Attending an Anglican bible study

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, next time I’ll post and re-type ten pages of Early Church Fathers writings. Dude, my hands and knuckles can’t take that kind of punishment. Don’t try the context angle. I gave it in the context provided. I have no axe to grind. I could produce for you plenty of pro-Petrine rock statements from other ECF’s. I am honest enough to admit that there was diversity of opinion and in that diversity the majority believed Peter to be the Rock. I can admit that. Why? Because it’s true. I don’t isolate and try to manipulate passages. Go look 'em up. Fine by me…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I do not like what Augustine said? I am not concerned what he said,but what he BELIEVED and TAUGHT and that holds a lot more weight…

What he believed and taught holds more weight than what he said? How do you know what he believed and taught except to go by what he said?

Ah yeah! Ever heard of comprehension? Again,tell me where in any of his works where he flat out says Peter definitely is not the Rock?

Quote:
It is not proof-texting? The Augustinian passages rely extensively on the entire context in which they appear in orrder for correct interpretation, pulling these out of their context and having them stand alone in a “proof” can, at times, be very misleading. More important, a set of such proof-texts can completely ignore other passages which, if added to the mix, might well lead to an entirely different conclusion.

**No, it isn’t. Several of the quotes provided by Augustine and Chrysostom are the entire contexts of their words about that particular passage of Scripture. If you quote a church father from now on, will you expect yourself to post the entire book from which it is taken? **

Please! You are simply using a few quotes and want to present a smoking gun,whether you care to admit or not. Do you buy a book only read a few chapters and make a conclusion off a few chapters and quotes from the author? Or do you have to read the ENTIRE book from start to end to comprehend what the author is getting at?

 

[catharina]

I can only hope that no one denies the fact that the many Protestant denominations came from historically significant breaks with the Catholic Church. Luther, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and so many others made it clear within the historical record that their desires and plans were aimed at a single goal: abandoning the Faith, the practices, the Scripture and Tradition of the Catholic Church. They made it clear then and it is still very clear now. If folks wish to continue to support such division into this day and age, then that’s their own choice.

St. John Fisher, pray for us.
St. Thomas More, pray for us.

 

[mark_a]

Not sure but I don’t think out of the 7 pages there is one answer to the question - this post took off in the wrong direction, thats for sure !

I think non-Catholics should be able to belittle -]Catholics/-] Catholic teaching without a Catholic troublemaker in their midst.

Even though their anti-Catholic bent wasn’t provoked by you, butt out and give them their privacy.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The problem as I see it is that we all want to interpret scripture our own way. Contraception, Mary as the ark of the new covenant, are just a couple of (and until recently not so) uniquely, but historically Catholic scripture interpretations.

Yes, and on many of those points (I can only speak for Lutherans) we do not disagree with different applications that the fathers may have had for different texts of Scripture.

All of which has no connection to Anglican bible studies.

LOL…that’s probably true.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I can only hope that no one denies the fact that the many Protestant denominations came from historically significant breaks with the Catholic Church. Luther, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and so many others made it clear within the historical record that their desires and plans were aimed at a single goal: abandoning the Faith, the practices, the Scripture and Tradition of the Catholic Church. They made it clear then and it is still very clear now. If folks wish to continue to support such division into this day and age, then that’s their own choice.

St. John Fisher, pray for us.
St. Thomas More, pray for us.

Or you can read Martin Luther’s own reasons for doing so. But that would require an objective observation of the historical record. Is it possible to do that?

 

[catharina]

Thanks, Catharina, I need it; my grandma is in the hospital with her left lung full of fluid and massive infections, super high white blood cell counts, and things are not looking good. I appreciate the offer of peace. I need it.! God bless you

Prayers for your suffering grandmother.
Hope her children and grandchildren can be with her today for Mother’s Day.

St. John Fisher, pray for us.
St. Thomas More, pray for us.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, you lecturing me on objectivity is the height of the pot calling the kettle black. I’m a Catholic who is questioning a lot of what I’ve been taught and at serious odds with much of Catholic theology at this point in my journey. I AM objective or I would be towing the party line right now, right? I’m able to concede a Lutheran’s points, an Anglican’s points, a Catholic’s and an Orthodox. At this point I totally reject Orthodox teachings on the Atonement, Original Sin, and a few other things. If you ask Triune, he and I don’t agree on everything and I am not totally a fan of Lutheranism and yet I greatly admire Luther and agree with a lot of what he had to say. I am open to Anglicanism and yet don’t totally walk lock step with the 39 Articles. I think the Catholic Church is right on life issues, Original Sin, the Sacraments, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the Real Presence, I believe Mary is immaculate and a perpetual virgin, I am a tremendous John Paul II fan, I don’t think praying to saints is immoral, I don’t think Catholics are idolatrous either. I believe in ex opere operato and thus have trouble with the Article in Anglicanism that states a more Calvinistic approach to reception. I agree with the Orthodox about the Pope being a Coryphaeus and not supreme and infallible. I believe the Lutherans are right about justification, redemption, sanctification, and the heavy importance of Scripture.

How can you tell me that I’m not objective when I’m willing to listen to other Christians, read various opinions, and ultimately concede points with some and disagree with others objectively? I’m a very politically and religiously objective person, pure and simple. My library is LOADED with pro-Catholic literature, Orthodox authors, Anglican Anglo-Catholic, Anglican evangelical, papal works, you name it. I’m very objective. You can call me what you want, but subjective man, that pushes buttons.

You have argued 100% from a purely no-compromises Catholics-are-right 100% of the time take no prisoners approach and yet you call me subjective in my analyses? Come on Nicaea…

And by the way, the Orthodox literature I have only quotes the very men you challenged me to quote–THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS! And yet when I quote them saying the rock is the confession and not Peter, you say, “bahhhh” and move on. But you’ll quote other fathers to make a different Petrine claim.

If you do the research and invest the time and objectively look at it, many Fathers like Cyprian felt Peter was the Rock. In fact, most did. But not all. Several felt otherwise. I merely quotes the disscenters. You didn’t like that and accused me of Scripture proof-texting even though I didn’t use a Bible? LOL

You lost me on the BA in history point…?

I see where you are coming from and I must respect your views and beliefs. However, I think it is wrong of you think I am living in a bubble. As for the church fathers? I too have a collection and I do read it with objectivity.

We find many Fathers using Matt 16 for multiple purposes,as is freely done today,but not one off them denies or rebukes the universal and literal understanding that Peter is the foundation of the Church. As I asked Triune to show me where one church father denied Peter being the Rock?

Did Ignatius have the bibilcal and theological understanding of the Trinity as lets say Jerome in the 4th century? Does that make Ignatius an objector of the Trinity since he did not have the same doctrinal development understanding?

 

[mark_a]

“Unanimous consent of the Fathers” is a term frequently used by the church to demonstrate the truth of its teachings. Here’s an article by Steve Ray that shows just how much the word “unanimous” has to be twisted to be able to maintain any claim to its use.

I find it inappropriate for Catholics to use words like “unanimous” in a contrived sense without presenting that definition with their explanation. Likewise, to dismiss the Fathers who hold an alternate interpretation to the Catholic one mkes the Fathers of no value as evidence.

You are correct.

Having said that, I do love Steve Ray. Man, those Baptists can talk a million miles an hour!!

Rather than “proving” the Catholic teaching, this shows that the Catholics have cherrypicked the Fathers using their teachings as the basis for selection.

Correct again. The Church decides the infallible teaching. I have a hunch that properly understood Church teachings about infallibility developed from the very point you make here.

Point taken. What you do see is that for all the Catholic claims of “unity through an infallible Magesterium” it doesn’t produce the results that are claimed for it.

If you are saying that “unity through an infallible Magesterium” doesn’t produce the results that are claimed for it by individual Catholics, you are correct. The Church doesn’t make that claim for individual Catholics.

Therefore appeals to the truth of the Catholic belief system by pointing to its “unity” are invalid.

In the rosy “unity” picture painted by lots of us, you are correct.

Look- one need only to look at the rejection (not just the sinful lack of compliance) of individual Catholics regarding contraception to see the lack of unity.

But that disunity doesn’t make the unified Catholic teaching about contraception wrong.

 

[catharina]

Or you can read Martin Luther’s own reasons for doing so. But that would require an objective observation of the historical record. Is it possible to do that?

Frankly I’m satisfied with that Martin Luther abandoned his Catholic faith.
He left the Church and the Catholic priesthood for his own brand of ‘faith.’

I need know nothing more than that.
Do I know that he objected to the misuse of indulgences? Yes.
Do I know that problem was corrected by others within the Church. Yes.
Do I imagine he could issue appropriate corrections from outside the Church? No.

Do I imagine he lost credibility when he abandoned his faith and was married to a woman?
Yes, I know that fact since history teaches that fact to all.

Do I have I even the slightest interest in reading Luther’s self-justifications for his loss of Faith?
No.

May all of the martyred Catholic Saints of the “Reformation” times pray for us.

 

[TriuneUnity]

We find many Fathers using Matt 16 for multiple purposes,as is freely done today,but not one off them denies or rebukes the universal and literal understanding that Peter is the foundation of the Church. As I asked Triune to show me where one church father denied Peter being the Rock?

When Augustine says that the Church is not founded on a man, but on Peter’s confession, how is that not a denial that the Church is founded on Peter, which is very explicitly what the Roman Catholic Church claims?

Also, in the following quotation:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

you’ll notice that Augustine presents the view that the Church is founded on Peter and then gives the alternate view that it is founded on his confession of faith. Clearly, in Augustine’s mind, they are two competing opinions. He also finalizes by saying let the reader decide which of the two opinions is the more plausible. Does the modern Church let readers do that today? Would Augustine let readers of his time take differing opinions if it has always been apostolic teaching that the Church was founded on Peter? If so, he must have been a very irresponsible bishop.

 

[catharina]

We find many Fathers using Matt 16 for multiple purposes,as is freely done today, but not one of them denies or rebukes the universal and literal understanding that Peter is the foundation of the Church.

That is the heart of the matter.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What parts of Scripture has the Church officially declared infallible? Most Catholics you’ll talk to will tell you the declarations about the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate and being Ascended into heaven are the only two infallible statements in Church history that are definitely infallible? The rest Catholics debate. Some say Humanae Vitae was infallible, but a plethora of bishops, theologians, and lay people believe otherwise. Some say if no anathema is attached, it’s not infallible, some only if the pope says it’s infallible is it infallible. This is the problem with papal infallibility. It’s very loosely-defined by the Church herself and even more loosely-defined in here!

The problem as I see it is that we all want to interpret scripture our own way. Contraception, Mary as the ark of the new covenant, are just a couple of (and until recently not so) uniquely, but historically Catholic scripture interpretations.

The Church leaves the vast majority of scripture open to personal interpretation, but we have non-negotiables, **usually declared infallible **because they are challenged from the inside, so to speak.

All of which has no connection to Anglican bible studies.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Frankly I’m satisfied with that Martin Luther abandoned his Catholic faith.
He left the Church and the Catholic priesthood for his own brand of ‘faith.’

Then in no way can your opinion be considered objective or reasonable.

 

[catharina]

What parts of Scripture has the Church officially declared infallible? Most Catholics you’ll talk to will tell you the declarations about the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate and being Ascended into heaven are the only two infallible statements in Church history that are definitely infallible? The rest Catholics debate. Some say Humanae Vitae was infallible, but a plethora of bishops, theologians, and lay people believe otherwise. Some say if no anathema is attached, it’s not infallible, some only if the pope says it’s infallible is it infallible. This is the problem with papal infallibility. It’s very loosely-defined by the Church herself and even more loosely-defined in here!

For the record, there is no Catholic doctrine declaring Mary as “ascended into heaven.”
You are confused about this. There is no such Catholic doctrine.

Now - why would any Protestant care at all about papal infallibity? What’s the point?
All Catholic Martyrs, pray for us.

 

[TriuneUnity]

What parts of Scripture has the Church officially declared infallible? Most Catholics you’ll talk to will tell you the declarations about the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate and being Ascended into heaven are the only two infallible statements in Church history that are definitely infallible? The rest Catholics debate. Some say Humanae Vitae was infallible, but a plethora of bishops, theologians, and lay people believe otherwise. Some say if no anathema is attached, it’s not infallible, some only if the pope says it’s infallible is it infallible. This is the problem with papal infallibility. It’s very loosely-defined by the Church herself and even more loosely-defined in here!

Which makes one wonder that since the argument by Catholics is that unless the Church infallibly defined the canon of Scripture, we can have no sure knowledge of what the canon of Scripture is; if that is the case, since the Church has not canonized a list of infallible papal declarations, doesn’t that mean we have no idea what papal infallibility is?

 

[Nicea325]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Non Serviam
“Unanimous consent of the Fathers” is a term frequently used by the church to demonstrate the truth of its teachings. Here’s an article by Steve Ray that shows just how much the word “unanimous” has to be twisted to be able to maintain any claim to its use.

I find it inappropriate for Catholics to use words like “unanimous” in a contrived sense without presenting that definition with their explanation. Likewise, to dismiss the Fathers who hold an alternate interpretation to the Catholic one mkes the Fathers of no value as evidence. **

Alternative interpretation? In reference to what doctrine?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Don’t you know that even though this is a matter of historical public record that Augustine said this and it directly denies what Nicea’s saying, that you’ll be accused of making this quote up or possibly that it’s a 10th century forgery or even possibly that it’s Augustine’s attempt at humor?

You know what else is interesting about Augustine? HIS PEOPLE IN HIS DIOCESE ELECTED HIM BISHOP! Not the pope! Supposedly the Holy Father has supreme jurisdiction in ok’ing and installing or excommunicating bishops and yet the diocese in Hippo elected him. Almost sounds Anglican!

When Augustine says that the Church is not founded on a man, but on Peter’s confession, how is that not a denial that the Church is founded on Peter, which is very explicitly what the Roman Catholic Church claims?

Also, in the following quotation:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

you’ll notice that Augustine presents the view that the Church is founded on Peter and then gives the alternate view that it is founded on his confession of faith. Clearly, in Augustine’s mind, they are two competing opinions. He also finalizes by saying let the reader decide which of the two opinions is the more plausible. Does the modern Church let readers do that today? Would Augustine let readers of his time take differing opinions if it has always been apostolic teaching that the Church was founded on Peter? If so, he must have been a very irresponsible bishop.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Don’t you know that even though this is a matter of historical public record that Augustine said this and it directly denies what Nicea’s saying, that you’ll be accused of making this quote up or possibly that it’s a 10th century forgery or even possibly that it’s Augustine’s attempt at humor?

You know what else is interesting about Augustine? HIS PEOPLE IN HIS DIOCESE ELECTED HIM BISHOP! Not the pope! Supposedly the Holy Father has supreme jurisdiction in ok’ing and installing or excommunicating bishops and yet the diocese in Hippo elected him. Almost sounds Anglican!

Interestingly, the same happened with Ambrose, Augustine’s mentor, in Milan. He wasn’t even a priest when they made him bishop! For that matter, the entire corpus of bishops in the Eastern church were never made bishops by the bishop of Rome.

 

[catharina]

Then in no way can your opinion be considered objective or reasonable.

It makes no difference to me how you might consider my opinion.
To put it most simply, I am faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So was Luther. So was Henry VIII.

So why did they abandon their faith? For any number of reasons -
and none of them justifiable. The Catholic Faith is indeed a pearl of great price.
Did both men’s actions cause still-endless divisions among Christuians? Absolutely yes.
Need I care about their self-justifications? No. One is equal to the other; irrelevant to me.

St. John Fisher amd St. Thomas More, pray for us.

 

[mark_a]

Most Catholics you’ll talk to will tell you the declarations about the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate and being Ascended into heaven are the only two infallible statements in Church history that are definitely infallible?

You are probably correct about this un-Catholic teaching, but with patience and understanding these Catholics will come to know that Mary was assumed into heaven.