A compelling non-Catholic argument

[pneuma07]

Do you really believe that your interpretation is the ONLY one that is possible? .

Dear Protestantman,

         the patristic  interpretations  of the "on this rock (=petra)

are three.

          1)     Rock =  Simon Peter  

          2)  The essentially augustinian interpretation
               Rock = Christ          ( the one you appear to prefer)

          3)    Rock = Peter's faith

Any of this interpretation was tought TOGETHER with petrine primacy. We’ve already seen this about 2).

Now let’s see another giant, ST. John Chrysostom, on interpretation 3) ( sorry for the length of the quotations )

From his Homily 54 on Matthew (www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm) :

*"2. What then says the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16

What then says Christ? “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you.” Matthew 16:17
…

Why then is this man blessed? Because he acknowledged Him very Son. Wherefore you see, that while in those former instances He had said no such thing, in this case He also signifies who had revealed it. That is, lest his words might seem to the many (because he was an earnest lover of Christ) to be words of friendship and flattery, and of a disposition to show favor to Him, he brings forward the person who had made them ringin his soul; to inform you that Peter indeed spoke, but the Father suggested, and that you might believe the saying to be no longer a human opinion, but a divine doctrine.
…

Do you see how the Father reveals the Son, how the Son the Father? For “neither knows any man the Father,” says He, “save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” It cannot therefore be that one should learn the Son of any other than of the Father; neither that one should learn the Father of any other than of the Son. So that even hereby, their sameness of honor and of substance is manifest.

1. What then says Christ? “You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas.”“Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat you;” all but saying, “As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “You are Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”

Then He mentions also another honor. “And I alsowill give you the keys of the heavens.” But what is this, “And I also will give you?” “As the Father has given you to know me, so will I also give you.”

And He said not, “I will entreat the Father” (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, “I will give you.” What dost Thou give? tell me. “The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven,and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.” …
Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as “a brazen pillar, and as a wall;” but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.
I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven."*

Protestantman, any of the three interpretations is accepted by the Church. And each of them leads the Church Fathers to teach petrine primacy.

I hope you are going to consider this.

 

[justasking4]

“Why persecutest thou Me?” Acts 9:5

Jesus and His Church are one and the same. When Saul was persecuting the earthly Church and harassing its human leaders, Jesus was feeling the wounds.

If what you say is true that “Jesus and His Church are one and the same” then it follows that Jesus is also responsible for all the evil that has been done by catholic leaders. This is what follows from your assertion.

 

[justasking4]

Isn’t part of that to be obedient to Christ in His Church, and to listen to the men that God has placed in leadership over His Church? (Is it possible to be truly obedient to Christ, while picking and choosing what to obey?)

Were catholics obligated to follow and listen to some of the evil popes of the past? Did not God place these men as leaders in the catholic church?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3401048]This is a contradiction of Scripture itself, since we see that Christ placed Peter in charge of the Church (John 21:15-19), and history shows us that his lawful successors were the Popes of the Catholic Church.

Are there any passages in the NT that show that Peter alone was
recognized as being the supreme leader of the entire church?

Does Peter himself ever speak of himself like this in any of his letters?

 

[CentralFLJames]

If what you say is true that “Jesus and His Church are one and the same” then it follows that Jesus is also responsible for all the evil that has been done by catholic leaders. This is what follows from your assertion.

JTA4 - please, desist with the fundamentalist logic. Your conclusions would wag a finger at God to hold Him responsible for creating Lucifer only so he would fall and become Satan.

Likewise, on the day of your personal judgement when God asked you why you did not follow His son’s commandments but rather followed the doctrine’s of man you can’t scapegoat Luther for creating your belief structure. Your life was a free gift as was your freewill. You can’t hold anyone but yourself accountable for what you put in your head. You are accountable for your own actions just as are all men who sin.

James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3401878]
Originally Posted by justasking4
If what you say is true that “Jesus and His Church are one and the same” then it follows that Jesus is also responsible for all the evil that has been done by catholic leaders. This is what follows from your assertion.

CentralFLJames
JTA4 - please, desist with the fundamentalist logic. Your conclusions would wag a finger at God to hold Him responsible for creating Lucifer only so he would fall and become Satan.

Likewise, on the day of your personal judgement when God asked you why you did not follow His son’s commandments but rather followed the doctrine’s of man you can’t scapegoat Luther for creating your belief structure. Your life was a free gift as was your freewill. You can’t hold anyone but yourself accountable for what you put in your head. You are accountable for your own actions just as are all men who sin.

James

Your comments did not deal with what you should know full well follows from the assertions made. Your response is an indication that such an assertion cannot be defended…

 

[CentralFLJames]

Your comments did not deal with what you should know full well follows from the assertions made. Your response is an indication that such an assertion cannot be defended…

I most certainly did deal with the absurd assertion. I demonstrated the principal of individual sin vs. collective good.

Just as each individual disciple of Christ was himself a sinner (petty rivalry and conflict is recorded even in scripture) The Church itself did God’s works as The Body of Christ. When one member of the Body of Christ suffers the whole is made to suffer just as when one is glorified and honored The whole Body of Christ is honored.

So be careful who you point the finger at. As a Protestant are you going to take personal responsibility for the over 100 thousand people that were killed under Protestant Inquisitions and persecution of “non-believers”, heretics and witches since Luther’s time? Shame on you. The legion of Protestant churches operating under the secular banner of the state have butchered more fellow Christians and innocent people than ever The Catholic Church ever has - by an order of magnitude.

This is a matter of individual behavior vs. The Church behavior and God working to perfect His Church. As the Johnny-come-lately, with only 500 volatile years of existence Protestantism in its highly fractured state of existence has yet to stand the test of time. Protestants have virtually no fruits to show to justify its existence other than to point to the Catholic Church as having a more annealed and re-tested faith and teaching. We Catholic are deserving of better sparring partners to hone our faith. So please sharpen your wits with better arguments or come join The Church and help us covert the godless.

James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3401999]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Your comments did not deal with what you should know full well follows from the assertions made. Your response is an indication that such an assertion cannot be defended…

CentralFLJames
I most certainly did deal with the absurd assertion. I demonstrated the principal of individual sin vs. collective good.

This is what i was responding to:
"Originally Posted by jmcrae
“Why persecutest thou Me?” Acts 9:5

Jesus and His Church are one and the same. When Saul was persecuting the earthly Church and harassing its human leaders, Jesus was feeling the wounds."

If this assertion is true then it follows that Jesus is responsible for all the evil done by catholic leaders.

Just as each individual disciple of Christ was himself a sinner (petty rivalry and conflict is recorded even in scripture) The Church itself did God’s works as The Body of Christ. When one member of the Body of Christ suffers the whole is made to suffer just as when one is glorified and honored The whole Body of Christ is honored.

I agree. However not all men who profess Christ are truly Christians either. By their fruits you will know.

So be careful who you point the finger at. As a Protestant are you going to take personal responsibility for the over 100 thousand people that were killed under Protestant Inquisitions and persecution of “non-believers”, heretics and witches since Luther’s time? Shame on you.

Would you happen to direct me to the source for this? Secondly is it not true that the Inquisitions of the catholic church went on for centuries with the full support of the popes? This especially be troubling in light of the claims of the catholic church being the only church and being guided by the HS.

The legion of Protestant churches operating under the secular banner of the state have butchered more fellow Christians and innocent people than ever The Catholic Church ever has - by an order of magnitude.

I would need to see your support for this claim. Also, if true, does this suprise you that this would be true since the HS does not guide the protestant churches and is in total chaos due to Sola Scriptura?

This is a matter of individual behavior vs. The Church behavior and God working to perfect His Church. As the Johnny-come-lately, with only 500 volatile years of existence Protestantism in its highly fractured state of existence has yet to stand the test of time. Protestants have virtually no fruits to show to justify its existence other than to point to the Catholic Church as having a more annealed and re-tested faith and teaching.

You don’t know protestantism that well then. Many protestant churches and organizations are continually sending out missionaries to other parts of the world to preach the gospel of Christ and establish churches where there has never been a Christian witness. Secondly many protestant churches and organizations are doing a lot of good helping the poor etc.

We Catholic are deserving of better sparring partners to hone our faith. So please sharpen your wits with better arguments or come join The Church and help us covert the godless.

James

Lets see how this goes. There is still much to discuss.

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is what i was responding to:
"Originally Posted by jmcrae
“Why persecutest thou Me?” Acts 9:5

Jesus and His Church are one and the same. When Saul was persecuting the earthly Church and harassing its human leaders, Jesus was feeling the wounds."

If this assertion is true then it follows that Jesus is responsible for all the evil done by catholic leaders.

James: NO - this is only what YOU assert.

I agree. However not all men who profess Christ are truly Christians either. By their fruits you will know.

Would you happen to direct me to the source for this? Secondly is it not true that the Inquisitions of the catholic church went on for centuries with the full support of the popes? This especially be troubling in light of the claims of the catholic church being the only church and being guided by the HS.

I would need to see your support for this claim. Also, if true, does this suprise you that this would be true since the HS does not guide the protestant churches and is in total chaos due to Sola Scriptura?

James: I will refer you to my original post - more here: Inquisition
CentralFLJames;3372174:

Which inquisition are you referring to?

The Spanish Inquisition operated completely under royal authority

, though staffed by secular clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II called for an “Inquisition Symposium”, and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. What they found discounted many exaggerated facts previously believed. It was learned that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and 4 in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women; 50,000 of them were burned, 25,000 in Germany, during the 16th century by the followers of Martin Luther.

James

You don’t know protestantism that well then. Many protestant churches and organizations are continually sending out missionaries to other parts of the world to preach the gospel of Christ and establish churches where there has never been a Christian witness. Secondly many protestant churches and organizations are doing a lot of good helping the poor etc.

**James: Is this any surprise - Protestants don’t know Protestantism very well either since there are so many flavors ranging from plain vanilla fundamentalism to tootie-fruity roll your own flavors dejur that one can’t possible understand them all. If it was not for the merits of Baptism I’d say spreading the error of Protestant doctrine actually does more harm than leaving people alone with a clean slate by which a true Catholic teaching can be given. I am nore concerned that many souls are going to hell thinking they are free to sin since “they are saved”. It would be much easier to convert a heathen to Christianity than for a Catholic missionary get past the false teaching of “once saved always saved”. Protestants have given a moral teaching that makes it possible for heathen to think they are saved while in good conscience enjoying the transient pleasures of sins of the flesh (for example) on earth thinking they are all going to heaven. To a heathen that is the best of both worlds and Protestants have given them a way to have their cake and eat it too.

God does not need to hijack souls with the allure of a false teaching that pacifies the natural conscience with a promise of heavenly reward. The Vikings tried the same thing in getting everyone to wage war to pillage and loot and die with a sword in one’s hand to gain Valhalla through conquest and honor. But that culture was cut off. I expect the same to happen to Protestantism - but at the cost of how many lost souls?
**

Lets see how this goes. There is still much to discuss.

comments embedded.

James

 

[Church_Militant]

If what you say is true that “Jesus and His Church are one and the same” then it follows that Jesus is also responsible for all the evil that has been done by catholic leaders. This is what follows from your assertion.

…and the errors and evils done by the n-C leaders as well.

I wouldn’t be pointing any fingers were I you.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
If what you say is true that “Jesus and His Church are one and the same” then it follows that Jesus is also responsible for all the evil that has been done by catholic leaders. This is what follows from your assertion.

Church Militant;
…and the errors and evils done by the n-C leaders as well.

I wouldn’t be pointing any fingers were I you.

I can accept that protestants do err. i expect it. However, catholics claim their church cannot err in matters of faith and morals and yet we have many many examples that shows that they have. Even their vicars of Christ have erred. I can see why it is so difficult to accept this as a catholic given what you have been taught.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Irenaeus wasn’t an eyewitness though! He missed the event by a hundred years!

Right. But where did he get the idea from? Did he just make it up, or was it possible that there were other supporting documents in his time that he used to substantiate this? Other Church leaders would’ve been reading his writings, and would’ve most definitely called him out on it if he was making something up as significant as this! It must’ve been common knowledge at the time, if Ireneaus were to make the claim without any substantiating evidence, then we’re just calling him a liar and a plagiarizer if no evidence to the contrary can be found! I don’t think a scholar such as himself would’ve just made that up out of thin air in a time of heresy (when other bishops would look for ANY reason to call any other bishop a “heretic”)!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I can accept that protestants do err. i expect it. However, catholics claim their church cannot err in matters of faith and morals and yet we have many many examples that shows that they have. Even their vicars of Christ have erred. I can see why it is so difficult to accept this as a catholic given what you have been taught.

in the matters of faith and morals, what Catholic Popes have erred? this is a pretty big claim and just stating it does not make it true.

 

[justasking4]

Semper Fi;3402398]in the matters of faith and morals, what Catholic Popes have erred?

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic.

this is a pretty big claim and just stating it does not make it true.

Not really. Popes are fallen men and we have historical records for many that were evil.

 

[jmcrae]

No, I was merely stating that if the Catholic Church does not base their faith in the bible, then there is a problem. For it is wrtten in John 1,"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it. "

Do you agree?

This is not referring to the Bible; it is referring to the person of Jesus Christ, Who is THE Word of God. The Bible is just a collection of books; it is not Jesus Himself, and it is not the Word that created the Universe.

Jesus also did not turn into a Bible at the time of the Resurrection; rather, He appointed St. Peter to lead His Church (John 21:15-19), and then ascended into Heaven, to bind and to loose whatever St. Peter and his successors bind and loose. (Matthew 16:19)

 

[justasking4]

This is not referring to the Bible; it is referring to the person of Jesus Christ, Who is THE Word of God. The Bible is just a collection of books; it is not Jesus Himself, and it is not the Word that created the Universe.

Jesus also did not turn into a Bible at the time of the Resurrection; rather, He appointed St. Peter to lead His Church (John 21:15-19), and then ascended into Heaven, to bind and to loose whatever St. Peter and his successors bind and loose. (Matthew 16:19)

Have you looked at what Luke 24:25-27 says in regards to what Jesus said after His resurrection and how the Scriptures foretold this:
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

 

[jmcrae]

Were catholics obligated to follow and listen to some of the evil popes of the past? Did not God place these men as leaders in the catholic church?

We were able to follow them faithfully, because despite their personal failings, they never taught anything that was contrary to the Gospel.

Nobody has ever said that we are to imitate the sins of the Pope; only that we are to believe him when he teaches on the subjects of faith and morals. No Pope has ever taught that sin was okay to do; not even the worst of the Borgias or the Medicis.

I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to grasp; as a follower of Jimmy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, do you feel compelled to imitate their sins, or can you tell the difference between their teachings and the things that they do in their personal lives?

 

[jmcrae]

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic.

And which of his heresies did he bind upon the Church as infallible dogma? (HINT: none.)

Not really. Popes are fallen men and we have historical records for many that were evil.

We are well aware of these men. We see them as proof that the Holy Spirit guards His Church even under the most unfavourable conditions. Any other organization would have simply ceased to exist under such bad management.

 

[jmcrae]

Have you looked at what Luke 24:25-27 says in regards to what Jesus said after His resurrection and how the Scriptures foretold this:
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

I did not say that the Scriptures aren’t important - they are the most important books ever written. But no book; not even the Bible, is as important as Jesus Himself. It is Jesus who spoke forth the Creation, and then died for our sins; not the Bible.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3402514]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic.

jmcrae
And which of his heresies did he bind upon the Church as infallible dogma? (HINT: none.)

None that i’m aware of. However, how would you define heresy?

Quote: justasking4
Not really. Popes are fallen men and we have historical records for many that were evil.

jmcrae
We are well aware of these men. We see them as proof that the Holy Spirit guards His Church even under the most unfavourable conditions. Any other organization would have simply ceased to exist under such bad management.

Under this principle we could also say the protestant church is also guided by the HS since it has been around for hundreds of years and has no indications of going out of existence.