Here's a conversation starter - Scott Hahn has been instrumental in helping many convert to Catholicism. He is also a convert to the faith. Here is some of his work on the Papacy - an issue that divides us which seems to be what ya'll want to focus on. Hahn's scholarship was also called into question yesterday by Paul. Enjoy!
157 comments:
Oh, this should be interesting. I'm going to be reading through my fingers.
Elena
Your last two comments on the last post were spot on
One observation i have made from listening in to these conversations, is how very self aggrandising some of these comments are. Some commenters really seem to think THEIRS is the most dispassionate and above reproach, above the debate, non partisan and sophisticated approach. They are 'helping' by they are sharing their take 'straight from the bible' with no spin. Theirs is a 'gift' for interpretation and sharing their knowledge.
I do wonder, and this is a gross over generalisation I realise, if part of this is what we ( my family) call 'the American way'.
Self confidence seems to be part of the national psyche, and self deprecation ( or humility) not really considered as a positive thing, if considered at all.
Of course one encounters the same kind of thing here to, but I notice that self aggrandising comments are delivered 'with a straight face' so to speak with little risk of a chorus of boo's to prick the pomposity.
I'm caught between eye rolling derision and admiration of the sheer chutzpah.
Why on earth would they think that they were helping me, the humble reader, by giving me their own little hand knitted presentation of The Truth?
What makes their interpretation less fallible and more reliable and insightful than the magisterium of the church they despise?
I'm not going to have much time to comment this weekend after this, as we've got a conference tonight and tomorrow and church on Sunday, but after so far reading half of Scott Hahn's article on the papacy, a couple of things occur to me.
First, if Jesus is specifically referring to Peter as the rock and giving him the keys, which I don't think is clear, how does this lead to the Bishop of Rome being the only successor of Peter? The Apostles appointed many pastors (bishops) and planted many churches all over the known world. Peter was in Jerusalem for many years and then I believe in Antioch, and then it is controversial whether he was even in Rome, or if he was, for how long. If Peter was in Rome at the end of his life, for some have added up the years and it couldn't have been long, it may have only been like Paul who was brougt there as a prisoner to be tried and then executed. Why is the claim of the Roman bishops any better than any other bishop?
Secondly, Hahn makes the point at the beginning of his article that the church is like a family rather than just a 'people'. If indeed Peter is established as a father (though I think this is debatable) how does this translate to there always being only one successor? Adam was the father of the human race, but there was not just one successor but many fathers came from him and had many children, who in turn became fathers/mothers as well. Peter and the Apostles appointed many bishops and led many to Christ and those in turn led many more until a great and constantly growing family was established. It is a building with a foundation upon which many stones are being added. I don't see anything that supports the idea of one successor or especially that it has to be the Roman bishop.
There is much more that could be said about infallibility, and how for instance one knows which statements of the pope are infallible and which are faulty. I hope someone else has time to address this, because I have to go.
Elena,
This looks very interesting.
I would like to work through this tonight or tomorrow.
Well, I'm glad for this post/topic because I had a thing to say about Hahn but got shut out the last thread. And I'm pretty guilty about talking about what I want to talk about, one way or another.
Paul, look, I'm no fan of Hahn and not for want of trying. I do feel sorry that his Presbyterian church gave him such grief when he wanted to leave. I don't want to believe such things about the church leadership of other denominations but I've heard it from too many others to think his experience was unique. Even so, that persecution hasn't endeared me to him or made me a sympathetic reader of his popular stuff.
However, in Hahn's defense, he can actually do scholarship ... and I haven't read the papacy thing so I don't know whether that is a sample of it. But Michael Barber linked to a page of Hahn's articles published in JBL, CBQ and CBT. His niche seems to be covenant.
And on Ehrman, I sure don't understand why he's been dropped like a hot potato just because he lost his faith. Anything he wrote before that is probably still worthwhile. I don't know, exactly, how much of an historian he is but I can't think of a reason to write him off, even any of his post-agnostic works. In his case, then, I am a sympathetic reader.
Peace.
Ugh, here's that first link again, to Michael Barber's page. shabbat shalom.
Jennie won't be around 'til later, but I was reading in the opening chapters of Genesis the last day or two. Remember the page on "blessedness" I linked to on another thread, it says that "the opposite of 'blessed' isn't 'unhappy' but 'cursed." So it happened, as I was reading Genesis, that those opposites, "blessed" and "cursed" jumped out every time in the text.
If you click on this link, you will download a JPEG of search results at Unbound Bible for the words 'blessed' or 'cursed' in the first five chapters of Genesis in the NASB translation. If you don't want to download a file that I created for fear of virus, then just perform the search yourself there or at your favorite online Bible website.
So I wonder what the biblical understanding of those words really are and how much we read our theology into those words. How did people move from "blessed" to "cursed" and back again, especially before Christ's atoning death? IOW, if Mary had been born with original sin, how did she become blessed?
Also, it's my personal opinion that Mary was the only one destined to be Mother of God. God reserved no Plan 'B' had Mary declined.
Moonshadow,
That's a fascinating link to the jpeg. We are starting Gen. Ch. 1-12 in adult Sunday School next week. (probably for 6 mos.) I will keep that chart in mind.
"Also, it's my personal opinion that Mary was the only one destined to be Mother of God. God reserved no Plan 'B' had Mary declined."
I agree with you here. But I also believe that this was God's eternal decree. Mary's exercising of her "free will" is compatible with God's sovereign will.
Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures. Compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most. The former view is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (Note: compatibilism denies that the will is free to choose otherwise, that is, free from the bondage of the corruption nature,for the unregenerate, and denies that the will is free from God's eternal decreee.)
Christ dwells within us not for the purpose of sinking our being into His being, nor of substituting Himself for us as the agent in our activities; much less of seizing our wills and operating them for us in contradiction to our own immanent mind; but to operate directly upon us, to make us good, that our works, freely done by us, may under His continual leading, be good also.
B.B. Warfield
p.s: I'm just starting Dr. Hahn's article.
Teresa and Paul,
Great point about Mary. In choosing who should bear His Son, God had predetermined ahead of time who it should be. Jesus' birth was pre-ordained before the foundations of the earth was laid, and so the whole plan of redemption. If Mary had been one who would have said NO to God's plan, then God would not have chosen her in the first place. That's just my humble opinion :-).
Teresa, also it is okay for the word 'blessed' to have more than one meaning! Take the English language for instance. Blessed can mean 'happy' as well as 'favored.' Nothing wrong with that!
Peace.
Okay I have read the part about Peter being the Rock and foundation of the church. Here is my response.
Ephesians 2:19-21:
"19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord."
The church is built upon Christ, who is the chief cornerstone, which is laid over with a foundation of apostles and prophets, not just one apostle or one prophet. We had twelve apostles, and many prophets before them. The book of Revelation speaks of the same thing in describing the foundation of the New Jerusalem.
"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Revelation 21:14)."
I will reserve my observations about other points raised by Mr. Hahn for another time. Have a great night everyone.
Peace.
The church is built upon Christ, who is the chief cornerstone, which is laid over with a foundation of apostles and prophets, not just one apostle or one prophet. We had twelve apostles, and many prophets before them. The book of Revelation speaks of the same thing in describing the foundation of the New Jerusalem.
#11 of things we can leave off the table.
Elena, my comment:
The church is built upon Christ, who is the chief cornerstone, which is laid over with a foundation of apostles and prophets, not just one apostle or one prophet. We had twelve apostles, and many prophets before them. The book of Revelation speaks of the same thing in describing the foundation of the New Jerusalem.
Is very much on the table for Mr. Hahn has denied that the church is built upon Christ.
"So some Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really saying is. 'You're a little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ, the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.' Now the closer I studied the more I realized that those positions were untenable, simply untenable. And I'm going to share in a few minutes the fact that most conservative anti-Catholic Protestant scholars today will admit that readily and candidly. The more I dug, the more I found that the evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus was speaking of Peter. Peter is the Rock. Peter just said, "You are the Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros"(taken from Scott Hahn on the Papacy, subsection: Papal Primacy and Succession, paragraphs 7 & 8).
This is definitely something Mr. Hahn has placed on the table.
Peace.
Okay I have read the subsection:
Early Church Fathers Recognized Papal Primacy and Succession
It seems that Catholics believe their church was founded upon Peter. I certainly won't argue with that, because that is their conviction, and they have gone to great lengths to prove it. Based on the proofs given then, it must therefore be true that their church, the Roman church, was founded upon and based upon the chair of Peter.
Peace.
Dr Hahn writes:
"
Now you might say, "That's as plain as the nose on your face. What's the excitement of that discovery?" Well, non-Catholics frequently
claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this rock." Or other
Protestants object and say, "No, Jesus says, 'And you are petros.'" You are petros, you are rock, and on this petra, the Greek word for
large rock, "I will build my Church." So some Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really saying is. 'You're a
little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ, the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.'"
-------------
It's not just protestants that have claimed this. The view that Peter is "this rock" was actually the minority report in the early church. And yet Vatican I stated:
Chapter I: Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter.
We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: ‘Thou shalt be called Cephas,’ that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ addressed these solemn words: ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: ‘Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.’ At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.
If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.
Continued:
Chapter I: Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter.
We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: ‘Thou shalt be called Cephas,’ that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ addressed these solemn words: ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: ‘Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.’ At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.
If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.
For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and blessed Peter, abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church. Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the princedom which this has received; that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the rights of communion spread to all, might grow together as members of one Head in the compact unity of the body.
If, then, any should deny that it is by institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
continued:
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever right and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchial subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council , Chapters I,II, III).
Notice there is no appeal to a "developement" of these doctrines.
"The view that Peter is "this rock" was actually the minority report in the early church."
Have you given us any actual support for this claim?
Instead of giving any evidence you give us more yards of cut and paste.
I fail to see how any of it supports your contention either.
I scanned it briefly and it all seemed rather marvellous actually.
I'm wondering what was objectionable.
Perhaps it was this:
"If, then, any should deny that it is by institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Does the beautiful concept of anathema disturb you Paul?
ROFLOL - if there was an anathema to be found, Paul would find it!
Hillary said: It seems that Catholics believe their church was founded upon Peter. ... it must therefore be true that their church, the Roman church, was founded upon and based upon the chair of Peter.
No doubt Elena is pleased that she and Dr. Hahn have proved this to you. Good grief.
Paul said: Mary's exercising of her "free will" is compatible with God's sovereign will.
That's fine with me. And I'm fine with understanding her whole life as a big instance of Compatibilism.
Hillary said: "It seems that Catholics believe their church was founded upon Peter. ... it must therefore be true that their church, the Roman church, was founded upon and based upon the chair of Peter."
Teresa responded:
"No doubt Elena is pleased that she and Dr. Hahn have proved this to you. Good grief."
-----------------------------------
Teresa, do not despair. What this article has done is to prove to me that the Roman Church was founded and built upon Peter, not Christ. They have failed to show that the Roman Church was built upon Christ.
Peace.
Of course Teresa, it doesn't matter that Catholics like you and I understand that it was built on Christ. DOW got her interpretation out of it so it must be true!!!
...wondering why I even bother...
Elena - I'm grateful for your efforts. I'm a Roman Catholic and am learning a lot from you - thanks!
Clare wrote:
"Instead of giving any evidence you give us more yards of cut and paste.
I fail to see how any of it supports your contention either."
-----------
What I cut and pasted was from:
Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council , Chapters I,II, III).
I'm not sure why you would object to that.
It seems that when I attempt to use my own words to describe "official R.C doctrine" I am accused of misrepresenting what Rome teaches. That's why I prefer to use the very words of your own magisterium.
"I fail to see how any of it supports your contention either."
I am just getting started.
Again, here are Dr. Hahn's exact words:
"Christ has given us an unconditional guarantee that they will not prevail because he will build His Church upon Peter and His successors, the Rock, the foundation stone(taken from Dr. Scott Hahn on the Papacy, Conclusion, paragraph 1).
I certainly did not make this up. It is all there in the article for all to read.
Peace.
Clare wrote:
"The view that Peter is "this rock" was actually the minority report in the early church."
"Have you given us any actual support for this claim?"
------------
Clare,
Since (I assume) that you agree with Vatican I's claims it should be very easy for you to to back up their declarations. And if you don't then you are also "anathema". That would include agreeing that the criteria that they set forth in the above Dogmatic Decrees, were:
ever understood, always known,the unanimous consent of the fathers
Jesus is the cornerstone. Peter is the rock of the foundation, the first stone placed in the foundation made of the apostles.
Matthew 16:18 is best cross-referenced with this passage from Isaiah 22:
0And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Peter and the Papacy, from Catholic Answers
Kids are getting restless, gotta go.
Catechism Catholic Church
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the "living Stone",285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286
"I fail to see how any of it supports your contention either."
I am just getting started.
I'm not even sure what your contention was Paul - other than you just feel more comfortable in something with anathema on the side!
Paul
You said
What I cut and pasted was from:
Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council , Chapters I,II, III).
I'm not sure why you would object to that.
It seems that when I attempt to use my own words to describe "official R.C doctrine" I am accused of misrepresenting what Rome teaches. That's why I prefer to use the very words of your own magisterium.
I'm NOT objecting to the document, I couldn't see what was wrong with it? Why did you post it?
I'm assuming that you found it negative in some way and therefore supportive of your contention.
You said:
"The view that Peter is "this rock" was actually the minority report in the early church."
Maybe I don't understand the term 'minority report', it's not one that I am familiar with.
I am assuming that it means a view held by the minority. Is that what you meant?
If so, how does the document you quote give support to that?
I'm confused by your including it there with no other explanation that that 'minority report' comment.
Again, the document is fine. It clearly states the churches position.
So what is your point?
"I'm not even sure what your contention was Paul - other than you just feel more comfortable in something with anathema on the side!"
My contention in reading Dr. Hahn's article is starting with this:
" Well, non-Catholics frequently
claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this rock."
I asserted that "It's not just protestants that have claimed this. The view that Peter is "this rock" was actually the minority report in the early church".
Then I posted the "official" view of Vatican I.
My contention is that Rome was acting contrary to history and scripture on this issue(papal primacy, succession and infallibility) as the constant an unanimous interpretation of Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32.
Oh and regarding "anathema" I have found if you toss a stone into New Advent you will likely hit an anathema. Not very hard to find. And by the way TurretinFan's research on the claims that anathemas no longer exist has not been refuted. They are just called by another name.
if you toss a stone into New Advent you will likely hit an anathema.
Now that's witty. Good one.
LOL! Just when I thought Paul didn't have a sense of humor! That WAS indeed a good one!!
If anathema is now called by another name, then it is excommunication, which only applies to Catholics.
My previous post on the papacy is Papal Ponderings.
Paul
You said
"Clare,
Since (I assume) that you agree with Vatican I's claims it should be very easy for you to to back up their declarations. And if you don't then you are also "anathema"."
Well isn't that ( the primacy of Peter and Petrine succession) what this discussion is all about? I haven't read Scott Hahns piece in its entirety yet, but it seems that he has done a very good job of 'backing up their declarations'.
I'm simply joining in the discussion when I can. I don't imagine I'll be saying anything that hasn't been better said before.
Anyway I don't actually think I AM required to back up their claims or be anathema.
I'm simply accepting the authority of the Catholic church to teach on faith and morals. I find the argument for this teaching authority more scripturallly and logically coherent than the alternative. So I humbly submit.
One is not required to be a scholar to be a faithful Catholic.
I don't need to back up anything.
I just need to accept and obey. Of course, understanding intellectually goes a long way in helping me to do that, but I don't need to personally dot every 'I' and cross every 'T'. Thankfully.
That would include agreeing that the criteria that they set forth in the above Dogmatic Decrees, were:
ever understood, always known,the unanimous consent of the fathers"
Fine by me. Have you any evidence to the contrary?
Do share.
"And by the way TurretinFan's research on the claims that anathemas no longer exist has not been refuted. They are just called by another name."
Oh jolly good, thank you. I'd hate for them to do away with anathemas.
The view that Peter is "this rock" was actually the minority report in the early church".
Then I posted the "official" view of Vatican I.
OK. I'm still in the dark. Would you be so kind as to explain what 'minority report' means?
Working on the assumption that it means 'minority view' what basis do you having for claiming this?
You still haven't explained that.
Please do explain on what grounds you say that.
Then I posted the "official" view of Vatican I
Which is...that Peter is 'this rock'. No surprise there surely.
Clare wrote:
"Anyway I don't actually think I AM required to back up their claims or be anathema.
I'm simply accepting the authority of the Catholic church to teach on faith and morals."
My point is that Vatican 1 clearly states that you "must" believe the Dogmas (as they describe them). Meaning that this was not an acorn that developed into an Oak. If you agree with Steve Ray or other modern RC apologists that this was a doctrine that slowly developed over time you are not in agreement with V1 and therefore anathema.
Paul
i'll get back to you on that last point.
But before I move on, would you mind answering the question I put to you earlier?
That is:
OK. I'm still in the dark. Would you be so kind as to explain what 'minority report' means?
Working on the assumption that it means 'minority view' what basis do you having for claiming this?
You still haven't explained that.
"The view that Peter is "this rock" was actually the minority report in the early church."
Maybe I don't understand the term 'minority report', it's not one that I am familiar with.
I am assuming that it means a view held by the minority. Is that what you meant?
------------------
Less than half (minority) of the ECFs that commented on who/what is "this rock" agree with V1.
More than half (majority) of the ECF's that commented on this claim "this rock" refers to either Peter's confession or to Christ himself.
This is contrary to V1's claim of ever, always and unanimous consent.
This is also why numerous knowledgeable RC Historians had so much trouble with this because it was blatantly unhistorical. Even Cardinal Newman hoped that God would intervene supernaturally to prevent this from convening.
Less than half (minority) of the ECFs that commented on who/what is "this rock" agree with V1.
More than half (majority) of the ECF's that commented on this claim "this rock" refers to either Peter's confession or to Christ himself.
Hate to be a dog with a bone but what basis do you having for claiming this?
You still haven't explained that.
Simply put. Where do the numbers come from?
Actually what Clare and other good Catholics must subscribe to is the Catechism of the Catholic Church- the "sure norm."
Hate to be a dog with a bone but what basis do you having for claiming this?
You still haven't explained that.
Simply put. Where do the numbers come from?
----------------
I will be heading out for supper and when I return I will start posting my ECF witnesses. Provided the thread does not close down before you arise tomorrow you will have plenty.
I will be heading out for supper and when I return I will start posting my ECF witnesses. Provided the thread does not close down before you arise tomorrow you will have plenty.
Oh jolly good, I await with interest.
Bon appetit.
NO!! PLEASE don't post Continuous C&Ps of EFCs!! She's asking more for a math number like 50% or so... which I'm not exactly sure how you're going to determine I guess to now that you'll have to know the exact number of EFCs, and then know ALL of their views on the papacy... good luck.
Kelly wrote: "Jesus is the cornerstone. Peter is the rock of the foundation, the first stone placed in the foundation made of the apostles."
----------------------------------
Kelly, I think what you are saying is basically correct in that Jesus is the cornerstone, and the apostles make up the foundation of the church. What you are saying is more in keeping with scripture. Unfortunately, the article by Dr. Hahn denies that the Roman church is built upon Christ, and gives the impression that the Roman church is built upon Peter. As a matter of fact, Dr. Hahn goes out of his way to show how the Roman Church was built on Peter and not Christ.
Ephesians 2:19-21:
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.
The true church(temple) of God is built upon Christ the chief cornerstone, then the prophets and 12 apostles (not just Peter alone), and then us the believers.
According to Peter, Christ is the chief cornerstone (foundation stone is the same as a cornerstone) and also the rock of the temple of God.
1 Peter 2:6-8:
"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient."
Here we see 'cornerstone' being described as a 'stone' and a 'rock' (vs. 8). Christ is that rock.
Peace.
Posted by Elena:
284 Christ, the "living Stone",285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death.
-----------------------------------
Here the cathecism confirms that the Roman church was built upon Peter. I tell you folks, I am not making this up.
Peace.
"NO!! PLEASE don't post Continuous C&Ps of EFCs!! "
Ooh yes, of course. I second that emotion.
Paul, when you get back to me, it would be really helpful if you could give me some SPECIFIC numerical information along with the source for that information, so then I can go check out the rest of it for myself.
I go into a fug when I see long screeds of copy paste and it's very hard to pick out the salient points.
So, in order to be really clear. What I really want to know is this: On what basis do you assert :
"Less than half (minority) of the ECFs that commented on who/what is "this rock" agree with V1.
More than half (majority) of the ECF's that commented on this claim "this rock" refers to either Peter's confession or to Christ himself."
And where do the numbers come from.
Many thanks.
"I certainly did not make this up. It is all there in the article for all to read...
Here the cathecism confirms that the Roman church was built upon Peter. I tell you folks, I am not making this up."
If anyone out there thinks D.O.W is making it up, she is not making it up.
DOW,
What exactly do you think that "Christ, the 'living stone'" is referring to? Maybe that Christ is the cornerstone.
And even if the phrase is used that "the Church was built on Peter", who did the building? Did the Church build itself on Peter? Did Peter decide to build the Church? NO!! CHRIST built the church on Peter...it says so in the Bible plain as day. So, if we say it, we're just repeating what Christ said.
Kelly wrote:
"Matthew 16:18 is best cross-referenced with this passage from Isaiah 22:
0And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."
-----------------------------------
Kelly, I appreciate this post. I was just waiting for someone to post this reference.
This prophecy of Isaiah about Eliakim is a Messianic prophecy. Eliakim was a contemporary of Isaiah, and was the steward of king Hezekiah's palace (2 Kings 18:37). He was NOT the Prime Minister as Dr. Hahn wants us to believe, but was a steward in charge of Hezekiah's household.
This prophecy meets it's fulfillment in Revelation 3:7-8 in Christ's letter to the church of Philadelphia.
"7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
8I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name."
Peace.
Barbara C wrote:
CHRIST built the church on Peter...it says so in the Bible plain as day.
------------------------------
Barbara, can you please show me in the Bible where Christ said He would build His church on Peter? I thought Christ said He would build His church on petra,( not Petros).
You guys claim that your church was built on Peter (Petros), and I accept that, but Christ claims that He will build His church on this rock, petra. Big difference.
Peace.
Barbara, can you please show me in the Bible where Christ said He would build His church on Peter? I thought Christ said He would build His church on petra,( not Petros).
Petra is a feminine noun in Greek. It was not a name, until Jesus gave Simon the new name of Petros. You cannot address a man with a feminine noun, so he used the form of Petros to make the noun masculine.
That is what my very-not-Catholic Greek professor told me, at any rate.
Kelly wrote:
"Matthew 16:18 is best cross-referenced with this passage from Isaiah 22:
0And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."
------------------------
I have to agree with DOW.
Roman apologists assert the following: First, the position Eliakim was put into was a dynastic position, i.e., one that had successors. Second, usage of the term ‘key’ connects this passage with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:19, and Jesus may even be quoting Isaiah 22:22. They then parallel the ‘opening and shutting’ of Isaiah 22 with the ‘binding and loosing’ of Matthew 16. Peter, they assert, is the ‘prime minister’ of the Church. There is no tension or ‘tug-of-war’ between Peter and Jesus, just as there was none between the king and prime minister in the Old Testament. Since the passage in Isaiah refers to an office that has successors, then Jesus must mean Peter to have successors as the ‘prime minister’ of the Church.
But the Lord Jesus Christ has already given the correct interpretation and application of the Isaiah 22 passage: in Revelation 3:7 Jesus quotes from Isaiah 22:22 and applies it to himself: ‘And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this . . .’ Who is the one who holds the key? (note the present tense — since this is spoken after the resurrection, and, it would seem probable, after the death of Peter). The Lord Jesus Christ, and nobody else.
I wanted to point out that Jesus uses the idea of a steward in his parables. In Luke 12, the faithful steward rules over the household until his lord returns, as the Pope rules over the Church on the Lord's behalf, until his return.
Luke 12:41Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
The steward of Luke 16, is not a just steward, but he also rules over the household until his lord's return. Notice that the steward has the power to release men from debts, on behalf of his lord:
5So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
Compare this to the language in Matthew 16:18-19:
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I think they read the same. Jesus is naming Peter as his steward, and giving him the power of binding and loosing from debts.
So what is your interpretation of the rock in this verse, DOW? If Christ is referring to himself then who is he giving the authority of binding and loosing to? And if it is himself, why does he bring Peter into it.
"Hey buddy, I'm going to call you Peter, even though your name is Simon. And changing the subject a bit, let me tell you my plan for building a church on myself . . . "
And in a related subject, if Peter is no different from any of the other apostles, then why does he get a name change? Name changes are usually pretty significant in Scripture. Abram to Abraham. Sarai to Sarah.
Paul is the Greek form of Saul, so that isn't quite a name change. He just begins to use the gentile form of his name as he ministers to the gentiles.
I looked at Barclay's commentary on Matthew's Gospel in the bookstore tonight. Barclay said that Jesus calls Peter "rock," high praise indeed as anyone in Jesus' day knew that the OT calls God "rock." The Rabbis called Abraham "rock," that all nations would be blessed through him. Ultimately, however, Barclay sees Peter as the first man to recognize who Jesus is and so, the first person to enter the Church and a model for all believers.
Then I looked at the Orthodox Study Bible which I didn't buy and so don't have in front of me. It quoted John Chrysostom as saying what Augustine does, that the rock/foundation is Peter's faith. And then includes a reminder of Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem presided over by James. This neglects, though, the historical fact that none of the first seven ecumenical councils were convoked by the bishop of Rome but by the Byzantine emperor.
I'd prefer Paul use his own words rather than cut & paste as I've said before. But if them's the rules of the house, then we'll have to live with it.
However, I appreciate what Paul is doing and I am always eager to put other Christians in touch with their respective traditions. Take the Puritans, for instance. No, really, they are sincerely a great bunch. And I can usually find something to affirm in any quotation from Warfield.
But how is this? - "That would include agreeing that the criteria that they set forth in the above Dogmatic Decrees"
The papacy is infallible as regards faith & morals. What about history? Let's suppose VCI was unaware of dissent among CF - I don't see how it could be, but let's suppose - then if history eventually shows otherwise, what's the Catholic's obligation?
See footnote 35 in Garry Wills's book Papal Sin.
Wills goes on to quote Fr. Brown that "Peter never served as the bishop or local administrator of any church, Antioch and Rome included." And Benedict said he "would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown." (Wiki)
Glad you're at the party, Paul, but you seem to be 30+ years too late. :-)
"The papacy is infallible as regards faith & morals. What about history? Let's suppose VCI was unaware of dissent among CF - I don't see how it could be, but let's suppose - then if history eventually shows otherwise, what's the Catholic's obligation?"
-----------------
The Roman Magisterium was well aware of the facts regarding the ECF's view of "this rock". One their preeminent Historians, Johan Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger had done everything in his power to persuade them to not press forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Joseph_Ignaz_von_D%C3%B6llinger
Von Dollinger knew that the Papacy had no historical nor Biblical validity and that through forgeries and false decretals it had deceived it's way into power.
http://www.archive.org/details/thepopeandthecou00deoluoft
'
Vatican I claims that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 has been held universally throughout the Church and that it can appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Yet the early Fathers are quite varied in their opinions and interpretations of Matthew 16:18-19. Some speak of the ‘rock’ to mean Christ, some to mean Peter and others to mean Peter’s confession of Christ. No Fathers of the first two centuries can be cited as supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18. They are silent on the interpretation of the ‘rock’, and the overwhelming majority of the Fathers through the entire patristic age (Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil the Great, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Epiphanius, Aphraates, Ephraim, John Cassian, Theodoret, Eusebius, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, John of Damascus, and many others) all disagree with the Roman Church’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18.6 The vast majority of the Fathers do not recognize the personal prerogatives of Peter as being transferred in a personal way to the bishop of Rome, thereby making him the head of the Church.
source:
Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), p. 74.
Paul would have us all be Old Catholics, then.
The interesting thing, and I've seen it time and again in church history, is that the minority view is adopted, from Athanasius on down to John Courtney Murray.
You've heard that Christianity is not a democracy?
Just be patient, Christ isn't finished with us yet. This too will work itself out.
Why not take a front row seat so as not to miss any of the action?
Kelly wrote:
"Petra is a feminine noun in Greek. It was not a name, until Jesus gave Simon the new name of Petros. You cannot address a man with a feminine noun, so he used the form of Petros to make the noun masculine."
-----------------------------------
Let me first begin by showing how Simon acquired the name Peter. When Jesus was choosing His disciples, He called Andrew into the ministry, and Andrew took his brother Simon to Jesus, "and when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone" (John 1:42). Cephas was the Aramaic word for 'stone.' The New Testament however was written in Greek, not Aramaic, so the name Cephas was translated as 'Petros' in Greek or Peter in English.
Christ said He would build His church on this rock, petra. Yes, the word 'petra' is the feminine form for 'petros' but 'petra' means "a (mass of) rock" (Strong #4073). So we have by definition then that 'petros' is a stone, and that 'petra' is a mass of rock.
Christ said He was going to build His church on the mass of rock (petra), and not on a stone (petros).
Another thing, just because nouns have male and female gender does not mean they are the same. For the example, in Spanish, the noun 'nino' means boy, but the noun 'nina' means girl. Both words express a male and female counterpart, but boys are NOT the same as girls. In Hebrew we see the same occurence of nouns with male and female gender. In Hebrew, the name of Solomon's wife was Shulamite (Songs of Songs 6:13), and is the feminine form of the name Solomon. Yet, no one thinks Solomon is the same person as Shulamite.
In Greek, petros and petra both express the same idea of rock, but petros is a small piece of rock or stone, while petra is a mass of rock or big rock. BIG DIFFERENCE.
If Jesus wanted to build His church on Petros, He would have said so.
Peace.
Kelly wrote:
"I wanted to point out that Jesus uses the idea of a steward in his parables. In Luke 12, the faithful steward rules over the household until his lord returns, as the Pope rules over the Church on the Lord's behalf, until his return."
-----------------------------------
Kelly, the bishop of Rome was only ONE of the many stewards appointed over the church. Christ had appointed one 'steward' or overseer over each of the many churches in Christendom. Each church had their own overseer, eg. the church in Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, Phildelphia, Galatians, and so on all had their own overseer. There was not just one steward appointed over the whole entire church. As a matter of fact, the church at Jerusalem was seen as the headquarters for the Christian faith, and was headed by the twelve apostles, acting in one accord (see Acts 15).
Acts 15:22-25, NIV, words in square bracket supplied, emphasis supplied:
"22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church[at Jerusalem], decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul."
I know Catholics like to claim that the pope or bishop of Rome was appointed as ruler over all of the Christian church, but this is not borne out in scripture.
Peace.
Paul
Yet again, I hate to be a dog with a bone, but can I press you on this question which has not been addressed:
So, in order to be really clear. What I really want to know is this: On what basis do you assert :
"Less than half (minority) of the ECFs that commented on who/what is "this rock" agree with V1.
More than half (majority) of the ECF's that commented on this claim "this rock" refers to either Peter's confession or to Christ himself."
And where do the numbers come from.
Many thanks.
I looked at the Von Dillinger link you supplied, and his objection seems quite vague. Yours, on the other hand, is SPECIFIC and NUMERICAL.
Again I ask, WHERE is your evidence for this assertion?
Many thanks.
I thought her name was Abishag (THE Shulamite) I didn't think her actual name was Shulamite.
Kelly wrote:
"The steward of Luke 16, is not a just steward, but he also rules over the household until his lord's return. Notice that the steward has the power to release men from debts, on behalf of his lord."
-----------------------------------
Kelly, this is an unfortunate example. This is the parable of the UNJUST steward. This steward 'cooked the books' in order to release his master's debtors from their debts.
Luke 16:5-7, NIV:
"5"So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'
6" 'Eight hundred gallons of olive oil,' he replied.
"The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'
7"Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?'
" 'A thousand bushels of wheat,' he replied.
"He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'"
Really, only the master had the right to release his debtors.
Jesus told this parable to show how unjust people act shrewdly by using money to make friends for themselves, so that when hard times come around, they will have someone to fall back on. Jesus was encouraging His followers to "make yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteous: that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations" (Luke 16:9). In other words, use our money wisely to build friendships, so that when we are faced with economic hardships, we will have friends who will return the favor. Great advice, especially in these hard economic times :-).
Peace.
Teresa wrote:
"Wills goes on to quote Fr. Brown that "Peter never served as the bishop or local administrator of any church, Antioch and Rome included." And Benedict said he "would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown." (Wiki)"
-----------------------------------
Teresa, I think that is true, that Peter was never a bishop or overseer of any church. I have the Biblical and historical evidence to back that up, but that is for later. I need to go to bed and get some ZZZZs.:-)
Peace and Blessings.
DOW
"In Hebrew, the name of Solomon's wife was Shulamite (Songs of Songs 6:13), and is the feminine form of the name Solomon. Yet, no one thinks Solomon is the same person as Shulamite."
Why would they? She was 'THE Shulamite woman'. Probably Abishag.
"This beautiful young woman (the Shulamite) is a unnamed love of Solomon described in the Song of Solomon. Some believe that this term is the equivalent of "Shunammite," meaning from "Shunem." (If not, the meaning is unknown.) The word “Shulamite” appears in only one Bible verse, Song of Songs 6:13.
King David was served in his elderly years by a young woman named Abishag (1 Kings 1:1-4, 15) who was a Shunammite (a woman from the city of Shunem). King Solomon's first wife was a Shulamite. Therefore, it is possible that beautiful Abishag who served David, later became the wife of King Solomon."
Clare wrote:
"I looked at the Von Dillinger link you supplied, and his objection seems quite vague. Yours, on the other hand, is SPECIFIC and NUMERICAL.
Again I ask, WHERE is your evidence for this assertion?"
-------------------
Clare,
I would be happy to post quotes from each of the ECF's who view "this rock" as other than the person of Peter.
I know that Elena would not like that.
So you can look this over.
The RCC claims here:
http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&dq=Faith+Of+The+Fathers+Jurgens&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ZcYe9U48HY&sig=rcP3TObvKWwfDD_N02mztFiEpTY&hl=en&ei=nOKsSsCbM8aglAfXh_m7Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=Athanasius%20&f=false
countered here:
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
Clare posted this quote:
"This beautiful young woman (the Shulamite) is a unnamed love of Solomon described in the Song of Solomon. Some believe that this term is the equivalent of "Shunammite," meaning from "Shunem." (If not, the meaning is unknown.) The word “Shulamite” appears in only one Bible verse, Song of Songs 6:13.
King David was served in his elderly years by a young woman named Abishag (1 Kings 1:1-4, 15) who was a Shunammite (a woman from the city of Shunem). King Solomon's first wife was a Shulamite. Therefore, it is possible that beautiful Abishag who served David, later became the wife of King Solomon."
-----------------------------------
Clare, the above statements contain a lot of assumptions which can easily be disproven. Here is the Biblical proof.
In the Bible, Solomon calls his wife Shulamite, "Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies" (Song of Solomon 6:13).
Solomon describes her as a daughter of a prince. "How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman" (Song of Solomon 7:1).
Abishag was a Shunammite who lived in Israel. "So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king" (1 Kings 1:3).
Shunamites came from the city of Shunem. "And it fell on a day, that Elisha passed to Shunem, where was a great woman; and she constrained him to eat bread. And so it was, that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread...And he said to Gehazi his servant, Call this Shunammite. And when he had called her, she stood before him" (2 Kings 4:8,12).
Abishag was not a daughter of a prince. She was a servant girl that they found in Israel to care for king David 1 Kings 1:1-4). Solomon's wife was the daughter of a prince (Song 7:1). She was actually Pharoah's daughter!
"And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall of Jerusalem round about" (1 Kings 3:1).
"And his house where he dwelt had another court within the porch, which was of the like work. Solomon made also an house for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken to wife, like unto this porch (1 Kings 7:8).
So we can clearly see that the Shulamite was really Pharaoh's daughter, and a princess. Abishag was just a servant girl.
Peace and Blesssings :-)
Paul
I can't read the Catholic claims link you posted (It's a whole online book!) and it seems a bit unecessary to plough through it since we know what the Catholic claims are ( we are discussing them here)
The second link, the rebuttal, is, I notice, is by the ubiquitous William Webster. I'm looking at it now. I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm not seeing the "more than half of the ECfs" claim leaping out at me.
So we can clearly see that the Shulamite was really Pharaoh's daughter, and a princess. Abishag was just a servant girl.
Oh dear. That wasn't my point at all. Perhaps I didn't make myself plain.
My point was that "Shulamite" wasn't her name. She was THE Shulamite.
I guess it's like you calling me The Londoner. I am a Londoner, but that isn't my NAME. Solomon WAS his name. How would they get mixed up with one another?
Both the names of Solomon (Strong #8010) and the name given to his wife 'Shulammith' (Strong #7759)translated 'Shulamite' in our Bibles, mean the same thing - Peaceful. Please see a good Bible concordance/Hebrew dictionary.
Peace and Blessings.
Clare, I got to go now, but your point is well taken. Shulamite was NOT her name. It was a pet name given to her by Solomon, as his wife, kind of like when take your husband's name when you get married. This name 'Shulamite' denotes that she is the female counterpart of Solomon.
Peace.
quote:
"This reveals two important points from both a theological and historical perspective. Theologically, there is no evidence of patristic consensus to support the Vatican I papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 equating the rock with the person of Peter, assigning to him and the Roman bishops the place of preeminence of rule in the Church through the authority of the keys. The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to the ‘universal consent of the fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from both the East and West demonstrates that the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman Catholic Church today. The fact is, apart from the popes themselves—beginning in the late fourth century—and with those who have an interest in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.
Remember Vatican's Infallible Claim?
"The unanimous consent of the Fathers"
u·nan·i·mous (yŏŏ-nān'ə-məs)
adj.
1. Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord.
2. Based on or characterized by complete assent or agreement.
[From Latin ūnanimus : ūnus, one; see oi-no- in Indo-European roots + animus, mind; see anə- in Indo-European roots.]
u·nan'i·mous·ly adv., u·nan'i·mous·ness n.
Paul
Where is your quote from please?
DOW
OK. Thank you.
Clare wrote:
"Paul
Where is your quote from please?"
--------------------
Which one?
The definition was from here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unanimous
The Webster quote was here:
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
The Dollinnger quote here:
http://www.archive.org/details/thepopeandthecou00deoluoft
I have the same question as Clare - Paul, what in the Lit Press book would you have us read? I would like to read it if I knew what to search on (not Athanasius, I suppose). Thanks.
Also, I'm not interested in reading anything more from William Webster. With all due respect. Thank you.
Paul, why are you unable to embed URLs that are clickable? Elena showed everyone how recently.
And, something I overlooked last night and shouldn't have, Paul opined that "it [the papacy] had deceived it's [sic] way into power." This remark implies sinister motive of which you have no evidence. Do not suppose that total depravity is likewise in our creed. The Holy Father is pastor for of all.
Here's an article by Webster that is only quotes from the ECFs with no commentary:
http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html
The Augustine quotes were really amazing.
Here's an excerpt:
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.1
Jennie,
The quote by Augustine that you just posted demolishes the claim by Vatican I of "unanimous consent of the Fathers".
There's alot more in the article I linked to.
Moonshadow wrote:
"Paul, why are you unable to embed URLs that are clickable? Elena showed everyone how recently."
Thank You, I found Elena's post on "how to do links"
I will see what I can do about linking Von Dollinger's book : The Pope And The Council.
I keep getting a pop-up that claims it cannot be embedded.
I have had it in a PDF for a couple of years. And the page numbers don't match the PDF either. If you do a search for "catenas" it will take you right to the section I quoted from. Also he has several chapters on how the forged documents were used to usurp authority.
Ok, you can download the pdf of Von Dollinger's book from here:
THE POPE AND THE Council
Here's another one:
Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.13
Jerome
Was there no other province in the whole world to receive the gospel of pleasure, and into which the serpent might insinuate itself, except that which was founded by the teaching of Peter upon the rock Christ.
New Advent
Fuller context:
37. About four hundred years have passed since the preaching of Christ flashed upon the world, and during that time in which His robe has been torn by countless heresies, almost the whole body of error has been derived from the Chaldæan, Syriac, and Greek languages. Basilides, the master of licentiousness and the grossest sensuality, after the lapse of so many years, and like a second Euphorbus, was changed by transmigration into Jovinian, so that the Latin tongue might have a heresy of its own. Was there no other province in the whole world to receive the gospel of pleasure, and into which the serpent might insinuate itself, except that which was founded by the teaching of Peter, upon the rock Christ? Idol temples had fallen before the standard of the Cross and the severity of the Gospel: now on the contrary lust and gluttony endeavour to overthrow the solid structure of the Cross. And so God says by Isaiah, Isaiah 3:16 "O my people, they which bless you cause you to err, and trouble the paths of your feet." Also by Jeremiah, "Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and save every man his life, and believe not the false prophets which say, Peace, peace, and there is no peace;" who are always repeating, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord." "Your prophets have seen for you false and foolish things; they have not laid bare your iniquity that they might call you to repentance: who devour God's people like bread: they have not called upon God." Jeremiah announced the captivity and was stoned by the people.
Hi Jennie, glad to see you back from your conference.:-)
Little bit of selective copy pasting of Augustine going on here?
I'm getting the impression that anti catholic apologists trawl the ECF writings and think " hmm, that looks good (copy paste)" and then " Hmm, not so good (ignore)"
I'm on a steep learning curve here ( thanks VTC!) but it looks as though Saint Augustine describes the rock variously as Peter, as his confession, as his faith, and as Christ.
Hey even the Catholic church seems to share this rather complex 'multi layered' view!:
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." On the rock
of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church (CCC 424)
Here's how this website explains it:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church accepts a polyvalent view of this text... The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ's Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ's divine sonship is the Church's foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter's faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and "chief cornerstone" (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756). Many of these views can be found in the early Church Fathers as Catholic convert Stephen Ray (Upon This Rock) and former Catholic William Webster (The Matthew 16 Controversy) have pointed out in their books and online debates. Still, this does not deny the literal interpretation and primary meaning of the text is that Christ would build His Church on St. Peter, the Rock (Kepha in Aramaic). This is indeed the prevalent view among Protestant biblical scholars today.
Paul and Jennie
It's a vain hope to imagine that one soundbite from Augustine could be so devastating to the catholic position.
Lets see some of the other things that saint Augustine had to say:
"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).
"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).
“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).
"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).
And here:
"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view, African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city (first the venerable Innocent, and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them, and cut them off from the members of the Church, giving letters to the African Churches in the West, and to the Churches of the East, and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics. The judgment pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered, and are yet returning, as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius, Life of Augustine, 18 (A.D. 437).
"[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should.... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me.... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.)
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much
more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to
whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build
my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was
Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus,
Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor,
Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus,
Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades,
Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present
Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found” (Letters of
Augustine 53, 2 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1st series, 1:298, page 227–8 in Upon
this Rock).
Even Schaff, whose book James White recommends, says this:
"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter; through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by the eminence the sedes apostolic [Apostolic Chair]'. (History of the Christian Church, 3:307)
Thanks Hillary,
It was a great conference.
Clare said,
I'm getting the impression that anti catholic apologists trawl the ECF writings and think " hmm, that looks good (copy paste)" and then " Hmm, not so good (ignore)"
If so, they're not the only ones :)
Apparently Augustine didn't have 'unanimous consent' even with himself ;)
I wonder what the dates of those quotes from Webster were. Did Augustine change his ideas about this over time?
Paul, do you know?
Or is one or both sides misunderstanding what he means by seemingly contradictory statements?
I'm no Augustine scholar, but this conversation, like the previous one, seems to involve most of the parties banging their head against a brick wall.
If this isn't deemed to be too OT (and I'm not roundly sneered at for asking it), I'd be really interested to know whether Jennie, Paul, DOW et al. think that the Catholic contributors to this discussion are saved, or not?
I ask this because, as my Catholic pal ruefully observed when I was an evangelical: 'The trouble is, we Catholics might give ourselves 10 out of 10, but we give Protestants 8 out of 10. You Protestants give yourselves 10 out of 10, and give Catholics zero!'
I'd be interested to know your responses, since otherwise we keep on coming up against 'what's not on the table' (which always still seems to be) and the discussion ends up being like one of those polite conversations with Jehovah's Witnesses...
Jennie wrote:
"I wonder what the dates of those quotes from Webster were. Did Augustine change his ideas about this over time?
Paul, do you know?
Or is one or both sides misunderstanding what he means by seemingly contradictory statements?"
-----------------------------------
Jennie, this is one of the main reasons why I do not use human reasoning to interpret scripture. You will hardly ever see me quoting someone as 'proof' of interpretation. I might corroborate views with others, but I do not use other people's views as proof. Let scripture interpret scripture. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The Holy Spirit is the final authority.
Peace and Blessings.
In the Augustine passage in the Webster article I linked to above, Augustine seems to see a parallel between the raising of Lazarus and the Matthew 16 passage about Peter, the rock, and the keys.
Here is the passage from Augustine:
Let those who are bound fear, those who are loosed fear. Let those who are loosed be afraid of being bound; those who are bound pray to be loosed. 'Each one is tied up in the thread of his own sins' (Prv 5:22). And apart from the Church, nothing is loosed. One four days dead is told, 'Lazarus, come forth in the open' (Jn 11:43), and he came forth from the tomb tied hand and foot with bandages. The Lord rouses him, so that the dead man may come forth from the tomb; this means he touches the heart, so that the confession of sin may come out in the open. But that's not enough, he's still bound. So after Lazarus had come out of the tomb, the Lord turned to his disciples, whom he had told, 'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' and said, 'Loose him, and let him go' (Jn 11:44). He roused him by himself, he loosed him through the disciples.
Here are the two Bible passages:
John 11:38 Then Jesus, again groaning in Himself, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”
Martha, the sister of him who was dead, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”
40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” 41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.” 43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” 44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.”
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
continued
These passages are parallel because they both show Christ, the Head, the Rock, the Cornerstone as the one who stands before the gates of Hades (death) and calls forth the one who is dead, and death cannot withstand Him. He calls the dead forth by His word in the power of the Spirit, and the dead obey His word. He then tells His people, the believers, the church, the disciples, to 'loose him and let him go.' Peter represents all the church, and all the church has the commission to share the gospel (remove the stone and let the dead hear His word) and to take off the graveclothes when the dead is called to life.
Jesus is the Head and the Rock upon which the Church, represented by Peter, is built. Peter himself said this: 1 Peter 2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
Augustine said in the same passage as above:
None of us lacks Christ. He is complete in all of us, and still there is more of his body waiting for him. Those disciples believed, through them many inhabitants of Jerusalem came to believe, Judea came to believe, Samaria came to believe. Let the members join the body, the building attach itself to the foundation. For no other foundation can anyone lay, says the apostle, except what has been laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11).30
That Jerusalem of ours, though, still in exile, is being built in heaven. That's why Christ, its foundation, preceded it into heaven. That, you see, is where our foundation is, and the head of the Church, because a foundation too is also called a head; and indeed that is what it is. Because the head of a building too is its foundation; its head isn't where it is finished, but where it starts growing upward from. The tops of earthly buildings are raised up high; yet they set their head firmly in the solid ground. In the same sort of way the head of the Church has gone ahead into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Just as men go about their work, when for laying foundations they bring along suitable material to make a solid base, to ensure the security of the mass that is going to be placed on top of it in construction of the edifice to be; so in the same sort of way, by all those things that took place in Christ, being born, growing up, being arrested, enduring abuse, being scourged, crucified, killed, dying, being buried, it was like material being brought along for the heavenly foundations.
Elizabeth asked:
"If this isn't deemed to be too OT (and I'm not roundly sneered at for asking it), I'd be really interested to know whether Jennie, Paul, DOW et al. think that the Catholic contributors to this discussion are saved, or not?"
-----------------------------------
Elizabeth, I have no way of determining whether a person is saved or not. I am not God, and therefore I cannot judge the state of a person's soul. I do believe however that the people on this blog are earnestly seeking to know God better, just like myself. When one has a love and passion for God, He will reward you. He says that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). He says seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you (Matthew 7:7).
I certainly do not give Catholics a zero. I love the charity work they do. They are very faithful in helping others in need, something we Prostestants are way behind in. I look and admire the self-sacrificing work of Mother Teresa and others like her. If one just focuses on Jesus to be more like Him, and accept Him as Lord and Savior, then one will be saved, regardless of the church denomination. There is a lot in our various church denominations to distract us from truth, but the key is to focus on truth and then you will be free. That is my take.
Peace and blessings.
Elizabeth,
DOW is right that we can't determine whether a person is saved or not. We are discussing doctrines here because we as protestants (at least the ones here, though I should let Paul and Hillary speak for themselves) believe some doctrines of the RCC obscure the Biblical gospel rather than upholding it. I believe the doctrine of the papacy is not biblically or historically supported, and that it tends to make people depend upon fallible men rather than upon the infallible Christ and His infallible word. Popes and church fathers have over the centuries given faulty and contradictory messages, but God's word is perfect.
Jennie, if this can shed any light.
Augustine was a Manichaean and a Neoplatonist before his conversion to Catholicism in 386 AD. Please see Wiki for more details.
I must confess I do not know much about Augustine. My Christian education has been pure Bible and Church history. Very little on the ECFs.
Peace.
I've been having a nice Sunday, and checking in, I see that this conversation has far exceeded my interest in it. I did want to respond to DOW's replies to my earlier comments, but then I'm going to just drop out.
In Greek, petros and petra both express the same idea of rock, but petros is a small piece of rock or stone, while petra is a mass of rock or big rock. BIG DIFFERENCE.
My Greek professor was one of the translators on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He is a conservative Presbyterian. He says that this is a myth, and not true. In Koine Greek, there is only one meaning for petra, which is rock.
You cannot use a feminine noun for a man, so it was turned into petros for Peter. In Aramaic, it also has only one meaning, which is rock.
Kelly, this is an unfortunate example.
I wasn't saying that the Pope is supposed to be the unjust steward. I was saying that the role of steward was well recognized in the Biblical world. If you have read any Jane Austin, it continued to be recognized almost up until the modern day.
Non-Catholics often assert that the Pope given the role of Jesus, but we understand, as the people of Biblical times did, the role of a steward.
I had intended to write a bit more of the Scriptural proofs for the primacy of Peter, but, as I said, I'm just going to stop here. :)
Jennie wrote:
""I wonder what the dates of those quotes from Webster were. Did Augustine change his ideas about this over time?
Paul, do you know?
Or is one or both sides misunderstanding what he means by seemingly contradictory statements?"
-------------------------
What Clare has done is called "Buckshot". Bombarding your opponent with a barage of quotes. Gerry Matatics was a a master at this. He would typically do it late in a debate when his opponent had almost no time to respond to even 10 percent of what was fired at them. I don't think that Clare did this intentionally but you can imagine the frustration of any interested R.C that encounters that file from William Webster. Look closely at where Clare gleaned all those quotes from. I typically link to New Advent in an attempt to help folks read things in context. It is important to understand the "historical setting" in which the ECF's are writting. Remember on your blog when I pointed out how important it was to view Ignatius writings on the Eucharist in regards to the gnostics. And how quickly that was dismissed as "irrelevant"?
Kelly, thanks for dropping in. Let me just leave this bit of Greek, which I reserved for the best for last.
Christ referred to Himself as petra, even though Christ identified Himself as a male, while on earth.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ ( 1 Corinthians 10:4).
Look up the Greek for 'rock' in the verse above and it will say, 'petra.'
Look also at 1 Peter 2:8:
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
The Greek word translated 'rock' is petra. In this verse Christ is called a rock of offence or a 'petra' of offence.
I could show you many more passages where Christ is called petra. Not once is Peter called petra.
Anyway, I accept your belief that your church is built upon Petros, who is Peter. I cannot argue with that.
Peace.
DOW wrote:
"Jennie, this is one of the main reasons why I do not use human reasoning to interpret scripture. You will hardly ever see me quoting someone as 'proof' of interpretation. I might corroborate views with others, but I do not use other people's views as proof. Let scripture interpret scripture. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The Holy Spirit is the final authority."
--------------------
Very well put. I believe that the ECF's can be very helpful and provide us with tremendous insight in many areas while at the same time being unbelievably ignorant in other areas. My primary purpose in examining them here is to demonstrate that an allegedly "infallible" church is just plain wrong when they make claims about what the church "always, everywhere, by all" believed. By the way, many of the ECF's held to "the analogy of faith" scripture interprets scripture as you and I do.
Paul,
Yes, I remember that conversation. Context is very important.
Can you shed any light on if and why Augustine is contradicting himself?
DOW, I appreciate that you shared those verses with me. However, rock is not used as a proper noun in them.
Let me try to give an illustration.
You are Glen, and in this glen I will build my house.
Christ is the peaceful glen.
I will seek shelter in the glen.
Even though glen is used as a metaphor for Christ in the latter two sentences, it does not need to be capitalized because it is not a proper noun. However, Glen used as the given name of a person must be capitalized.
The only reason petros would be used in the verses you gave where Christ was referred to as a rock would be if they were saying His actual given name was rock. You can't mix the two in that way.
PS- Our Church was founded on Jesus, who is Himself the Cornerstone, and built the foundation out of the Apostles, with Peter as the principal stone.
Paul wrote:
Very well put. I believe that the ECF's can be very helpful and provide us with tremendous insight in many areas while at the same time being unbelievably ignorant in other areas. My primary purpose in examining them here is to demonstrate that an allegedly "infallible" church is just plain wrong when they make claims about what the church "always, everywhere, by all" believed. By the way, many of the ECF's held to "the analogy of faith" scripture interprets scripture as you and I do.
-----------------------------------
So Paul, what you are saying is that the Church Fathers are not a reliable source of interpretation for doctrine, correct? In my opinion, relying upon Church Fathers to interpret scripture and not bothering to corrobate their views with the scriptures is a form of spiritual laziness. God has given us the Holy Spirit to convict us of truth, so that when we hear or read something, we can discern truth based upon God's word in scripture.
Peace and Blessings.
Kelly, we can argue back and forth about petros and petra, but the fact still remains that in spite of your personal beliefs, the Cathecism and the article by Dr. Hahn says otherwise about the Catholic Church.
I pray that YOUR faith is built upon Christ.
Peace.
Jennie wrote:
"Paul,
Yes, I remember that conversation. Context is very important.
Can you shed any light on if and why Augustine is contradicting himself?"
--------------
Jennie,
I'm working on it. I suspect that Clare may have gotten some of her quotes from Catholic Answers. C.A is notorious for posting not-so-accurate quotes and then giving a very misleading source.
However she posted one that I worked on last year while interacting on Patrick Madrid's board.
It was this one:
"[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should.... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me.... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.)
By studying the work of Augustine thoroughly, Calvin proved that Augustine paralleled the "moving" of the church with the "moving" of the woman at the well towards her neighbors.
I'll see if I can find it.
Jennie,
I found it. It starts with Patti's comment:
"This, of course, would be the same bishop of Hippo who also wrote:
"I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church."(Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6)"
It goes on for several pages. I'm not sure if any was deleted.
Augustine was Moved
Oh, and I used the nickname "Algo" there.
I must confess I do not know much about Augustine. My Christian education has been pure Bible and Church history. Very little on the ECFs.
This is telling in a way. Not a bad way. But a curious way.
See, because now I am wondering which Protestants could be identified as experts on Augustine. Calvin, I suppose. Luther, reportedly. Help me out, please and give me some others.
I can speak for our side 'though maybe not well: Chesterton and Garry Wills come to mind. Others? Thomas Merton, at least in the beginning, was woefully Augustinian. The poor sap couldn't help himself. :-)
I don't want to "count noses" but what if the balance of Augustinians were also Roman Catholics?
Why is the Barclay interpretation I quoted being ignored? Here it is again: Barclay said that Jesus calls Peter "rock," high praise indeed as anyone in Jesus' day knew that the OT calls God "rock." The Rabbis called Abraham "rock," that all nations would be blessed through him.
Who was your Greek professor, Kelly? Nobody is coming to my mind. Geza Vermes's name is on the book as the translator for the DSS. He was a Catholic priest but reverted to Judaism after working on the DSS. And for the most part, it's been the Roman Catholics who have shown the most interest in the DSS.
Paul, I'm glad you figured out the HTML. But I think you might find a truth in something Hans Kung says in his history of the Catholic Church: "Those who deliberately step in all the puddles should not complain too loudly about how bad the road is." You are wallowing in the puddles, my dear. But go ahead and read Kung's book, knowing you agree on the papacy.
Teresa,
I know there's a Dr. Joseph Morecraft who teaches on Augustine, and is associated with Vision Forum. I don't know anything else about him. Of course Calvin himself apparently was steeped in Augustine's teachings.
Oh, I misread what you said, Teresa; you already mentioned Calvin.
Yes, that's a good reference, Jennie, Rev. Morecraft, pastor of the inaugural RPCUS congregation in GA. Looks like a great church.
(Christians Reconstructionists have their detractors but that's in-house and none of my business.)
Paul,
I've started reading the forum pages you linked to. I'll have to finish it tomorrow; my brain's already half asleep and I see I'll need all of it (and probably more) to follow that conversation :) I'm glad you (and the others there) have studied the Fathers and languages, etc., because I humbly admit I probably never will get far in that endeavor. Each member of the body of Christ is necessary to the others to edify and encourage each other.
What Clare has done is called "Buckshot". Bombarding your opponent with a barage of quotes.
For PAUL to complain about this approach is a delicious irony.
I guess what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander Paul?
So now you're suggesting that YOUR quotes are all ticketyboo and MINE are dodgy?
Well LOL to that.
Frankly, my enthusiasm is waning. I'm not even reading the responses properly anymore, so I think I'll bow out and leave you to knock yourselves out with more, utterly reliable and reassuring William Webster EFC 'buckshot'.
Cheerio!
Oh, before I go. No. I did not get my quotes from Catholic Answers I got them from HERE .
And HERE
Why?
Does it have to be William Webster to be 'good'?
*Sigh*
Chesterton and Garry Wills come to mind.
I would NEVER in a gazillion years put Wills in the same category as Chesterton.
Interestingly, I have a copy of Papal Sin and couldn't even give it away on eBay or Amazon. In 200 years we will still be reading Chesterton and Wills, like his books will be dust.
Elena,
I agree with your assessment of Gary Wills book. His chapter defending a gay priesthood was outrageous.
Clare quoted:
"“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much
more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to
whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build
my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was
Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus,
Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor,
Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus,
Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades,
Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present
Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found” (Letters of
Augustine 53, 2 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1st series, 1:298, page 227–8 in Upon
this Rock).
--------------
I'll focus on this one since the full letter is available here:
New Advent
And here:
Schaff
It is also necessary to understand what the historical context of Augustine's letter is.
Donatism
Augustine and the Donatists. Their Persecution and Extinction.
It is worth studying this historical movement since it will provide insight into what Cyprian was going through. It will also demonstrate that Augustine's success at initiating "compulsion in religion" through a misreading of Luke 14:23 "And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain them to come in, that my house may be filled". Eventually led to te violence of the medieval church and eventually the inquisition.
Who was your Greek professor, Kelly?
Dr. Joseph Trafton. He translated five of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. The one that is published is in the Dead Sea Scrolls Volume 6b. The other four are for upcoming volumes.
Good old Dr. Trafton!! Looking back I wish I had worked Greek in to my schedule, too, but I couldn't resist Hebrew with Veenker.
Hey, Kelly, did you get the e-mail about the latest department newsletter. Trafton's trying to organize a study abroad opportunity in Greece.
Here's the link:
http://www.wku.edu/pcal/newsletters-2
I always get dropped from their mailing list somehow. Dr. Trafton's been teaching for 30 years now. I'm sure a Greek scouting trip is just the sort of academic work he's looking for at this stage in his career! ;)
Clare quoted:
Even Schaff, whose book James White recommends, says this:
"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter; through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by the eminence the sedes apostolic [Apostolic Chair]'. (History of the Christian Church, 3:307)
------------------------
Fuller context:
"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter, through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by eminence the sedes apostolica.570570 De utilit. credendi, § 35, he traces the development of the church “ab apostolica sede per successiones apostolorum;” and Epist. 43, he incidentally speaks of the “Romana ecclesia in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus.” Greenwood, i. 296 sq., thus resolves the apparent contradiction in Augustine: “In common with the age in which he lived, he (St. Augustine) was himself possessed with the idea of a visible representative unity, and considered that unity as equally the subject of divine precept and institution with the church-spiritual itself. The spiritual unity might therefore stand upon the faith of Peter, while the outward and visible oneness was inherent in his person; so that while the church derived her esoteric and spiritual character from the faith which Peter had confessed, she received her external or executive powers from Peter through ’the succession of bishops’ sitting in Peter’s chair. Practically, indeed, there was little to choose between the two theories.” Comp. also the thorough exhibition of the Augustinian theory of the Catholic church and her attributes by Dr. Rothe, in his work Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche, i. p. 679-711. But on the other hand, like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church, which Peter was only set to represent.571571 De diversis Serm. 108: Has enim claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit ecclesiae. Hinc ergo Petri excellentia praedicatur, quia ipsius universitatis et unitatis figuram gessit quando ei dictum est: tibi trado, quod omnibus traditum est, etc. With this view agrees the independent position of the North African church in the time of Augustine toward Rome, as we have already observed it in the case of the appeal of Apiarius, and as it appears in the Pelagian controversy, of which Augustine was the leader. This father, therefore, can at all events be cited only as a witness to the limited authority of the Roman chair. And it should also, in justice, be observed, that in his numerous writings he very rarely speaks of that authority at all, and then for the most part incidentally; showing that he attached far less importance to this matter than the Roman divines."
Schaff
You all must go and read THIS brilliant little article.
To my mind it perfectly exemplifies some of the absurdity that seems to be dogging parts of this conversation.
Even if you don't agree, you might enjoy it.
In any case, perhaps a little frivolity is in order?
Clare,
That IS amusing.
Clare,
Thanks for posting the Pooh article. I needed to read something funny. I've felt very much like Pooh the last couple of days, sitting in my thinking spot trying very hard to think, but I can't break through the fog :)
I 'think' I'll give up and watch a Jane Austen movie instead.
sitting in my thinking spot trying very hard to think, but I can't break through the fog :)
LOL I'm not alone then!
Unfortunately, my anti-virus software won't allow me to open the link provided by Clare. Sigh...
Anyway, I am inviting all of you who are interested in Biblical seasons and Bibical astronomy to join me watching the phases of the moon here, and read my latest post called The Seasons of Time.
This might help 'clear the fog' LOL!
"Jennie,
I found it. It starts with Patti's comment:
"This, of course, would be the same bishop of Hippo who also wrote:
"I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church."(Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6)"
It goes on for several pages. I'm not sure if any was deleted.
Augustine was Moved
Oh, and I used the nickname "Algo" there."
--------------------
Jennie,
I realize that Patti deleted quite a bit, including this comment:
""I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church."(Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6)"
I then attempted to post 3 lengthy but not outrageously long posts to establish my argument for your "misquote" of Augustine.
I posted the first one as is still (at this moment) viewable. I posted the second one that actually had the Latin exegeted by Heiko Oberman that demonstrated that the rendition that you (and others) have posted (probably unwittingly) is not at all accurate nor does it mean what you claim it does. Your removing my post is the equivalent of you inviting me to a public moderated and recorded debate and then as soon as I begin my presentation you kill my microphone, turn off the lights and then begin clapping cymbals together behind me. Since I am one of the very few Protestants that you have allowed to post and since this thread has been viewed by nearly 11,000 viewers this is your opportunity to engage me legitimately. I am more than happy to interact with you folks and I believe that I have behaved respectfully towards you. I would like to continue this "dialog", however you can imagine how frustrating it is to spend hours studying and gathering info. and then have your post removed."
I will email all three posts to you if you want them.
Thanks Paul,
Yes, please email the posts.
Does Patti make a habit of deleting posts?
Hillary,
This might help 'clear the fog' LOL!
Yes, that definitely helps :)
"Thanks Paul,
Yes, please email the posts.
Does Patti make a habit of deleting posts?"
------------
Well, she did with me.
Recently one of our channel regulars posted this argument in the Envoy forums.
the above citation may disappear once Patti Scissor Hands sees it
Patrick Madrid Turtles
Paul,
the second article link leads to a whole list of articles, and I don't see one about Patti there. Is it the wrong link?
Sorry Jennie,
It should have been this one.
the above citation may disappear once Patti Scissor Hands sees it, as is so often the case
And another here:
Not only did Algo get banned
Wow! Patti Scissor Hands (Patrick Madrid.com) sounds familiar. A lot like someone named Candy.
What comes around goes around...
Paul
This comment:
Your removing my post is the equivalent of you inviting me to a public moderated and recorded debate and then as soon as I begin my presentation you kill my microphone, turn off the lights and then begin clapping cymbals together behind me. Since I am one of the very few Protestants that you have allowed to post and since this thread has been viewed by nearly 11,000 viewers this is your opportunity to engage me legitimately. I am more than happy to interact with you folks and I believe that I have behaved respectfully towards you. I would like to continue this "dialog", however you can imagine how frustrating it is to spend hours studying and gathering info. and then have your post removed.
And then subsequent ones about how Patty 'made a habit' of deleting your posts sounded as though you had made some devastating points that couldn't be countered and were therefore quashed.
I could imagine how frustrating that would be.
But then I read the thread you provided and it doesn't look that way at all. I can see that you objected to the particular translation, but the alternative that you preferred ( 'Augustine was moved')really didn't make a significant difference to the meaning of the text anyway.
But when you said "I suspect that Clare may have gotten some of her quotes from Catholic Answers. C.A is notorious for posting not-so-accurate quotes and then giving a very misleading source." ( I hadn't) I imagined something much more erroneous and significant that the pettyfogging ' Augustine was moved' business.
Furthermore, you have left us with the impression that this Patty is a scissor happy exciser of any point that comes close to toppling her P.O.V.
That wasn't the impression I got when I actually read the thread.
Here is one of her responses to you on that thread regarding the deletion you complained of:
"Algo,
I only offered you some friendly information, advice and a suggestion. I don't mind that you replied to Monfrere. All I did was ask you to also respond to someone else. It is unclear why that provides a justification for your complaints about kepha. That appears obfuscatory and unnecessary.
One of your recent posts that was deleted slandered every Catholic on the planet as not living out their faith to the same degree that you claim your religion does. (You posted it because you believed I labeled you a "liberal Protestant", which I did not.) It was taken down because A) You have no possible way to know that, B) You have no possible way to prove that, C) If false, you committed calumny, D) If true, you committed detraction, and E) All it proved was how capable you are of committing rash judgment.
It is crystal clear from reading that that you read people's posts with prejudice and have no respect for anyone here, and people are beginning to sense that and respond to it. Even polite suggestions are criticized as an order to "move on". The reference to "move on" was to the subject of Pope Gregory and the Universal Bishop and had nothing to do with what you posted to Monfrere; it was addressed to the topic rather than to the person, and I am sorry you didn't realize that.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Reading through the actual thread, I didn't come away with the impression that you had left me with at all.
Sue Bee
That's what I thought.
But read the thread...
Nothing like Candy.
And speaking of getting picky about translations, I'd love to know if there are any alternative translations to that 'Rocky' quote of St Augustines you posted.
It sounded awfully 'modern' and not much like the voice of Augustine to my ears.
But maybe that's because it kept conjuring up the 'Eye Of The Tiger' soundtrack and St Peter as Rocky Balboa.
Me and my frivolous mind...
Clare wrote:
"But then I read the thread you provided and it doesn't look that way at all. I can see that you objected to the particular translation, but the alternative that you preferred ( 'Augustine was moved')really didn't make a significant difference to the meaning of the text anyway."
------------
I can see that you objected to the particular translation
That's one of the problems, I searched for that translation for hours and everything I found basically took me back to C.A. I noticed this severaal times when being presented with quotes from C.A or derived second hand from C.A. Phil Porvaznik may have sourced some of his quotes there.
Did you notice that an important verb is missing from Patti's translation.
"Moved"
(Latin Commovere).
Clare wrote:
"Furthermore, you have left us with the impression that this Patty is a scissor happy exciser of any point that comes close to toppling her P.O.V.
That wasn't the impression I got when I actually read the thread."
--------------
To be fair to Patti, she would delete my posts as well as Art Sippo's for a number of reasons. Rarely would she mention what they were.
"Patti said:
quote:
"Please answer those questions and dispense with lengthy Protestant dissertations that Augustine couldn't possibly have meant what he said in his letter when he wrote: I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church. I'm not interested in reading what this scholar or that one has to say. Please just show me FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE that SCRIPTURE ALONE has God's authority."
-------
Patti, will you allow me to make one more post to prepare my response?
Algo"
Notice the shift away from my attempt to provide a contextual understanding of Augustine's words.
That's one of the problems, I searched for that translation for hours and everything I found basically took me back to C.A.
I understand.
But I had the same experience with thr 'Rocky' piece. All my searches took me back to Protestant apologetics sites.
"Furthermore, you have left us with the impression that this Patty is a scissor happy exciser of any point that comes close to toppling her P.O.V.
That wasn't the impression I got when I actually read the thread."
------------------
Clare, did this make you curious?
"Oh, I just realized that you removed my second post of 3. I guess I will have to respond to you. It might help if you could produce for me the actual quote from Augustine. I noticed that what you posted:...The reason for my lengthy posts was to allow Augustine's words to be heard in context and with accuracy."
What was in post #2? What would have been in post #3? Do you think that she didn't remove post #2? I have Word files full of posts that she either edited or removed.
"But I had the same experience with thr 'Rocky' piece. All my searches took me back to Protestant apologetics sites."
-------------------
Clare,
Fr. Rotelle was an Augustinian Scholar who was also a translator at Vatican 2. Most of his work is at Amazon.com.
1John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6,
Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A.
Clare,
Also if you look at that lengthy article from William Webster he states:
Numerous Quotations Given for the First Time from the Original Latin and
Greek
Guess who he and David King hired to do the translating?
Sorry,
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A.
"Furthermore, you have left us with the impression that this Patty is a scissor happy exciser of any point that comes close to toppling her P.O.V.
That wasn't the impression I got when I actually read the thread."
--------------------------
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 7:50:22 PM Show Profile Email Poster Edit Reply Reply with Quote Delete Reply
Patti said:
quote:
"Hi, Algo,
Please feel free to discuss Vincent of Lerins with Randy; just because I'm done with discussing him with you doesn't mean he can't have any fun. No need to hide behind me to duck the question or reply to his charge of out-of-context quoting."
Patti,
I'm sorry. The fact that you deleted my post in which I mentioned my willingness to continue discussing Vincent of Lerins, followed by your editing the post after that in which I mentioned that I was willing to discuss it further gave me the impression that Vincent was off limits. I thought that it would be best if I engaged Randy on a forum that I would not invest time in working on arguments that would likely be edited or perhaps even removed without notice. However if you are saying that you will not tamper with my posts I would be willing to continue here.
Patti
USA
6648 Posts
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 9:40:44 PM Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
Tamper with your posts? Never have; all I've done is remove a bunch of nonsense you posted from William Webster, whose reading into of the ECFs offers no useful perspective on the discussion. Oh, and I did remove that strange little claim that the Catholic Church "misused" Vincent's writings. As Monfrere pointed out on another thread, he's never seen Protestants try to use the ECFs except when trying to refute Catholic doctrines.
And by the way, please allow me to correct a slight misunderstanding on your part: I'm not an administrator. I'm a moderator. Patrick is the sole administrator here.
Please feel free to forge on with your discussion with Randy by doing him the great favor of responding to his concerns over your apparent misuse of St. Vincent of Lerins. I'm sure he'd find it edifying.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
Looks like Patti...
-tampers with other people's comments
-deletes comments she doesn't like
-has blocked links to aomin.org
-has restricted the combox to registered participants only
She's Candy's Catholic Clone!
Going back to our original discussion about the papacy, and Peter as the rock, I have been trying to get the ideas in scripture organized in my mind for the last several days and finally I have it clearly in my mind.
I don't want to go into a long discourse, but just summarize the way it all seems to fit together.
First of all, the idea that God (Christ) is the first, unshakeable, foundational Rock is one of the overarching themes of scripture from beginning to end. Because some mere mortals are referred to as rocks as well, such as Abraham and Peter, doesn’t mean that they are the first bedrock stone, the ‘Head of the Corner’ type of stone that Christ is. They are only worth anything as stones because they are built upon Christ who upholds everything by the power of His word. In the New Testament, Christ is always Petra, the cornerstone. One of the rules of interpretation is that obscure passages must be interpreted in light of what is known for sure. We know for sure that Jesus is the One foundational stone upon which all other stones are laid. The Matthew 16 passage has been debated for centuries. Even in the 4th century there was not agreement on it , as we have already seen, though many then saw it as protestants do.
Along with this are many scriptures that support the idea that Christ is the one cornerstone, and the Apostles are together the 12 foundation stones built upon Him, along with the OT prophets. Then the other stones (believers) are built upon these. See 1 Peter 2:4-8 and Revelation 21:14. Revelation shows all the Apostles as the foundations of the New Jerusalem, which is the Bride. The Apostles are part of the moveable stones built upon the immovable Rock of Christ.
Remember also the Rock in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, and Elijah in the cleft of the Rock, and Moses and the water from the Rock, and Isaiah 32:2 ‘the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.’
Secondly, if you look at the story of the raising of Lazarus as a parallel passage to Matthew 16, as Augustine did, which I quoted in an earlier comment, you will see that it is Christ who stands before the gates of Death and by His word and Spirit brings the dead to life, showing that the gates of Hades cannot withstand Him who is the Rock, the Head of the Church who is built upon Him. If we are standing upon Him, and His word, death will not stand before us, His church. We speak His word by the Spirit and people will be set free. I believe it is the Rock of Christ first, and THEN the church built upon Him which the gates of death cannot withstand.
Thirdly, as I said at the beginning of this thread, where are the scriptures that show a that a single succession from Peter as the authority for the Church is what was established? Where is the proof that Rome is that succession, and not all the other bishops who descended from the Apostles? There is not agreement on this universally, and it is not in scripture, and not supported by the Fathers.
Also, Augustine brought out in that same passage I quoted earlier from Webster, that Peter represents all the Apostles, and all the church. We are all his successors if we are built upon Christ and His word, as taught by the Apostles, by faith.
Here again is the link to Webster:
http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html
Here are the quotes I used earlier from Augustine:
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.1
Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.13
Let those who are bound fear, those who are loosed fear. Let those who are loosed be afraid of being bound; those who are bound pray to be loosed. 'Each one is tied up in the thread of his own sins' (Prv 5:22). And apart from the Church, nothing is loosed. One four days dead is told, 'Lazarus, come forth in the open' (Jn 11:43), and he came forth from the tomb tied hand and foot with bandages. The Lord rouses him, so that the dead man may come forth from the tomb; this means he touches the heart, so that the confession of sin may come out in the open. But that's not enough, he's still bound. So after Lazarus had come out of the tomb, the Lord turned to his disciples, whom he had told, 'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' and said, 'Loose him, and let him go' (Jn 11:44). He roused him by himself, he loosed him through the disciples.
Except I don't agree with Augustine and others that it is Peter's confession that is the Rock upon which the church is built, but the One Whom Peter confessed.
Also,
the story of Lazarus shows that the moveable stones (us) have to be moved out of the way so the immovable Rock can do His work, so the dead can hear His voice. That means Peter and all believers have to bow to Him and move out of the way.
Hey guys,
It's time to give it up. There is NO WAY from scripture where we can show that the Catholic Church is built upon Christ, or Peter, or the Apostles/prophets. All we can show from scripture is that God's true church is built upon the foundation stone of Christ, along with a foundation of apostles and prophets.
As I have said many times before, God's true church is NOT A EARTHLY ECCLESIASTIC BODY OR CHURCH DENOMINATION, for example Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. God's true church is the WORLDWIDE BODY OF TRUE BELIEVERS who are found within various denominations, whose memberships are written in heaven, i.e the Spiritual Israel or the Church Invisible. That is the church built upon Christ and the apostles.
If you want to continue knocking yourselves out trying to prove whether a certain church denomination is God's true church, then go right ahead . You will NEVER be able to prove that. Not in million years.
It is time to get back to the reality, which is Christ.
Peace and blessings.
There is NO WAY from scripture where we can show that the Catholic Church is built upon Christ, or Peter, or the Apostles/prophets
well there's no way from scripture to prove sola scriptura or Sola fide but that doesn't see to bother you all. And as it is now Wednesday with 157 comments this thread is now going into the history books.
Post a Comment