"and upon this rock I will build my church"

[SonSearcher]

[Peter was ]the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then, interestingly enough, in conflict with the aggressive episcopalian Cyprian. -A History of Christianity, pp. 61, by Paul Johnson

So we date the New Testament as an entire book at about 225-250, so according to your interpretation this should also be considered new and novel doctrine?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From reputable historians who have done much more historical research then I, for example:

Thanks for being honest, and yet a bit arrogant when you adjudicate the title of reputable when you have admitted yourself that you recognize your limits of historical research.

When studying history you must be aware of:

1. Historiography

and

1. Applying a Critical Method (Or Historical criticism)

At the minimum, these 2 steps include researching the authors and corroborating their references and sources.

Lots of work, but in the end… we are not just repeating things we really don’t understand.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Ahhhhh…the whole belief of “honor” was conferred much later. Constantinople’s canon 28 dealt more with political status,which Rome had an issue with. Canon 28 did not deal directly with primacy as mentioned to Rome centuries before.

 

[ufamtobie]

Among the congregation of saints, that is correct. But only under the guidance of those whose authority can be traced back to the apostles by a continuous line based on the laying of hands. Only they can administer Sacraments. This is why the Church is apostolic. More here

and here.

All others, baptized and thus Christians, are in the Church but not in full communion with the Church.

Amen

Ufam Tobie

 

[chero23]

I cant find the Post, but somebody in this thread posted ( it was a non catholic) that the keys signifies each Pastor/ minister of their church and that their allowed to bond and unloose just like Matthew 16:18 states. It got me through wondering, bc Ive heard other protestants say that, “Oh yes, the keys are not literal, it is just a symbol and each Pastor is given keys of his Church”.

But lets see the irony of that. If each Pastor is allowed to loose and tie anything that he wishes then were making God to be schizophrenic. Some churches say that is ok for their to be gay marriages/unions while others oppose, some believe that you shouldn’t get a divorce while others say oh its ok. Some churches believe that after your baptized, no matter what you do your saved, while other Churches say, No religion alone does not save, you need works. Thats just some examples.

If we as man are allowed to Change rules, were going to make God sound as though he’s contradicting himself. Which, we all know God does not contradict himself.

 

[JonNC]

=ufamtobie;10436360

JohnNC, we are all sinners, thats why Jesus Left the Sacrament of Confession, we must not wallow in our sins, if we do, the Holy Spirit is not in you, but outside of you trying to get in, for the Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Yes, the Spirit guides the Church this is the reason why the gates of hell shall not prevail over it. In oder to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us we must be in the State of Grace. If one is divided from This Church, Scary especially if he knows it, but still want to wallow in his sins and be disobedient to it.

I wouldn’t argue too much of this, except to say that one does not necessarily have to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome to be of and in His Church.

JohnNC, these churches don’t have Peter, Do you know how to tell that they don’t have Peter? I will tell you, If you have Peter, you will also then have the successor of Peter. Since these churches don’t have the successor of Peter, then you don’t have Peter.

This is very Catholic of you to say, but I’m sure the communions I mentioned will claim St. Peter, just as you do.

JonNC, Where do us sinners get this guidance from, man made churches that came 1500 later, or from the Church that Christ founded over 2000 years ago. Christ already sent, not “would send” as you stated above. Pentecost, A feast of the universal Church which commemorates the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, fifty days after the Resurrection of Christ. True “the Spirit guidance is ongoing” He will never stop guiding the Church founded on Rock. By the way we all need the Church not only those who do not believe in the real Presence.

I didn’t only those, I siad they needed His guidance all the more. Yes, we Pentecost as well.

JonNC, True the Good Shepherd leaves His flock to seek the one who is lost, but if the one who is lost, does not want to listen/obey the Church He left for us, due to stubbornness etc… what more can the Shepherd do. Regarding this, there is no rejoicing in Heaven.

Who was speaking about those who are being stubborn?

JonNC, Scriptural is beautiful, in itself is a guide for us when interpreted by the Church, but You forget Jesus Did not Leave the Scriptural to guide us, but the Church the successors of Peter, JonNC, whom you say above you have. JonNC, you stated above: “The Spirit’s guidance is ongoing” if you believe that then, then you should know, that the Holy Spirit is still speaking through the Catholic Church.

I absolutely agree that the Spirit speaks through the CC, and through the scriptures and sacraments, and through Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism.
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”

JonNC, do you think the Catholic Church is wrong?

I think the CC has bound the consciences of believers to things that ought not be articles of faith, if that is what you mean. There is so much truth in the CC, however, that I cannot make a blanket statement that “the Catholic Church is wrong”.

Jon

 

[dontknow]

JonNC - - I for one thank you for your insights, posts, and tolerance. I learn so much through them and hope they never stop. I’ve also had great exposure to the LCMS over the last two years and have been truly enlightened.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC - - I for one thank you for your insights, posts, and tolerance. I learn so much through them and hope they never stop. I’ve also had great exposure to the LCMS over the last two years and have been truly enlightened.

Thank you for your kind words, and its good to hear my LCMS brethren are witnessing with charity and clarity.

Jon

 

[Augustus24]

So we date the New Testament as an entire book at about 225-250, so according to your interpretation this should also be considered new and novel doctrine?

The canon of scripture is not doctrine. And Christians held the books of the NT to be inspired from the first century excluding the antilegomena books which were debated. Even so, no Catholic council or magisterial pronouncement was needed to determine the books of the NT.

 

[Augustus24]

Thanks for being honest, and yet a bit arrogant when you adjudicate the title of reputable when you have admitted yourself that you recognize your limits of historical research.

When studying history you must be aware of:

1. Historiography

and

1. Applying a Critical Method (Or Historical criticism)

At the minimum, these 2 steps include researching the authors and corroborating their references and sources.

Lots of work, but in the end… we are not just repeating things we really don’t understand.

I know about historiography.

Do you have an reason to believe the aforementioned historians are not reputable?

 

[aemcpa]

The canon of scripture is not doctrine. And Christians held the books of the NT to be inspired from the first century excluding the antilegomena books which were debated. Even so, no Catholic council or magisterial pronouncement was needed to determine the books of the NT.

Of course it is a matter of doctrine. And even if the definition of the canon of Scripture was “only” an exercise of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, it is still within the scope of the Church’s authority to define the canon.

 

[Augustus24]

Of course it is a matter of doctrine.

No, it’s not a matter of doctrine.

And even if the definition of the canon of Scripture was “only” an exercise of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, it is still within the scope of the Church’s authority to define the canon.

Of course, any church can define their canon, and they do. Except that the Catholic Church didn’t define it until Trent, even after centuries of debate by learned Catholics on the canonicity of the deuterrocanonical books.

 

[aemcpa]

No, it’s not a matter of doctrine.

Then what would you call it?

Of course, any church can define their canon, and they do. Except that the Catholic Church didn’t define it until Trent, even after centuries of debate by learned Catholics on the canonicity of the deuterrocanonical books.

The canon of Scripture was never in doubt by the Church after the fourth century. It is often the case that a teaching is not formally defined by an ecumenical council until after it is challenged.

 

[Augustus24]

Then what would you call it?

The canon of Scripture was never in doubt by the Church after the fourth century. It is often the case that a teaching is not formally defined by an ecumenical council until after it is challenged.

Then what would you call it?

The various canons in use corresponding to the various churches are simply the practices of those churches.

The canon of Scripture was never in doubt by the Church after the fourth century. It is often the case that a teaching is not formally defined by an ecumenical council until after it is challenged.

Actually it was, speaking of the OT. Many learned Catholics disputed over the canon of the OT from Jerome all the way up to Erasmus and Cajetan. The NT was not disputed after the 4th cent. The disputes over the canon over the centuries of the church have led to many different canons, the RC canon is different then the Greek Orthodox canon, which is different then the Armenian Apostolic Canon, which is different then the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, which is different then the Syriac canon, which is different from the Assyrian Church of the East’s canon. You see, there was no consensus on the canon, that’s why all of the “apostolic” churches have different ones.

 

[aemcpa]

The various canons in use corresponding to the various churches are simply the practices of those churches.

Interesting. That is certainly a convenient way to obliterate sola scriptura.

Actually it was, speaking of the OT. Many learned Catholics disputed over the canon of the OT from Jerome all the way up to Erasmus and Cajetan. The NT was not disputed after the 4th cent. The disputes over the canon over the centuries of the church have led to many different canons, the RC canon is different then the Greek Orthodox canon, which is different then the Armenian Apostolic Canon, which is different then the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, which is different then the Syriac canon, which is different from the Assyrian Church of the East’s canon. You see, there was no consensus on the canon, that’s why all of the “apostolic” churches have different ones.

I was thinking specifically of the NT when I made my statement, so I concede your point.