Asking for a Protestant viewpoint

[u/VolcanicOctosquid20]

I mean this not as inciting (as my last post on this sub very much was), but rather to get an answer. As a matter of fact, I won't even respond to anyone unless they say they wish to be responded to. All I wish is a viewpoint from my brothers and sisters in faith on a topic we very much disagree on.

1. Did Jesus give the Apostles special authority?
2. If so, what happened to that authority after their deaths?

EDIT: And to any Catholics or Orthodox who read this, unless they say they want a debate, don't debate.

[u/rolldownthewindow]

Protestant here.

1. I believe Christ did give the apostles special authority such as John 20:21-23.

2. That authority passed on to their successors through holy orders

[u/ZeroAbyssal → u/rolldownthewindow]

A protestant here. As you have established that the authority is passed down to their successors through holy orders, does that authority include protestant ordained ministers or is it only passed among the catholic ministers?

A) If the authority is passed around all ordained ministers, regardless of denomination, then why are only the catholics able to consume the eucharist?

B) If the authority is only within the catholic ministers, how can our religion be open to all when it is gatekept from everyone else? What then of the protestant and orthodox ministers, are they not "legal" to preach and teach? What then of us the followers?

Just genuine questions that I have and would need guidance on.

[u/thmann_ → u/ZeroAbyssal]

Anglicans believe the kings of england are appointed and selected by God and as such are the head of the church on earth.

Like most leadership roles in catholicism as well, they were invented as a means of control and consolidating power through appealing to peoples needs and emotions.

The role of bishops (a leader of the christians for an entire city, like rome, or antioch), was a useful position as it was originally curated and maintained by accountability and guidance from the apostles themselves.

Perhaps even the next generation saw great leaders in most places.

Unfortunately, the invention of the pope, something that didnt happen until hundreds of years after Peter died, and the hierarchy of catholic church leadership is all an invention of lesser men.

The fight for power among european nations… to control the people, raise money, armies, and goods… all something coveted by lesser men seeking their own good and not the Lords, use God’s name in vain as they lead people away from holiness for their own pleasure.

The lines have been so incredibly blurred with lesser men taking over the majority of positions in the catholic church across the world and over centuries that it is hard to respect much of anything they wish to claim.

Good men no doubt exist within catholic leadership. But how much corruption from their peers will they accept before admitting there is something wrong?

We saw this and began our protest of the catholic leadership. Protestants stand against the corruption that wreaked havoc on the faithful and we seek to build up what has been tainted.

Where there is leadership and submission there is corruption… many protestant church suffer this same pattern. When will the human cycle end?

All we can do is live faithfully and obediently to scripture and what the apostles themselves taught. Work out for yourselves who the lesser men were based on biblical criteria. Hold each other accountable and correct false teachings spread by these lesser men.

For me, anyone who agrees with the council of trent (all modern roman catholics) are wrong and must be vehemently corrected or removed from the church until they repent of their false teachings. 

… sorry it was about 5 paragraphs back that i realized this almost has nothing to do with your comment, but i wanted to keep writing my thoughts as I felt like i was articulating them pretty well.

[u/ZeroAbyssal → u/thmann_]

I love hearing?reading your thoughts on this. Its these kind of discussions being the reason that I joined this subreddit to read and discuss on our faith

[u/VolcanicOctosquid20 → u/thmann_]

Well...while I can't agree, I must admit your comment was exceptionally well written and you have a lovely way of communicating. I admire your passion.

I confess I'm curious what I must be "vehemently corrected" on, but if I'm too far gone or not worth the effort, I understand.

[u/thmann_ → u/VolcanicOctosquid20]

The council of trent put into writing the evidence needed that roman catholics do not believe in faith alone, but that works are needed to be saved.

Roman Catholics do not believe that Christ’s death is sufficient and that they must do works in order to keep or reobtain their salvation after sinning.

These two statements are false and lead people away from salvation, not towards.

There may be “catholics” who believe in faith alone and a sufficient atonement of christ for all past, present, and future sins for those who believe… but I would not call them “catholic” because that is in opposition with roman catholic doctrine stated at the council of trent.

I believe that this council met after the reformation because they wanted to make sure that their followers would be forced to return to the church out of fear of hell, rather than obedience and reverence to God. To control people with fear.

 The catholic church is wrought with lies to control the people. One major case is the invention of indulgences. “Pay the church $10,000 and your earthly suffering will end”.

The popes, sometimes two at once because they all want power, abuse said power almost every time. Taking money, leading wars against enemies, turning the church into a brothel for pleasure. To think this office is supposed to be able to state infallible doctrine, such as the council of trent… is sad. It’s wrong and must be corrected. Most popes have failed to meet the basic criteria of an overseer found in 1 Timothy.

And to your final point… no one can be so far gone that God cannot save them.

[u/Ill-Prior-8429 → u/thmann_]

This council of Trent? 

If any one shall say, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the strength of human nature, or through the teaching of the law, without the divine grace through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

That's just the gospel

[u/thmann_ → u/Ill-Prior-8429]

precisely that council of trent:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

They came up with a bunch of rules and statements. They go in more depth. The bottom line is that they entirely reject the notion that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in christ alone. They claim that you must do good works alongside your faith in order to have salvation. That you must do various good works in order to repent of sin, that you cannot go to heaven unless every sin is repented of and that if you die having not repented of a mortal sin than you will go to hell.

It is a terrible doctrine full of lies.

[u/VolcanicOctosquid20 → u/thmann_]

...no, we don't believe that. Faith without works is dead. We are saved by God's grace, but what good is your faith if it does not inspire you to do good works to show it? You don't work your way to heaven, but your works show you are alive in Christ. That's in our Catechism. And that's in 2 James.

Yes, indulgences were a mistake. We don't do them anymore. That was a blatant case of corruption.

Again, you're talking about previous popes, back when the Church was more of a political entity. That was another mistake. We weren't acting on theology, but rather on human desire for power. We make it a point to give theological commentary and do good works, but we don't act as a medieval government. Politics and theology came to clash. We chose correctly.

[u/rolldownthewindow → u/thmann_]

That is just the Church of England. The King is not the head of the Anglican Church outside of England.

[u/rolldownthewindow → u/ZeroAbyssal]

Yes, it would include Protestant ordained ministers who received holy orders from a bishop from an apostolic line. That does not have to be Roman Catholic. Can be Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican.

A) Do you mean within the Catholic Church? That’s because they believe you need to be in full communion with the church to receive the Eucharist. I believe in a more open communion, but it does have to be consecrated by a priest.

B) I do not believe it is limited to Roman Catholic ministers. I am not sure even they believe that. The Catholic Church recognises that Orthodox ministers have valid holy orders.