"and upon this rock I will build my church"

[Augustus24]

From what authority do you get the interpretation of this “confession” being the “rock?”

Because historically speaking, the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of Peter and has complete jurisdiction over all the other Churches and has the power to declare doctrine and bind all christians to that doctrine under penalty of mortal sin took centuries to develop, and the entire East still had never heard about it a thousand years later. If the early church did not believe it, then it is a new and novel doctrine and should be rejected.

Also the 28th Canon of Chalcedon gave Constantinople equal authority to that of Rome.

In the Greek the other interpretation makes less sense. And 2 chapters later Jesus gives all the Apostles the same power of binding and loosing, without regard of whether they are in union with Peter or not. Therefore, all the apostles were equal in authority, all had the power of binding and loosing, not Peter alone.

And in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Peter himself was only one of many Apostles speaking, and James rendered the final decision, therefore the Apostles didn’t consider Peter to have the final word on matters of doctrine.

Also many of the Church Fathers agreed that Peter’s confession was the rock of the Church including Augustine and Chrysostom.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yeah we can. He said “about that Church I am founding, you are Peter here are the keys dude.”

The problem with your argument is that you have to prove that your heretical interpretation is correct.

Haha, you don’t mince words. Refreshing to see that!

 

[JonNC]

Yeah we can. He said “about that Church I am founding, you are Peter here are the keys dude.”

The problem with your argument is that you have to prove that your heretical interpretation is correct.

I don’t* have *to prove anything. In fact, it could be said that you have to prove this vis a vis the Orthodox understanding, given that there are more of the patriarchates on their side. Our communions disagree far more on what these things mean going forward than looking back. IOW, how Nicea canon 6 doesn’t seem to extend universal jurisdiction in any way to the Bishop of Rome.

Peter did not keep the keys for himself. That would render them useless. The keys are for the Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Haha, you don’t mince words. Refreshing to see that!

Yes. Instead of having a conversation, let’s toss about names. So refreshing to see.
Sorry I didn’t refresh you by not responding to SonSearcher in kind.
Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

Because historically speaking, the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of Peter and has complete jurisdiction over all the other Churches and has the power to declare doctrine and bind all christians to that doctrine under penalty of mortal sin took centuries to develop, and the entire East still had never heard about it a thousand years later. If the early church did not believe it, then it is a new and novel doctrine and should be rejected.

What makes you think the East had no idea of the authority of Rome?

I asked a question about the excommunication of the patriarch in 343 AD by the Pope on another thread. Both parties involved (the two Orthodox parties with the false patriarch and opposing) presented their case to Rome. Why was that?

Also, what about Church fathers who constantly refer to Rome as settling issues?

In the Greek the other interpretation makes less sense. And 2 chapters later Jesus gives all the Apostles the same power of binding and loosing, without regard of whether they are in union with Peter or not. Therefore, all the apostles were equal in authority, all had the power of binding and loosing, not Peter alone.

All of them did not get the keys to the kingdom. The “Keys to the Kingdom” from the time of King David was always held by the Prime-minister of the kingdom. It was not shared by all.

In this case, this would imply that Peter was the Prime-minister of the Kingdom of Jesus. There is no Greek confusion about the keys as far as I know.

And in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Peter himself was only one of many Apostles speaking, and James rendered the final decision, therefore the Apostles didn’t consider Peter to have the final word on matters of doctrine.

It’s worth noting that before there was a Debate i.e. all were speaking including James. BUT, when Peter spoke, all listened to him.

James merely explained what Peter said. Peter was the one who decided the matter.

Also many of the Church Fathers agreed that Peter’s confession was the rock of the Church including Augustine and Chrysostom.

Chrysostom and Augustine also spoke of the authority of Rome if I am not mistaken. You also seem to be mistaken about “Peter’s confession was the rock”.

philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

 

[SonSearcher]

Because historically speaking, the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of Peter and has complete jurisdiction over all the other Churches and has the power to declare doctrine and bind all christians to that doctrine under penalty of mortal sin took centuries to develop, and the entire East still had never heard about it a thousand years later. If the early church did not believe it, then it is a new and novel doctrine and should be rejected.

In the Greek the other interpretation makes less sense. And 2 chapters later Jesus gives all the Apostles the same power of binding and loosing, without regard of whether they are in union with Peter or not. Therefore, all the apostles were equal in authority, all had the power of binding and loosing, not Peter alone.

And in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Peter himself was only one of many Apostles speaking, and James rendered the final decision, therefore the Apostles didn’t consider Peter to have the final word on matters of doctrine.

Also many of the Church Fathers agreed that Peter’s confession was the rock of the Church including Augustine and Chrysostom.

Just a few questions.

But isn’t this your interpretation? You spoke of “historically speaking” from where do you get this historiography?

Which Church Father’s and what did they say?

Please show me where St Augustine and Chrysostom agree that this “confession” is the rock, and that is the only interpretation of the verse.

Who else? you state many. What did they say?

Show me evidence. I am intrigued.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes. Instead of having a conversation, let’s toss about names. So refreshing to see.
Sorry I didn’t refresh you by not responding to SonSearcher in kind.
Jon

Well just saying Jon. The Protestant position is indeed in heresy and has so many holes to plug that I am frankly amused every-time I meet a Protestant

Every claim about Christianity is just magically stated as you did (about what is the Church) as if every Protestant were a Pope. To me, that is not much different in the thought process from an atheist who considers himself the final authority regarding what to believe. The only formal difference is that Protestants take the Bible in to account as they make their own conclusions. But the end result is not much different since all are just acting as authorities regarding what is the truth regarding the transcendent.

The atheist concludes randomly that there is no transcendent while Protestants will conclude a million different interpretations of the transcendent. The way I see it, apart from the acknowledgement of the transcendent and Divinity of Christ in the Protestant position, both positions are rather useless for any serious thinking person.

(Oh and apart from baptism, there really aren’t any valid sacraments in the Lutheran Church or any Protestant Church for that matter. Which begs the question as to why you are in something that is NOT a Church by your own definition, yes?

If you disagree that your sacraments are invalid, I am curious as to who decides what is valid and invalid. Also, who decides that the decider has the authority.)

 

[Regina_Love]

Then we should not assume that Christ, in giving the keys to Peter, did not intend the keys for the Church, but simply one of the apostles.

Jon

We can’t change Jesus’s words. When ever God renames some one in the Bible, they are given an epic calling, to the point that WHO they are is forever changed! Here Jesus gives the keys to HIS kingdom to Simon whom he RENAMES PETER. (Aramic kephas). He renamed him because he is set apart for God’s good work. The apostles all understood this! Peter is referenced 195 times in the New Testament. John the next most mentioned apostle only 29 times.

 

[Augustus24]

What makes you think the East had no idea of the authority of Rome?

I asked a question about the excommunication of the patriarch in 343 AD by the Pope on another thread. Both parties involved (the two Orthodox parties with the false patriarch and opposing) presented their case to Rome. Why was that?

Also, what about Church fathers who constantly refer to Rome as settling issues?

They had an idea of the authority of Rome, but it wasn’t universal jurisdiction over all the Churches everywhere and the power to declare doctrine and make it binding on all Christians everywhere under penalty of mortal sin. The authority the East understood about Rome was that it had primacy of honor (which Chacledon Canon 28 also extended to Constantinople). The reason many in the East appealed to Rome was because Rome was distant and seen as a neutral party so to speak, also Rome was known for its adherence to orthodoxy.

 

[SonSearcher]

Yes. Instead of having a conversation, let’s toss about names. So refreshing to see.
Sorry I didn’t refresh you by not responding to SonSearcher in kind.
Jon

Listen I apologize. I misused that word.

Heretic -
a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

You do not belong to the One, Holy, Catholic , and Apostolic Church so I cannot use this phrase against you. But I do believe that it is you that needs to defend your point of view fully. You choose to not be a Roman Catholic. Why?

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10434515]Well just saying Jon. The Protestant position is indeed in heresy and has so many holes to plug that I am frankly bewildered every-time I meet a Protestant

Then, by all means, perhaps limit your visits to the non-Catholic forum. I certainly would not wish for you to be bewildered.

Every claim about Christianity is just magically stated as you did (about what is the Church) as if every Protestant were a Pope. To me, that is not much different in the thought process from an atheist who considers himself the final authority regarding what to believe. The only formal difference is that Protestants take the Bible in to account as they make their own conclusions. But the end result is not much different since all are just acting as authorities regarding what is the truth regarding the transcendent.

Please show where I said i was a pope. Please, I think you and I are both too big for silly polemics.

The atheist concludes randomly that there is no transcendent while Protestants will conclude a million different interpretations of the transcendent. The way I see it, apart from the acknowledgement of the transcendent, both positions are rather useless for any serious thinking person.

If an atheist wishes to respond to the OP, you can then hold a conversation about atheism with them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

We can’t change Jesus’s words. When ever God renames some one in the Bible, they are given an epic calling, to the point that WHO they are is forever changed! Here Jesus gives the keys to HIS kingdom to Simon whom he RENAMES PETER. (Aramic kephas). He renamed him because he is set apart for God’s good work. The apostles all understood this! Peter is referenced 195 times in the New Testament. John the next most mentioned apostle only 29 times.

I agree. What does it mean regarding the Church?

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

Then, by all means, perhaps limit your visits to the non-Catholic forum. I certainly would not wish for you to be bewildered.

But I do like to be amused once in awhile But it truly does bring a hint of sadness to think how one can still embrace these errors. Perhaps you are right. Something for me to think in the future but now since I am here, I would rather continue.

Please show where I said i was a pope. Please, I think you and I are both too big for silly polemics.

No Protestant actually admits that. But if you really think about the practice, it is essentially what it is.

Your group of Protestants (that call themselves Lutheran) have decided on x,y,z as things to believe. The group has even drawn out ideas such as “x is what means to be a Church” and other sort of definitions. Every Protestant member accepts these positions because after reading the Bible, it makes sense to them as a possible line of interpretation.

Essentially, this is every man playing Pope. The Pope and the teaching magesterium is the final authority regarding all matters of faith, including that of Biblical interpretation. In the Protestant case, every Protestant is involved in doing just that or decided that they have the authority to designate a group of persons (elders, leaders, whatever), who have the authority to be Popes.

If an atheist wishes to respond to the OP, you can then hold a conversation about atheism with them.

Well, the OP could certainly get insight in to the Atheist thinking process by discussing with any person who randomly holds and gives assent to a claim regarding the Transcendent. The nature of belief in both cases are very similar. It is a random assent based on ones own experience or lack of experience of the Transcendent.

 

[Regina_Love]

I agree. What does it mean regarding the Church?

Jon

It means that Jesus being a God of unity, and order, left a humble leadership to keep His Church on the right path. He set up this leadership, and his Church to endure until the end of time! This Church, and this leadership is God’s will for us, because it is His best for us. We should embrace God’s best for us. The Catholic Church is the Pillar & foundation of the truth! 1st Timohy 3:15.

 

[Eufrosnia]

They had an idea of the authority of Rome, but it wasn’t universal jurisdiction over all the Churches everywhere and the power to declare doctrine and make it binding on all Christians everywhere under penalty of mortal sin. The authority the East understood about Rome was that it had primacy of honor (which Chacledon Canon 28 also extended to Constantinople). The reason many in the East appealed to Rome was because Rome was distant and seen as a neutral party so to speak, also Rome was known for its adherence to orthodoxy.

So let us just take your final claims

1. Rome was known for its adherence to Orthodoxy.

What this means is that Rome can indeed more strictly define something later on (as it was with the iconoclasm).

Rome defined its definition of the Papacy in the strict sense throughout the years. What exactly is wrong with that? Is there a rule that Rome must have defined everything right at the outset 2000 years ago?

If you indeed do hold that Rome should have defined it or that all Christians should have been aware of these strict definitions 2000 years ago, where do you get such a proposition from?

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10434583]But I do like to be amused once in awhile But it truly does bring a hint of sadness to think how one can still embrace these errors. Perhaps you are right. Something for me to think in the future but now since I am here, I would rather continue.

Then continue.

No Protestant actually admits that. But if you really think about the practice, it is essentially what it is.

Your group of Protestants (that call themselves Lutheran) have decided on x,y,z as things to believe. The group has even drawn out ideas such as “x is what means to be a Church” and other sort of definitions. Every Protestant member accepts these positions because after reading the Bible, it makes sense to them as a possible line of interpretation.

Essentially, this is every man playing Pope. The Pope and the teaching magesterium is the final authority regarding all matters of faith, including that of Biblical interpretation. In the Protestant case, every Protestant is involved in doing just that or decided that they have the authority to designate a group of persons (elders, leaders, whatever), who have the authority to be Popes.

Yes. I’ve heard this line of thought before.

Well, the OP could certainly get insight in to the Atheist position by discussing with any person who randomly holds and gives assent to a claim regarding the Transcendent. The nature of belief in both cases are very similar. It is a random assent based on ones own experience or lack of experience of the Transcendent.

Yes, we’ve discussed this before.

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

Then continue.

Yes. I’ve heard this line of thought before.

Yes, we’ve discussed this before.

Jon

By “discussed” you mean I have stated and you never really answered and stop posting afterward? I mean these are honest questions/statements Jon. Every Lutheran is playing Pope while complaining or rejecting the Papacy. You must admit that it makes one really wonder what Luther was thinking all those years ago, yes?

How about some answers Jon. Because I am dying to hear them

 

[JonNC]

By “discussed” you mean I have stated and you never really answered and stop posting afterward?

How about some answers Jon. Because I am dying to hear them

I have answered. Please stay well.

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

I have answered. Please stay well.

Jon

Haha, avoidance I see. Well, as I always say at the end, you will be a Catholic in no time if you really put your own Lutheran position to the test. One of these days, I hope you do that rather than just trying to defend it.

Worst case scenario, you discover how ridiculous it is and become Catholic. Best case scenario, you discover why it is true and you will be able to provide better answers, not just to Catholics but to non-believers as well.

 

[ufamtobie]

The Universal Church of Truth that has been passed down in a Tradition of Truth that was layed out by Jesus Christ who came to call all People to a New Covenant of the One True God…

A structure of Truth, that when followed leads to a Harmony, Intergrity, and Clarity to all…

Wanabesaint,

The Holy Spirit indeed inspired you to write what you wrote above. Amen It is so beautiful!
indeed you are not far from being a “wanabesaint”! Yes we are all saints those who believe in Our lord Jesus Christ, however I know what kind of Saint you want to be, so do I, for there are saints and then there are SAINTS, Pray for me.

Ufam Tobie