Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[BNR32FAN]

What pentarchy and when did this start and how did this come to exist? These questions bare investigation as well as looking into what was left of this at the time of the Schism. Again, I think this is not as simple as black and white and bares looking into the facts that have been recorded. I don't know of a single Catholic that makes it their mission to disprove Apostolic Succession within the EOC up to the current time. Unfortunately, I cannot make the same claim for the EOC.

Pentarchy | Christianity

 

[tz620q]

Pentarchy | Christianity

Can you comment on this article? I agree with it's content. It rightly points out that the Roman church had issues with the elevation of Constantinople as part of the pentarchy due to its not being apostolic in origin. It rightly points out that by the time of the Schism all but Constantinople of the Byzantine patriarchies had fallen to Muslim rule. So at the time of the Schism, there was no pentarchy to "vote" on the excommunication and this excommunication came from Constantinople alone. The EOC will say that they had bishops for Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem at that time that sided with Constantinople; but these bishops, then as well as now cannot really be called Patriarchs. Their region is no longer a center of Christianity, which was the original definition of what a patriarchy was. If we can add patriarchs, like Constantinople, why can they not lose their status.

 

[Major1]

Doctrine : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief :

If it was officially sanctioned by the pope and instituted and carried out by the church then it is an official position or principle of the church.

While that can be the case and is, that still draws the picture of our differences.

A SINNER, the Pope, makes a decree of some kind. The church carries it out and it becomes an official position.

However...……...if it is NOT found in the Scriptures it can not be Biblical which makes it a doctrine of man.

It must also be remembered that there are those in the Catholic Church who love the Lord and have had a genuine born-again experience.

In 2 Cor 11: 2-4 Paul states...…..
“For I am zealous for you with a godly jealousy, for I have betrothed you to one Husband, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ. But now I am fearful lest even as the serpent beguiled Eve by his cunning, so your minds may be seduced from the simplicity of Jesus. For you seem readily to endure it if a man comes and preaches another Jesus
than the One we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you once received, or a different gospel from the one you received and welcomed.”

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you comment on this article? I agree with it's content. It rightly points out that the Roman church had issues with the elevation of Constantinople as part of the pentarchy due to its not being apostolic in origin. It rightly points out that by the time of the Schism all but Constantinople of the Byzantine patriarchies had fallen to Muslim rule. So at the time of the Schism, there was no pentarchy to "vote" on the excommunication and this excommunication came from Constantinople alone. The EOC will say that they had bishops for Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem at that time that sided with Constantinople; but these bishops, then as well as now cannot really be called Patriarchs. Their region is no longer a center of Christianity, which was the original definition of what a patriarchy was. If we can add patriarchs, like Constantinople, why can they not lose their status.

They may have had to flee the area for a while until diplomatic arrangements could be made but they never lost their acknowledgment as patriarchs as a result. Antioch simply relocated to Syria during the Ottoman invasion. At no time was there an absence of any of the 5 pentiarchs. One thing that does still puzzle me is the claims concerning the authority given by the Emperor of Rome to both Rome and Constantinople. I really don’t see what authority the emperor had in church matters. Roman emperors have always been, how should I say, “less than Christian” for the most part. So I hardly think they were in a position to determine who the head of the church is. But in any case all 5 patriarchs of the pentarchy remained intact to this day.

 

[tz620q]

They may have had to flee the area for a while until diplomatic arrangements could be made but they never lost their acknowledgment as patriarchs as a result. Antioch simply relocated to Syria during the Ottoman invasion. At no time was there an absence of any of the 5 pentiarchs. One thing that does still puzzle me is the claims concerning the authority given by the Emperor of Rome to both Rome and Constantinople. I really don’t see what authority the emperor had in church matters. Roman emperors have always been, how should I say, “less than Christian” for the most part. So I hardly think they were in a position to determine who the head of the church is. But in any case all 5 patriarchs of the pentarchy remained intact to this day.

Thank you for the explanation, though in truth today, there is a Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, a Coptic Pope there, and an EOC Patriarch. Can you guess which one has the most Christians under his care? The Patriarch was originally an administrative position to help run a region and control the various bishops within that region. At what point does this become a figurehead position propagated by history alone. I think we passed that point over a 1000 years ago and the concept is purely symbolic now, used only by EOC apologists to try to prove some sort of dominance in thought at the time of the Schism, which is really purely revisionist history.

 

[Albion]

I believe the EOC holds the true apostolic succession. I think the majority of the pentarchy siding against Rome nullifies their claim of papal supremacy and their excommunication nullifies their authority on determining doctrine. I’m not aware of other church’s claim to apostolic succession.

Hmm. But the papal claims to supremacy are only related to the issue of Apostolic Succession to the extent that the bishop of Rome IS a bishop in Apostolic Succession. If he is excommunicated or whatever, it doesn't directly affect the idea of Apostolic Succession and, of course, half a dozen other denominations also have Apostolic Succession but the idea of a Pope figure like Rome's doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Francis Drake]

The "rock" in Matt 7 is "foundation stone" -- Build house on firm foundation
In Matt 16 "You are pebble" Peter Petros.
In Matt 16 "on this Rock Petra" Foundation stone - Christ

No "other foundation" can anyone lay other than the one that was laid down - Christ
1 Cor 3
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 10
3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (Petra Foundation stone) which followed them; and the rock (Petra - foundation) was Christ.

Amen, there is only one rock, and it is certainly not Peter. Its not just the NT, but the OT is absolutely filled with references to the Lord alone being The Rock.

Ps61v5Rest in God alone, O my soul, for my hope comes from Him.
6He alone is my rock and my salvation; He is my fortress; I will not be shaken.

Isaiah44v6“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock;

1Sam2v2“No one is holy like the Lord, For there is none besides You,
Nor is there any rock like our God.
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’ ”

These verses prove categorically that Peter cannot be "the rock", because that title is already taken.
I already wrote most of this on post No99, but no matter how clear and decisive the scriptures are, Catholics just ignore anything that they don't agree with.

 

[Zachm531]

What are you suggesting this chart teaches?

The breaks from the original church. Roman catholicism was not the first church, even if it had a pope. When the splits occured, the catholic church kept the position of pope. That does not equal first church, nor dud Peter ever establish a Pope. He told me to chose elders and bishops to teach and perform services. That doesnt equal rcc.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Thank you for the explanation, though in truth today, there is a Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, a Coptic Pope there, and an EOC Patriarch. Can you guess which one has the most Christians under his care? The Patriarch was originally an administrative position to help run a region and control the various bishops within that region. At what point does this become a figurehead position propagated by history alone. I think we passed that point over a 1000 years ago and the concept is purely symbolic now, used only by EOC apologists to try to prove some sort of dominance in thought at the time of the Schism, which is really purely revisionist history.

Papist revisionism. The ONLY reason the RCC is in those other regions is because they BROKE Council rulings that they themselves signed and went into other Patriarchal territories! The reason was because the RCC separated itself from The Church through schism and heresy. The first Bishopric was Orthodox in Jerusalem, not in Rome.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It rightly points out that the Roman church had issues with the elevation of Constantinople as part of the pentarchy due to its not being apostolic in origin. It rightly points out that by the time of the Schism all but Constantinople of the Byzantine patriarchies had fallen to Muslim rule. So at the time of the Schism, there was no pentarchy to "vote" on the excommunication and this excommunication came from Constantinople alone. The EOC will say that they had bishops for Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem at that time that sided with Constantinople; but these bishops, then as well as now cannot really be called Patriarchs. Their region is no longer a center of Christianity, which was the original definition of what a patriarchy was. If we can add patriarchs, like Constantinople, why can they not lose their status.

Andrew wasn't an Apostle?? So when the RCC fell into schism and heresy, it would lose its status...

 

[Major1]

Amen, there is only one rock, and it is certainly not Peter. Its not just the NT, but the OT is absolutely filled with references to the Lord alone being The Rock.

Ps61v5Rest in God alone, O my soul, for my hope comes from Him.
6He alone is my rock and my salvation; He is my fortress; I will not be shaken.

Isaiah44v6“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock;

1Sam2v2“No one is holy like the Lord, For there is none besides You,
Nor is there any rock like our God.
Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.’ ”

These verses prove categorically that Peter cannot be "the rock", because that title is already taken.
I already wrote most of this on post No99, but no matter how clear and decisive the scriptures are, Catholics just ignore anything that they don't agree with.

Agreed.

 

[Major1]

Hmm. But the papal claims to supremacy are only related to the issue of Apostolic Succession to the extent that the bishop of Rome IS a bishop in Apostolic Succession. If he is excommunicated or whatever, it doesn't directly affect the idea of Apostolic Succession and, of course, half a dozen other denominations also have Apostolic Succession but the idea of a Pope figure like Rome's doesn't have anything to do with it.

You are correct. But have you noticed that being correct makes very little difference to those who do not want the truth?

Amos 8:11.....
“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I will send a famine on the land— not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD."

 

[Major1]

Andrew wasn't an Apostle?? So when the RCC fell into schism and heresy, it would lose its status...

Yes he was. Andrew was the brother of Simon Peter and son of Jonah.

 

[Major1]

Papist revisionism. The ONLY reason the RCC is in those other regions is because they BROKE Council rulings that they themselves signed and went into other Patriarchal territories! The reason was because the RCC separated itself from The Church through schism and heresy. The first Bishopric was Orthodox in Jerusalem, not in Rome.

Was Peter ever in Rome????

The Catholic believers by TRADITION say he was. But tradition is not the same as evidence, and the evidence is that Peter never went to Rome.

 

[Major1]

I’m just going to stop. I don’t at all like bashing the RCC. On many topics I actually defend them. Things like praying to the saints and Mary for intercession and calling Mary the mother of God I defend the RCC position. In the case of apostolic succession within the Roman church I simply cannot agree.

Again...….There is not ONE single Scripture in the Bible that validates apostolic succession. NOT ONE.

It is a made up position by the RCC...…….Peroid,.

 

[BobRyan]

Again...….There is not ONE single Scripture in the Bible that validates apostolic succession. NOT ONE.

It is a made up position by the RCC...…….Peroid,.

well.. there is "one" example. Judas had a successor

But where was the "rush" to go find a new apostle when James was killed?

Things that make you go "hmmm"

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

well.. there is "one" example. Judas had a successor

But where was the "rush" to go find a new apostle when James was killed?

Things that make you go "hmmm"

James (Yaakov) was replaced by Simeon (Shimon). James was head of the Jerusalem Church. All of our Bishops were Jews until 135 AD.

 

[Lost4words]

But that is the problem. THERE ARE NO SCRIPTURES in the Bible about Purgatory!!!!

There are but you refute them as pointing to purgatory.

 

[Lost4words]

Was Peter ever in Rome????

The Catholic believers by TRADITION say he was. But tradition is not the same as evidence, and the evidence is that Peter never went to Rome.

Some 'evidence' that Peter was in Rome. Google is your friend!

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.”

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning [Nero reigned from 54–68], Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

 

[Albion]

Does it matter one way or the other if Peter was in Rome or not?