Questions about Catholics (From a Protestant)

[JesusLovesOurLady]

So the Bishop of Rome was the Bishop of Antioch?

Yes, he became Bishop of Antioch first and then Bishop of Rome, Antioch is still recognized as a Patriarchate of the Catholic Church, there are now currently three Catholic Patriarch seated in Antioch: Joseph Absi, of the Melkite Rite; Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, of the Maronite Rite; and Ignatius Joseph III Yonan of the West Syriac Rite.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Yes, he became Bishop of Antioch first and then Bishop of Rome, Antioch is still recognized as a Patriarchate of the Catholic Church, there are now currently three Catholic Patriarch seated in Antioch: Joseph Absi, of the Melkite Rite; Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, of the Maronite Rite; and Ignatius Joseph III Yonan of the West Syriac Rite.

They're Eastern Orthodox, right?

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Hm... I do believe that many early popes were Biblically sound, but I believe that became corrupted around 600 something AD? Someone I admire is Pope Gregory I.

Personal opinion.

Where do you think they went wrong?

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

They're Eastern Orthodox, right?

No, they are in full communion with Rome. There is one eastern Orthodox Patriarch and Oriental Orthodox Patriarch also seated in that same city along with the Catholic Patriarchs.

 

[The Grouch]

Hm... I do believe that many early popes were Biblically sound, but I believe that became corrupted around 600 something AD? Someone I admire is Pope Gregory I.

Personal opinion.

Let me tell you what the kingdom of heaven is like

Its like a great treasure thats been hidden in a feild for a long time when a man finds it he is unsure what he has found.. its hard and tangible there is something real there but its all dirty and covered in mud and crud off all the years its been laying in the feild... if the man merely looks at it he would merely discard it falsely believing it was nothing but a worthless stone but if he took it upon himself to have a closer inspection and rubbed away some of that build up of crud underneath he would find a jewel of extreme beauty and infinite value he would then in his joy go away and sell everything he owns to buy that feild

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

[Staff edit].

Once again, one of the biggest problems in our culture, not giving it 100%. Our Lord told us to be perfect as Our Heavenly Father is perfect and yet, when there is a disagreement on something among Protestants, they just dismiss it as "non-essential" and it's all based on the arbitrary desires of fallen human nature and a desperate attempt to downplay a nagging problem.

Cowards do not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Decanus]

The graven image commandment was written because there were religions or cults around that physically worshipped the images themselves such as in Moab and Ammon.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Do you believe in scripture above divine tradition or do you believe them to be equal?

I find it more helpful to think of it like this: Christ handed to the Apostles teachings and traditions, and the Apostles handed this holy Tradition (written and oral) down to us, throughout the ages. The canon of Scripture is simply the part of holy Tradition that has been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is holy Tradition not mentioned explicitly in Scripture (for example, the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception and assumption into heaven - although it is certainly alluded to).

Scripture is a part of Tradition, and is inseparable from Tradition. It is not two streams flowing from one source (Christ); they flow as one stream from the one source.

So the Bishop of Rome was the Bishop of Antioch?

The See of Antioch was founded by St. Peter, and so was the See of Rome. And St. Mark, Peter's disciple, founded the See of Alexandria, so that bishop also has a connection to Peter. Peter died in Rome as bishop of Rome, and his privileges responsabilities passed on to his successor, St. Linus. Therefore, the office of Pope has become inseparable from the office of bishop of Rome (although intellectually, you can distinguish between those two offices).

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I find it more helpful to think of it like this: Christ handed to the Apostles teachings and traditions, and the Apostles handed this holy Tradition (written and oral) down to us, throughout the ages. The canon of Scripture is simply the part of holy Tradition that has been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is holy Tradition not mentioned explicitly in Scripture (for example, the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception and assumption into heaven - although it is certainly alluded to).

Scripture is a part of Tradition, and is inseparable from Tradition. It is not two streams flowing from one source (Christ); they flow as one stream from the one source.


The See of Antioch was founded by St. Peter, and so was the See of Rome. And St. Mark, Peter's disciple, founded the See of Alexandria, so that bishop also has a connection to Peter. Peter died in Rome as bishop of Rome, and his privileges responsabilities passed on to his successor, St. Linus. Therefore, the office of Pope has become inseparable from the office of bishop of Rome (although intellectually, you can distinguish between those two offices).

Interesting. I never doubted that Peter could've been the first Bishop of Rome, but I don't believe it was considered papacy at that time.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Interesting. I never doubted that Peter could've been the first Bishop of Rome, but I don't believe it was considered papacy at that time.

Yes, Peter is considered to be the fist pope. The See of Rome has always had a 'special' status among the Sees of the world, but our understanding of the Papacy developed over time, as also the rest of the Faith developed.

This is the development of doctrine: the public revelation of God, binding upon God's people, ended with the death of St. John the Apostle (c. 100 AD?). The substance of this revelation itself never changes. But how we understand it, how we talk about it, can evolve and take different forms. For example, Christians have always believed in the Trinity. But it was around the time of the Council of Nicea that we developed the special language we use when talking about the Trinity today (substance, person, etc).

So even if St. Peter and his immediate successors didn't consider themselves to be "popes" in our modern understanding, the Church Catholic indeed does today.

 

[Rhamiel]

Following
Getting ready for work now, I will write a long post tonight

 

[The Grouch]

Interesting. I never doubted that Peter could've been the first Bishop of Rome, but I don't believe it was considered papacy at that time.

The papacy rests with the man not the location. When john paul ii travelled the world he did not leave the office of pope behind him in Rome it travelled with him. If a pope decided to stop being bishop of rome and let another bishop take its seat while he took the bishops seat in lets say portugal the papacy would travel with him to portugal and when he died a new conclave would be held to elect a new bishop in portugal and he would then take the vacant office of pope

 

[The Grouch]

Double post

 

[Rhamiel]

1. What do you think verifies the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ?

it bares the 4 marks of the Church
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
one, it is unified, with visible and doctrinal unity among its members
holy, it preaches an unadulterated gospel and
catholic, it is for all peoples at all times
apostolic, it clearly is linked to the Church of the Apostles both by historical pedigree and by doctrine

historically, there are few churches that could possibly be The Church
the presence of the Papacy, something that you can see is present in the early Church, and it is retained in the Catholic Church

2. What is your ultimate source of belief in such?

history
nothing has changed the world like Christianity
nothing has changed individuals like Christianity
from the Apostles, to today, people have been transformed by Christ, the fact that all but one of the Apostles died for Jesus, and the survivor, John, lived a harsh life of exile for Jesus, makes me believe that they were telling the truth
so we start from the idea that these men are honest, then we go back to my first answer to find what group these men founded

3. What is your position on the authority of Scripture?

the Scripture is true, but I am not comfortable with calling it an "authority"
like we have the Constitution in the USA, a relatively short document written about 220 years ago in a very straightforward manner, and we have tons of lawyers and politicians arguing about what it means, how to apply it, all that
now we have the Bible, a collection of many books written in many different styles by different authors over the course of hundreds of years, roughly 1900 years ago was the newest books, with the oldest being written 2600 years ago, in hebrew and greek....
so the Bible is true, but it can not be an authority, you would need an interpreter and that person would be the authority, if the interpreter is you, well then you are setting yourself up as your own authority

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

it bares the 4 marks of the Church
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
one, it is unified, with visible and doctrinal unity among its members
holy, it preaches an unadulterated gospel and
catholic, it is for all peoples at all times
apostolic, it clearly is linked to the Church of the Apostles both by historical pedigree and by doctrine

historically, there are few churches that could possibly be The Church
the presence of the Papacy, something that you can see is present in the early Church, and it is retained in the Catholic Church

history
nothing has changed the world like Christianity
nothing has changed individuals like Christianity
from the Apostles, to today, people have been transformed by Christ, the fact that all but one of the Apostles died for Jesus, and the survivor, John, lived a harsh life of exile for Jesus, makes me believe that they were telling the truth
so we start from the idea that these men are honest, then we go back to my first answer to find what group these men founded

the Scripture is true, but I am not comfortable with calling it an "authority"
like we have the Constitution in the USA, a relatively short document written about 220 years ago in a very straightforward manner, and we have tons of lawyers and politicians arguing about what it means, how to apply it, all that
now we have the Bible, a collection of many books written in many different styles by different authors over the course of hundreds of years, roughly 1900 years ago was the newest books, with the oldest being written 2600 years ago, in hebrew and greek....
so the Bible is true, but it can not be an authority, you would need an interpreter and that person would be the authority, if the interpreter is you, well then you are setting yourself up as your own authority

(lol, sarcasm incoming) I'm going to have to call the Pope and ask Him to sit beside me as I do my personal Bible study. I have to get things right, y'know?

 

[thecolorsblend]

1. What do you think verifies the Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ?

The consistent testimony of the Church Fathers combined with the Church's track record through history.

2. What is your ultimate source of belief in such?

See above.

3. What is your position on the authority of Scripture?

I'm Catholic and you and I have traded several posts on this subject so I suspect you already know.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So you have to read the Bible in the exact way the Church tells you to?

There are very few verses in the whole Bible where the Church tells us the exact way to understand it. Only a few handsful of verses. And yes, a Catholic will follow that. You can have any interpretation you want, including a flat out wrong one and who has the authority to tell you if you are wrong? You can tell anyone who even suggests you are wrong where they can get off. We Catholic do have an authority structure to protect us from making colossal mistakes in interpretation, but it has only been done for a few verses.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The interpretation of that verse determines your view of the Church.

Example: Orthodox Christians believe Peter was the Bishop of Antioch.

Peter WAS the bishop of Antioch, and then he went to Rome.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The church was initially founded in jerusalem on peter by christ himself. Peter then went to antioch and later to rome... the cheif apostle earthly head left jerusalem and with him the authority abided.. it rested with him in antioch and left with him when he came to Rome there he died and his authority passed on to the next bishop of Rome

You can see this in the Patriarchs, with Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome as places Peter was at. Leaving Jerusalem for Antioch, and then Antioch for Rome. As to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, that was founded by Mark, who was Peter's secretary and commited Peter's oral gospel into writing. The Patriarchates are all significantly Petrine. At least the original four.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

You can see this in the Patriarchs, with Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome as places Peter was at. Leaving Jerusalem for Antioch, and then Antioch for Rome. As to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, that was founded by Mark, who was Peter's secretary and commited Peter's oral gospel into writing. The Patriarchates are all significantly Petrine. At least the original four.

Interesting.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

One more question for you @ChristIsSovereign,

I won’t be seeing your response until tomorrow, but I want ask you; what do you think of St. John 6:22-69?