean the Antiochian Orthodox (AKA Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch)? This church claims to be one of the five churches that composed the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church before the Great Schism. It claims to be the sole legitimate successor to the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles, Saints Peter and Paul.

Or do you mean the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, part of Oriental Orthodoxy?

Or do you mean the The Syriac Catholic Church, the Maronite Church and Melkite Greek Catholic Church, all of whom claim to hold the patriarchate of Antioch?

 

[Sixtus]

Ignatious said:

Sorry to disapoint you, [Sixtus] but Jesus said "Thou are Peter(Cephas, Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

If only that were true!

I have spent years pondering that very quote. You see, it seems most logical that what Christ was saying was: ‘you are Peter but it is on THIS rock [meaning HImself] that I build my Church’!

The hymn ‘Rock of ages cleft for me’. That is not Pope of ages but refers to Christ! Similarly, Christ called HImself ‘the stone which the builders rejected’. It seems to me again that He was referring to Himself.

I wish you were right but I am also a realist

 

[Sixtus]

When you are making the claim that the Catholic Church is the first Protestant Church, you have to have more evidence than a hazarded guess. ,

Well, as intelligent as I am, I was not there in the beginning. Therefore I do not know!

I have weighed up the evidence for the prosecution and the defence. I as a member of the jury have come to my own conclusions. Unfortunately the rest of the jury is still out. But some are present and they wish to speak for those who are not present. But, we must wait until we hear from them

It is my belief that the Roman Catholic Church is one half of the totality of that which comprises the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

That is not only my opinion but also that of His late Holiness John Paul 2.

When you say Antioch, do you mean the Antiochian Orthodox (AKA Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch)? This church claims to be one of the five churches that composed the One

So an admission that perhaps JP 2 might have been right

 

[apophasis]

I would hazard a guess and say Antioch.

There were many churches in the very beginning. There was the church of Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem etc etc

T

Historically and Biblically the first church was in Jerusalem. And it was made up of all Jews. But evenually the hub for all evangelism was Antioch.

Eventually the church at Jerusalem was under the authority of the Partrarch of Constantinople, as was Antioch and Alexandria - each having their own “Patriarchs.” Five of them altogether.

Trouble began to brew when Siricius, Bishop of Rome claimed Universal Jurisdiction over the Church. But, ooops, in his day the Roman Empire divided into East and West. And then Innocent I called himself “Ruler of the Church of God.” Then Leo I claimed that he was, by divine appointment, “Primate of all Bishops,” proclaimed himself “Lord of the whole Church,” “Exclusive, Universal Papacy;” and said resistance to his authority was a sure say to hell. But the Council of Chalcedon gave the Patriarch of Constantinople equal perogatives with the Bishop of Rome. When Rome fell it left the Roman Popes free from civil authority and gradually the Pope became the most commanding figure in the West.

When Gregory I became Pope in the West the Patriarch of Constantinople called himself “Universal Bishop.”

Nicholas I was the first Pope to wear a crown and undertook to interfere in the affairs with the Eastern Church. He excommunicated Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who in turn excommunicated him. The division followed (869) and completed in 1054. Up until 869 all Ecumenical Councils had been held in or near Constantinople and in the Greek language. But the Council of Constantinople was the last “Ecumenical” Council, and from that time forward the Greeks had their councils and the Latins theirs.

Both the east and the west lost sight of what and who the Church actually is. To this day they still can’t figure it out. It’s just a struggle for power and authority. A far, far cry from the humility and salvation message of the Apostles who exalted only Christ and preached the word of the cross for salvation.

 

[Sixtus]

Apophasis wrote:

Re: Why are Roman Catholics afraid to admit to being the first Protestants?
Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
I would hazard a guess and say Antioch.

There were many churches in the very beginning. There was the church of Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem etc etc

Historically and Biblically the first church was in Jerusalem. And it was made up of all Jews. But evenually the hub for all evangelism was Antioch.

Antioch saw the first apostacy. It was in this early Church that the Scribe to St Peter and one of his successors first intervened, assuming an authority above that of Bishop when he rebuked the elders of this early church for deposing their apostle appointed Bishop. Clement told the church of Antioch in no uncertain terms to ‘reinstate their bishop or suffer the consequences’! They did and the rest is consigned to history.

Now Clement acted in the life time of the Apostle St John. If what you are saying is correct, then it was the apostles responsiblity to resolve this issue. Clearly he did not. Neither was it sorted by a council of Bishops. It is clearly and unambigously resolved by one bishop assuming an authority above all the rest!

Pope St Clement and Pope St John Paul pray for us

 

[Sixtus]

Apophasis wrote:

There were many churches in the very beginning. There was the church of Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem etc etc

Historically and Biblically the first church was in Jerusalem. And it was made up of all Jews. But evenually the hub for all evangelism was Antioch.

Antioch saw the first apostacy. It was in this early Church that the Scribe to St Peter and one of his successors first intervened, assuming an authority above that of Bishop when he rebuked the elders of this early church for deposing their apostle appointed Bishop. Clement told the church of Antioch in no uncertain terms to ‘reinstate their bishop or suffer the consequences’! They did and the rest is consigned to history.

Now Clement acted in the life time of the Apostle St John. If what you are saying is correct, then it was the apostles responsiblity to resolve this issue. Clearly he did not. Neither was it sorted by a council of Bishops. It is clearly and unambigously resolved by one bishop assuming an authority above all the rest!

His letter has been passed down to us from before the bible was written. It is part of the Catholic canon.

His late holiness JP2 described ‘East and West’ as 'two lungs working for the good of the whole body.

Pope St Clement and Pope St John Paul pray for us

 

[Hesychios]

Incredibly, there is more misinformation per post here than in the usual thread.

It appears that most Roman Catholics do not know their own history, but are very familiar with their own propaganda.

So sad…

 

[Sixtus]

Incredibly, there is more misinformation per post here than in the usual thread.

It appears that most Roman Catholics do not know their own history, but are very familiar with their own propaganda.

So sad…

…and to add insult to injury, Clement scribed 1Peter, constructed and wrote 2Peter…now that is really sad

 

[Freshman88]

…and to add insult to injury, Clement scribed 1Peter, constructed and wrote 2Peter…now that is really sad

Those stupid smileys make you come across as very arrogant, or at least make it seem that you are trying to mock those on the other side of the argument. You should really stop it, I’d take your posts more seriously.

 

[adrift]

Ignatious said:

If only that were true!

I have spent years pondering that very quote. You see, it seems most logical that what Christ was saying was: ‘you are Peter but it is on THIS rock [meaning HImself] that I build my Church’!

The hymn ‘Rock of ages cleft for me’. That is not Pope of ages but refers to Christ! Similarly, Christ called HImself ‘the stone which the builders rejected’. It seems to me again that He was referring to Himself.

I wish you were right but I am also a realist

A protestant song is not proof.

And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ‘Peter’ is Greek for ‘rock’] 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Logic dictates that the sentence be used as stated. There are only a few times in the Bible that names are changed and it is always for a reason. It seams illogical that Jesus changes Simon to Peter(Rock) and it has no meaning.
You have wasted a lot of grey matter.

 

[Sixtus]

Freshman 88 wrote:

Those stupid smileys make you come across as very arrogant, or at least make it seem that you are trying to mock those on the other side of the argument. You should really stop it, I’d take your posts more seriously.

Judge me how you will, I have been judged much more harshly. I fear not or worry as God is my judge

I am very sorry if they offend you but smileys are available for use on this forum. It shows we Roman Catholics might not always agree but we still manage to at each other

We sometimes and I often put my foot in it and end up looking a laughing stock make people angry and make people smile

Sometimes folk come up with some very thought provoking things to say Some contributors are very witty

But most of all I love coming here, It is my favourite place on earth and I spend most of my free time here. I hope you enjoy and get as much out of it as do I

Freshman I pray that God bless you and keep you in His tender loving care

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Largely through the influence of Protestants on this forum, the facts about the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church, I have come to realise that Roman Catholics are in fact the first protestants.

Huh?? Are you suggesting that Protestants are influencing you to realise that the Orthodox is the first true church??

Your public profile says that you are “Catholic”. I guess you’ll be changing this soon. Will you be changing it to “Protestant” or “Orthodox”?

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants

I reject the question because I don’t agree that we taught them how to be protestants.

 

[Sixtus]

I guess you’ll be changing this soon. Will you be changing it to “Protestant” or “Orthodox”?

Nope!

I am waiting for the next bus or sect whichever one comes first!

 

[a_priori]

This question seems meaningless to me. Maybe I’m missing something.

 

[Sixtus]

Re: Why are Roman Catholics afraid to admit to being the first Protestants?
This question seems meaningless to me. Maybe I’m missing something.

Nope You just hit the nail on the head!

 

[Hesychios]

…and to add insult to injury, Clement scribed 1Peter, constructed and wrote 2Peter…now that is really sad

I must confess, the meaning of what you write here escapes me.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

The Orthodox protested the authority of the Bishop of Rome, mainly under the influence of a secualr ruler–just like Protestants did under the influence of secular governments. Catholics didn’t protest anything except the Orthodox and Protestants leaving the visible unity of the one fold.

You have to be making this up.

How much studying have you actually done on this particular subject? What are your sources?

Michael

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I must confess, the meaning of what you write here escapes me.

Michael

Michael,

Sixtus is all over the place. I don’t understand why he will post something [seemingly] anti-Catholic and then change through later, more random posts the original “meaning” of his OP.

Pax Christi

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I am very sorry if they offend you but smileys are available for use on this forum. It shows we Roman Catholics might not always agree but we still manage to at each other

Well, Sixtus, God bless you but I think what Freshman88 and most of us (those who have posted on your threads) sense is a flippancy and off-handedness for the sake of argument on your part.

I guess the proper smiley for reading this post would be: :banghead: