nor do i believe that they considered themselves to be saintly.
it is not myself that i take seriously or even my congregation at times. it is the Word of God and Christ that i take seriously.
-eagle
2006-08-29 01:46:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by eaglemyrick 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Maybe you should read about church history and papal succession. First of all, there is no evidence that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome, which would have made him pope. And there has never been a clear apostolic succession of popes. Many times the pope came into power by war or by buying the position. There were times in history when there were two or three people claiming to be pope, each supported by a different segment of the church. There were a couple of popes who were shot in bed by jealous husbands. There were others who became popes by bribery. There were even illegitimate sons of popes who succeeded there father as pope.
Read the history of the church. There is no apostolic succession.
2006-08-29 01:58:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by ted.nardo 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
mouthbreather77,
"How can Protestants take themselves seriously since they have broken the apostolic succession from St. Peter?"
Because Jesus didn't set up an Apostolic Succession. Neither did he say to pray in repetition as the heathen do, neither is there and indication of a ring to kiss, neither is there any praying to saints to be found, neither is there Mary worship.
There is this though:
Giovanni Pelanchion, for refusing to turn papist, was tied by one leg to the tail of a mule, and dragged through the streets of Lucerne, amidst the acclamations of an inhuman mob, who kept stoning him, and crying out, "He is possessed with the devil, so that, neither stoning, nor dragging him through the streets, will kill him, for the devil keeps him alive." They then took him to the river side, chopped off his head, and left that and his body unburied, upon the bank of the stream.
Magdalen, the daughter of Peter Fontaine, a beautiful child of ten years of age, was ravished and murdered by the soldiers. Another girl of about the same age, they roasted alive at Villa Nova; and a poor woman, hearing that the soldiers were coming toward her house, snatched up the cradle in which her infant son was asleep, and fled toward the woods. The soldiers, however, saw and pursued her; when she lightened herself by putting down the cradle and child, which the soldiers no sooner came to, than they murdered the infant, and continuing the pursuit, found the mother in a cave, where they first ravished, and then cut her to pieces. - Foxe's Book of Martyrs, Chapter VI
Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church created a reason to doubt even before Martin Luther, and Henry VIII. Though King Henry's motives were compromising, there were so, so many that were not compromised. It could have been the blood shed to whom can be accounted as murder in the name of the Popes of your most revered "church." Or perhaps it was the FACT that the Roman Catholic Church did NOT want people to have a Bible, making it against the law to have one, especially in ones only native tongue.
So far has the Roman Catholic Church from Christ has been, that they've earned their reputation as the Harlot Woman in the Book of Revelation. For they do mix pagan idolatry with the blood of the saints that they slaughtered for centuries.
You be a Roman Catholic, and I'll be a Protestant. I'll take my chances by praying to God only, go ahead and pray idolatrously to Mary, we'll see who's right about that!
2006-08-29 02:31:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I am sure that when Peter was alive he wasn't referring to himself as St. Peter. The Catholic Church calls anyone a saint if they do a miracle or some other stuff they say is great. If you know anything about the history of the church the first church you'll find is in Acts in the Bible...not the Catholic church. When the catholic church was beating up on people because they sinned and the sinners were paying them to "forgive" their sins one man ( that we know of, there were others) had the balls to say enough. Who was the catholic church to forgive any sins...Jesus forgives sins not humans. Protestants take themselves seriously because God takes them seriously and their testimonies are proof of that...you're right Martin Luther was not a saint, nor is any other christian; but their is a difference between a saint and living in sanctity. Christians STRIVE to be in sanctity, holiness. they know they are sinners but they also know that when they are truly sorry for what they have done wrong they will be forgiven by God. The Catholic church is made up of lots of lies and dogmas that the Bible never, ever states. That's why protestants take themselves seriously...they know what the Bible says...they READ it, catholics don't, they PRAY and ask the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible...the pope does that in the Catholic church...a human! All in all, if you want to know the truth about God and real churches why don't you have a real relationship with God...he'll let you in on the truth...God bless!
2006-08-29 02:07:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by blessed 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
"Henry VIII and Martin Luther were not saintly." Neither were most Catholic popes. A few popes would have made Henry VIII look like a saint by comparison, however.
Christianity was corrupted from the beginning.
2006-08-29 01:48:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I hadn't realised only the Catholic Church knew what qualified as being religious. In fact, even the last three Popes have all preached that all religions are equally valid in the eyes of God, and that it's how you practise them that makes the difference.
Clearly, you're more saintly than John Paul II, though, so I bow to your opinion oh godly one.
2006-08-29 01:48:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by blowski 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
H8 and ML did not consider themselves saints. ML did not like the term Lutheran or Protestant, he preferred Christian. He wanted to reform the church, not split it.
ML said to base your beliefs on what the Bible says. He opposed the idea that your beliefs should be based on what a man who is currently living says. He also opposed the idea that if you give the church enough money, you or someone who is already dead could get to heaven.
This is a simplification of the issues, but you must realize Protestants do take themselves seriously.
2006-08-29 02:03:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Paul K 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
If you parse the sentence that both base their authority on (the on this rock I will build my church) you will find that the Roman church is wrong as are most Protestants. One says Peter, one says Christ. The Scripture says Revelation.
As a result the arguments on most Christian religious subjects are between people who don't know and people who don't care. Your question is key to all of that.
2006-08-29 02:01:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Tommy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Christ wasn't saying that Peter was the foundation of the church. God used Peter in a great way, but he was just a man. The Bible clearly teaches the principle of "the priesthood of the believer." That is, there is no pope. "There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."
Christ built the church on himself, or more accurately, the truth about Himself. "Thou art Peter (petros: little stone) and upon this rock (Petra: huge mountain) I will build my church" The Petra Jesus was talking about was the fact that He was the Christ.
2006-08-29 01:58:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Guam Teach 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not everyone has the same understanding about what Jesus meant when he spoke to Peter, or other things...
For example, Peter is held to be the first pope......
Popes are to remain single all of their earthly lives......
But Peter himself was married....
Matthew 8:14 says that Jesus saw that Peter's wife's mother was sick. (Next verse shows that he healed her) (KJV)
The New Catholic Edition of the Bible calls her 'Peter's mother-in-law' in the same chapter and verse.
Cant have a mother-in-law or a wife, if you are not married.
2006-08-29 01:52:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by grammy_of_twins_plus two 3
·
2⤊
0⤋