The only legitimate argument I can imagine for Protestantism is to find a direct contradiction between Roman-Catholic doctrine and the Scriptures. Any other kind of argument will inevitably be indistinguishable for the talking points that atheists use to attack Christianity as a whole. But I have yet to see any good points from Protestants on this issue. Most of the time it seems they just attack the behavior of individual Catholics instead of the Church itself and its core doctrines and dogmas.
Is there a direct contradiction of EO doctrine and scripture?
Yes, there is also internal contradiction between their doctrines.
>Yes
Give an example
>there is also internal contradiction between their doctrines.
There's no contradiction
>give an example
The church cannot error (they use the words deceive nor be deceived)
+
We genocided the old believers but they were actually in the right.
>There's no contradiction because I say there is none.
Okay……
I don't think the pope was ever supposed to exist as a priest-king. Yes, Jesus said that Peter would be the rock the church was built on, but as shown in Acts, the Apostles decided stuff as a group, not handed down on high by Peter. I think the pope was supposed to be a first among equals, and the Orthodox Church system works better. Unfortunately, I also think the Orthodox Church's icons have become idols, I know the explanation, and it isn't really that different than how pagans viewed their idols.
This one isn't a deal breaker for me, but priests being forbidden from marriage was decided for secular reasons. It should be repealed because we don't have to worry about priests becoming a de-facto inheritable role anymore.
>Jesus said that Peter would be the rock the church was built on
It was Peter's confession, not Peter himself.
Literally not what the text says.
It say “and you are Peter” (Peter meaning the rock, you can argue over size but it’s still a rock) “and it’s upon this rock that I shall……”
You have to actually be intellectual dishonest to read it any other way.
That's what the Anon said. Peter made a confession and Christ responds "upon this rock I will build the Church".
Jesus calls Peter (petras) man of rock because he has confessed the true rock of his salvation. He is named after the rock not the other way around.
Saint Augustine says in a sermon
> for before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given to him by the Lord and in a figure that he should signify the church. For seeing that Christ is the rock Petra. Peter is the Christian people. For the rock Petra is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock not the rock from Peter as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, he sayeth thou art Peter and upon this rock which thou hast confessed. Upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged. Saying thou art the Christ the son of the living God will I build my church.
That is upon myself the son of the the living God will I build my church. I will build thee upon myself. Not myself upon thee.
Yeah your are intentionally twisting scripture that’s why you need a wall of text that is devourced from the contact of the passage or the scriptures in general.
Jesus in the proceeding passages is testing Peter, then after passing your argument is he says you are the rock……. Oh and upon THIS ROCK (btw that’s not you) I will build my church, so boom you have the keys and your in charge, and Peter becomes head of the apostles.
Even most Protestants and Oriental Orthodox will agree that Peter is the rock in the context here.
Was Saint Augustine also intentionally twisting scripture?
I liked the way St. Augustine said it. I also find it annoying that the nay sayer Anon:
,
doesn't cite, and directly quote, the verse. It's an easy google away, but still.
I will say that St. Augustine is not God and therefore not above reproach. I will submit that he is absolutely a better theologian than anyone on this board.
if Peter is the rock Christ would have only said petras but he said differentiated. Because Peter is derived from the Petra (Christ). If he was the rock he would have said in 1 Peter 2:6 that he is the chief cornerstone not what he actually wrote that he lay in Zion the chief cornerstone (Christ).
Confessing, and repentant, men and women are absolutely the rock of Christianity. IDK why the other guy is being difficult.
>I don't think the pope was ever supposed to exist as a priest-king
If that wasn't the case then he wouldn't have been one. All traditional authority, including priests and kings, are by definition extensions of God's power.
>Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
This doesn't preclude them from sin or doctrinal distortion, obviously, but a bad ruler is still a ruler.
>the Apostles decided stuff as a group, not handed down on high by Peter
The Roman pontiff's less pronounced authority in the early days does not mean the evolution of the role is illegitimate in any way.
>I also think the Orthodox Church's icons have become idols
I have no problem admitting a lot of traditional Christians worship Mary but simply creating iconography and asking the hallowed dead for a favor is not an act of worship by itself.
>It should be repealed
I don't think it's a big deal either way. But it's surely a good thing that priests can focus entirely on God instead of having a family to worry about.
>If that wasn't the case then he wouldn't have been one. All traditional authority, including priests and kings, are by definition extensions of God's power.
Arguably most authority is an extension of God's power with kings taken into account.
>The Roman pontiff's less pronounced authority in the early days does not mean the evolution of the role is illegitimate in any way.
Would you say the same if it was the bishop of Constantinople who claimed papal authority instead?
>I have no problem admitting a lot of traditional Christians worship Mary but simply creating iconography and asking the hallowed dead for a favor is not an act of worship by itself.
I feel like asking saints for favors is playing with fire, especially because I see little scriptural justification for it. While I'm not going to say it is straight up idolatry or compare it to necromancy, when combined with the fact we already have Jesus and the Holy Spirit, it doesn't seem worth the risk. More importantly though, even if it isn't in itself bad, I don't think it is good to encourage it in people who don't already have a deep understanding of the faith so they don't accidentally stumble into heresy. Too many people go through catechism out of obligation or social expectation rather than out of sincere desire to learn to say it is good enough, since they approach it with the same enthusiasm as a teenager having to go to high school.
>I don't think it's a big deal either way. But it's surely a good thing that priests can focus entirely on God instead of having a family to worry about.
I think it is partially the cause of the pedo problem with the church. Ideally, people become priests because devoting themselves to God is more important than marriage to them, but it's also tempting for pedos because they can't legally indulge in that stuff anyway. Like I said, no marriage isn't a deal breaker for me, I just think it should be repealed.
They lied about Peter being the first bishop. It was Linus. Let's not even get into all the ways they change scripture, like ingoring Jesus's family.
1. The scripture states that faith jn Christ is necessary and sufficient for salvation.
2. The catholic church teaches that faith in Christ is neither necessary or sufficient for salvation.
There you go.
The Roman church was never supposed to be the only church and never was the only church.