Catholics seem to follow Matthew, James, and Peter but Protestants follow Paul, Luke, and John. Who's right...

Catholics seem to follow Matthew, James, and Peter but Protestants follow Paul, Luke, and John. Who's right? I don't get it.

Attached: 3e7df26fa627edab4b636e4f5ba029c0.jpg (736x667, 76.23K)

Following Mark.

Everyone "follow" every one of these. The issue is with understanding the implications of what they wrote, both concerning the texts themselves, the experience of God in tradition (I do not mean only Apostolic Tradition - even Evangelical churches have their "tradition"), and the experience of God here and now.

It's also not right to say that Catholics follow Matthew, James, and Peter, or that Protestants follow Paul, Luke, and John, because they remain stuck on a particular passage of each and develop it into a ridiculous exegesis. Matthew wrote on more subjects than the keys of heaven and divorce. Paul wrote on more subjects than justification and spiritual gifts.
We are not to be of Apollos, or of Paul, or of Cephas, but of Christ. If anything, in my opinions, Catholics are too far in the direction of being "of Cephas" and Protestants are too far in the direction of being "of Paul", and they therefore turn them into something that neither scripture nor tradition shows them to actually be.

With that said, if we accuse Catholics and Protestants of focusing too much on certain Biblical authors, I wonder what it is for the Orthodox. Maybe John (because of his gospel) and Paul (because of Hebrews).

Until you get your sword and run it through bankers, you will never be "as Christ".

See icon. Peter and Paul both.

And while Orthodox may downplay Peter's primacy (in papal terms), it isn't downplayed as Protestants might do it. Personally, I'd say even that moment when Paul rebuked Peter for being afraid of James and his Jerusalem cohort was Paul actually acknowledging how important Peter was. It's like that moment in Braveheart, if you will.. when William Wallace took Robert the Bruce to the side and said he was willing to follow him, if he just didn't screw up. Like Wallace, Paul knew that Peter had a God given importance. Not necessarily in the modern papal sense, but to deny the reality of it is to deny scripture.. Peter is front and center.

And Luke btw wouldn't be in the Paulist category. He's exactly in this category. He writes about both extensively. They're his two main focal points. Not one or the other.

Attached: ss_peter_paul_500.jpg (500x655, 41.07K)

Peter is the bishop of Antioch.

I don't see you mofos saying come back to Antioch.

Who do you think I am, and what do you mean by mofos?

In any case, indeed, Antioch is important because of Peter's presence there. But so is Rome. That's the case for both Peter and Paul.. both churches were blessed by the presence of two apostles.

Motherwinnie the pooher.
I remember Jesus giving the keys to Peter, who is the bishop of Antioch, not Rome.

Rome has jackshit to do with anything but Caesar.

Seeing as there were twelve Apostles, and today there are hundreds of bishops, we can rightly conclude that there can be multiple bishops who can claim Apostolic succession from the same Apostles. Seeing as Antioch fell to Nestorianism, it's probably safe to assume that the Roman line of Petrine Apostolic succession is more legitimate today than the Antiochan one.

Attached: Assyrian_church_of_the_East.png (377x264, 108.12K)

Yeah, I still don't know what you mean. Maybe it's the weird censorship. You probably shouldn't cuss anyways and just speak plainly so the filters don't mess it up.

You're a strange one. So you acknowledge he was given the keys, but deny that Rome has anything to do with Peter and Paul? Are you Sola Scriptura and ignore any extraneous Christian history?

In any case, Antioch was built in the earliest years of the church. But Apostles don't stay at particular churches permanently. That's not their job. That might be the biggest root of the problem right there… when people mistake them like any other bishop. No, they PLANT bishops. They're the bishops over bishops. Apostle means "one who is sent".. It's a mobile office/specifically a missionary but with the highest amount of authority and grace. Not a mere bishop who has a home church. So Antioch is important because he established it, but Rome is also important because he planted that too and was martyred there. And if you don't understand the importance of the blood of martyrs, you have no business talking at all.

You are not Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said that hell will not prevail against the church, yet you assume Christ's church i.e. Antioch is "fallen".

Again, Jesus "gave" the keys to Peter, and Peter is the bishop of Antioch. What the holy winnie the pooh does Rome has to do with it?
So neither Antioch or Rome has the key, and the key dies with Peter.
I don't see it has jackshit to do with Rome, no.

Do you agree with the Christology of the Church of the East? Because it's literally Nestorianism, which is a heresy that's been roundly condemned by all other branches of Christianity since the 400s. Nestorianism, in case you're unaware, is the belief that Christ isn't strictly speaking God, because His divine nature is radically separate from His human nature. Is this what you believe? If not, then the legitimate successor to Peter is in Rome.

Again, Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail over his church.

It's on you, champ.

Peter is certainly important to Orthodoxy, like all Biblical authors, but it's not like Orthodoxy has developped a particular and strong cult of Peter like Catholics have, or like Protestants have done with Paul.
I might actually say that the Biblical author that's closest to having such a "cult" is John. There is a reason he is the only Biblical author and apostle to have the title of "Theologian". His gospel is also very important regarding the definitions of the ecumenical councils and subsequent controversies (with John 1:1, 8:58, 15:26, as well as all the references to "light" which are very important to Palamas…).

Of course. In fact the whole episode isn't Paul's victory over Peter, but Paul explaining his failure against Peter, and explaining why even Barnabas isn't with him anymore. Peter's authority was great enough that everyone sided with him and left Paul's side (even though we know from the inspiration of the scriptures that Paul was in the right).

Take your medication.
By the way, Peter wrote his first epistle from "Babylon" (which we know, from Revelation and contemporary documents such as 2 Esdras, refers to Rome) and the ecumenical councils recognized that Peter is the chief apostle and his authority among the apostles back then is continued in the authority of the Bishop of Rome among the bishops. Peter's journey ended in Rome, and there is a reason that there are no other indications of where his tomb resides today except in Rome.
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the 3 sees that received Peter's teachings, and because Rome was the last and most influential one, it has the primacy. Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Cyprus were granted autocephaly subsequently because of the honors surrounding them.

What are you even trying to say? Take your medication.
Every local Church is Christ's Church. The power promised to Peter in Matthew 16 is then promised to all the apostles in Matthew 18 and granted in John 20.
Every bishop represents Christ, but just as Peter was equal in honor and rank to the other apostles even though he had the primacy among them, the Bishop of Rome is equal in honor and rank to the other bishops even though he has the primacy among them. Three Churches were marked by Peter's influence and teachings (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch) but Rome was given the chief seat among them due to being Peter's last stop.

It gives us continuity with the early Church. Peter appointed Linus as Bishop of Rome and died there, sanctifying the Church of Rome with his blood, and the primacy of Rome remains as a "marker" of where Peter lies, so to speak. By his martyrdom and influence there, Peter became the patron saint of Rome.
But of course, there is the whole issue of Rome being in schism and heresy right now. Until the Bishop of Rome actually does his job of being a worthy Peter and returns to Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarch holds his place.

And they didn't, because His Church is centered in Rome. Rome has a bishop who can trace his Apostolic succession to Peter, it's where Peter died, and Tradition has for thousands of years placed the seat of Peter in that city.

I'd really like to see you try to defend Nestorianism though.

He's the bishop of Antioch, NOT of Rome. He was elected AFTER death, which is heresy because dead person can't do things.
ONLY one area there has Peter as bishop, and it's not Rome.
If so, there is no Pope since every Church is Christ's church and has all authority in the world.
Peter is NOT the Bishop of Rome, he's the Bishop of Antioch.
So he dies there, thus he becomes a saint of Rome? Who gives you this authority? Nope.
Peter is the bishop of Antioch, and it's Antioch where his power reigns.
As you said, every Church is Christ's church, and Peter is the bishop of Antioch, not Rome or Moscow or Constantinople.

They didn't, and Peter is the bishop of Antioch.

It's you, NOT Jesus, who says his church is centered in Rome while saying Antioch has fallen.

t. heretic

It doesn't matter what he was bishop of. Apostolic succession is about continuity with the apostles, but it's not some kind of "spiritual hereditary office". There is one episcopacy, to which all the bishops have communion. They all represent the one Christ. Their role is liturgical, and just as the sacrifice of Christ isn't repeated again and again but it is the one sacrifice, there is only one episcopacy, one representation of Christ, that all the bishops participate to.

So, again, Peter's patronship over Rome is because that is where he last taught and died. Linus was the first bishop of Rome.

Every local Church is the whole Catholic Church, yes. Every bishop is a representant of Christ and the head of the local Church. There is ONE episcopacy, not many. The Pope's job back then (and the EP's job now) is to be recognized as the chief among the bishops, who works toward unity and who serves all, but he does not have an office different from the one episcopacy (he is, however, a visible symbol of the unity of the episcopacy).

… What? Every single local Church has a patron saint. Constantinople's patron saint is St Andrew, for example.

Again, the episcopacy is not some kind of hereditary, monarchical office.

Who or what are you even arguing for?
Are you Orthodox? Then you need better catechesis.
Are you a Catholic falseflagger?
Are you a Protestant? You can become Antiochian Orthodox if you love Antioch so much, you know.

Also, you signed your own post as "heretic"…

Attached: liturgy icon.jpg (800x563, 104.34K)

Note also that I consider Linus to be the first bishop of Rome but it doesn't matter a lot either way whether Peter fulfilled the office of bishop at Rome or not. The Bishop of Rome, if he does his job and remains Orthodox, is Peter's successor in a particular sense (but in a general sense all bishops are Peter's successor, since the ministry given to Peter in Matthew and John applies to all bishops, yet we don't claim that Peter is the first bishop of every single diocese out there).

Explain this, Peter taught a lot of people, who gives Rome the exclusive right to succeed him. And no, you don't need to because there's no such thing.
Peter taught in a lot of places, the place where he dies does not matter because when he dies, he turns to dust, not be worshiped.
And who gives him this authority? The state?
And who is the patron saint for Jesus's church, hmm? Does Jesus worship a dead guy too?
Well, Jesus is the SON of GOD, and belonging to the KINGDOM of GOD, it's a hereditary and monarchic system.
Rome is not the center of Christianity. There's no evidence of such things.

The silliness of this argument lies in the fact that there is no such biblical concept of sacerdotal succession. And yes, there is ordination, but not of new apostles. Only time that happened was to replace the office of Judas Iscariot who died in sins, and to fulfill the prophecy regarding it.

This whole thing of sacerdotalism is a state church invention, it came along with pedobaptism and more strange doctrines contrary to Christ and scripture. It implies that the original witnesses died and that replacements were needed. All of this was gradually developed over time under state churches, gradually culminating to papal infallibility. It's found nowhere in scripture which stands, still uncorrupted and unchanged, as the witness against it all.

We need to take the word of God at a higher value than manmade traditions, just as Christ commanded through the inspired scripture.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:11

Finally someone who gets it.

The idea of Rome being le mother church is a meme made up by pedo priests with no historical evidence for it.

I'm tired of entertaining you. Answer my question. Are you Orthodox or Protestant?

No shit. You tell that to the Orthodox, who anathematize the Bishop of Rome. Impressive.

Peter specifically taught the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

So you do not believe that the saints are praying for us, but that they are dead in every sense of the word. What a lazy, powerless, dishonest God you believe in.

What are you even talking about? The Holy Tradition gives him this authority. This was Peter's job in the early Church. This mission to keep unity in the Church did not vanish when Peter fell asleep.

What -are- you talking about? Jesus is God. He is the head of the Church. And who's talking about worship?

Jesus is the ONLY and LAST High Priest. What in the shit are you talking about? Are you a Muslim? Do you believe Muhammad is Jesus's successor?

The Levites…

You've done it, you've exhausted me. You win. I'm out.

Was Jesus an Orthodox or a Protestant?
No, I tell that to the catholics memers who repeat the whole keys to Peter again, and again.
You are a full blown heretic praying to dead people.
Peter is dead, who gives him the authority anymore? Who exactly?
But you said every Church has a patron saint, so who's the patron saint of Jesus's church, hmm?
Jesus is the SON of GOD, who belongs to the KINGDOM OF GOD.
Are you a muslim who thinks he's just a "prophet" like Moses?
The wicked recoils against rightouness.

So is Heaven not real then? Are human souls not real? Do the souls of the departed righteous not glory in the beatific vision of God right now? Are you a Saducee?

I don't see heaven and soul being real or not has anything to do with praying to dead people, which is forbidden by the Bible.

Revelation clearly shows that the saints do receive prayers. Praying to the saints is not the same thing as summoning the dead through occult practices.

You are asking the dead to do things. And no, there is no proof that the "saints" are actually saints.

Once again, no proof is given.

Hebrews 7:23-24, user. It's like you've never even read the Bible before.

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
— Hebrews 7

Lmao, where did you get this?

I missed that lost gospel where Jesus stabbed bankers.

Protestants follow a random monk that broke his bows, or random american retards.

Hey man. That's not very nice. That former papist Monk also told us to sin boldly. And those Americans are all greedy butt munchers. None of them was real protestantism. Real protestantism hasn't been tried yet.

Nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say that our bishops are literally Levitical priests who mediate between us and God and offer sacrifices. However, they are a special priesthood within the Church, tasked with giving the mysteries, just as the Levites were a special priesthood within Israel, tasked with sacrifices and laws of purity; and just as the Levites had a succession by blood, the bishops have a spiritual, apostolic succession. They are spiritual Levites, as St Irenaeus of Lyon says. See Jeremiah 33:17-18:
See also the book of Zechariah, where, on top of the Messiah, Who is a new kind of royalty, there is also the promise of a new kind of levitical priesthood.

Yes it has, you just don't know that God perfectly preserved His word and salvation in His one true bible. For too long had Jesus' Church been under the heel of satan and the pagan apostolics and their false works based salvation Gospel. For too long real Christianity has been supressed!
For God sacrificed His only Son and gave us a perfect gift of Jesus Christ's perfect sacrifice. The best part? He gave that perfect gift to you and recorded it all in His perfectly preserved word in His one true Bible The Message
Take the MSGpill user and join us in real protestantism. It'll work this time, I promise.

Reminder Holy Communion is Christ’s risen body

the apostles are not some starter-pokémon

Reminder that false flaggers will burn in the lake of fire.

Discard your bible then, since it is no longer infallible as the NT was written by the "pagan apostolics" you hate and the entire compilation of the bible at the council of Hippo in 393 AD is now forfeit.

What do you mean exactly when you say that Protestants “follow John?” The Gospel of St. John is the clearest and most unequivocal book of the Bible on doctrines like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This. The Gospel of St. John also places more emphasis on Peter leading the apostles, Christ granting Peter and the apostles the power to forgive sins, Jews as a whole rejecting Christ, etc., which is further supported by the book of Acts. The Bible as a whole isn't a very Protestant-friendly book, which is why they cherrypick scripture they like and ignore the rest.

Hebrews 7:23-25 shows that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the priesthood being one that never dies and so there is no need for replacement. For this very reason that he does not die, there no such thing as succession. If you say that there is succession then you say that he dies like the Levite did, or you just deny the truth spelled out in Hebrews.

Order of Aaron = successions by reason of current priests dying. Order of Melchisedec = never dies = no more successions. So citing Levites as an example means you think the high priest dies and is replaced regularly. But that's not what Hebrews says, especially chapter 7. So you must be denying at least part of what it says if not all of it.

Fulfilled here:

Hebrews 7:20-25
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.