Attending an Anglican bible study

[catharina]

It makes me feel so pleased that a few more Catholics dropped into this thread and supported the essence of my statements. The two male Protestants who would accuse me of a lack of charity proved themselves to be biased toward one another and against me as soon as I exited the thread. This is no surprise at all. That they are buddies who allow them to double-team presents seen a play in action that I’ve never seen on CA until now. It too speaks for itself.

Reuben J, special thanks to you for adding the obvious Scripture: “Mathew 16 (NIV)
15"But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

When one’s church begins with a break from Rome, with a break from the Catholic Church, then one’s arguments are as predicatable as white on rice. In that case, one must always seek self-justification. Naming a Saint who proposed this or that as teaching is at a far remove from claiming that something is accepted Catholic Teaching.

As for gurneyhalleck1’s claim that it is “people like” me who drive others away from Catholicism, I can only say “laughable.” Driving an “other” away from the Catholic Church would require that the “other” is Catholic. Clearly he and his buddy are not.

Peace and God’s grace to all.
Happy Mother’s Day to those who are celebrating the occasion.

 

[doughnut]

You pretty much just took my post, dough, and repeated it verbatim with slightly different verbage and tried to accuse me of what she is doing, not me. The mutual respect is lacking on her part. I’m not provoking. Look at the “hey pal!” and “get it!” type snide remarks she made and look at what Triune said and really ask yourself if it was as mutually disrespectful as you think. Triune challenged her with the usual biblical, historical, and commonsensical debate he is accustomed to in here and she lost her cool because she couldn’t respond without a simple Matthew 16:18 quote and a rant to go along with it.

By the way, glazed, maple bar, or frosted?

none of the above, im the ORIGINAL.

 

[mark_a]

Now I shall depart form this thread since I refuse to answer the same identical question
again and again and again, etc…

Tomorrow is Mother’s Day and I hope to rest before the family’s celebration.

Catharina, I’m here to cheer you on. You are holding up well in the discussion. Your position is exactly where 500 years of differences have lead us.

Concerning the op:

Non-Catholics should be able to belittle Catholics without a Catholic troublemaker in their midst.

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

 

[catharina]

Catharina, I’m here to cheer you on. You are holding up well in the discussion. Your position is exactly where 500 years of differences have lead us.

Concerning the op:

Non-Catholics should be able to belittle Catholics without a Catholic troublemaker in their midst.

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

Hi to you.
The thing is that the OP is a Catholic.
It seems logical to offer him a Catholic point of view.
BTW, thank you for the bolded-above.

You are so correct about the 500 years. Wow.

 

[catharina]

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

 

[TriuneUnity]

If the ‘rock’ is to mean Peter’s confession, Christians have nothing to lose and the Church may very well built on this confession, which it is. This verse however does not say confession and that makes trying to see it that way can be a bit tricky. I can understand why Protestantes need to say that the rock is Peter’s confession. I wish it really is Peter’s confession and then both Catholisc and Protestants would agree on this verse. Then Catholics only have to depend on the giving of the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter as a basis forPeter’s primacy.

Reuben…were any of the quotes that I posted from Protestants? Nicea asked for quotes from the church fathers that stated the rock is Peter’s confession. Since you are Catholic, I assume you also believe that those church fathers held to a papal office as successor to Peter. Yet they didn’t interpret Matt 16:18 as referring to Peter, but to his confession. Therefore, Protestants do not need to say that Matt. 16:18 is referring to his confession as there have been Protestants who have advocated the view that the rock refers to Peter and Catholics who have said that the rock refers to his confession.

It does, however, make Vatican I’s statement that the church has “always and at all times” interpreted Matthew 16:18 to refer to Peter false.

 

[catharina]

It does, however, make Vatican I’s statement that the church has “always and at all times” interpreted Matthew 16:18 to refer to Peter false.

The Church can and does teach from a number of points of view.
Yet it “always and at all times” continues to interpret Matthew 16:18 to refer to Peter
and the establishment of the Church with Peter as its appointed leader, per Jesus.
It has and still does support that teaching.
As in: “always and at all times.”

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

 

[mark_a]

The Church can and does teach from a number of points of view.
Yet it “always and at all times” continues to interpret Matthew 16:18 to refer to Peter
and the establishment of the Church with Peter as its appointed leader, per Jesus.
It has and still does support that teaching.
As in: “always and at all times.”

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

Not to mention that the keys to the kingdom were not given to a confession.

 

[catharina]

I am attending an Anglican bible study on Romans. The curch is definitely not Anglo-Catholic but I don’t think its at the other extreme either. The pastor told me they are “middle of the road” which is a team that has always confounded me. Anyway, the study is being lead by a member that was a former Presbyterian, but he converted to Anglican and is a big proponent of NT Wright.

It is apparent to me that there is some underlying bias towards Catholics - not strong, but I sense it. There are about 10 people in this thing and the pastor did mention that I was a Catholic. The group leader makes comments like “When Paul is addressing the Church of Rome, he does not mean Roman Catholics, Paul would not know what a Roman Catholic was” (snicker, snicker from the back).
To be fair, he has also made statements like Catholics believe the same basic gospel as the Anglicans so we are in communion with them. And he pointed out thet I would be welcome to receive the Eucharist there but he is not welcome to receive at my church.

I asked him if when Paul talks about justification, are we “declared” justified or are we “made” justified, and he went off on how he is not talking about a Catholic perspective and how we put too much emphasis on Mary. Mary! I asked a question about justification.

Now, I am enjoying the study very much, we are moving at about the pace of one chapter a night but I need some help. In light of the way my last question was received, I want to through this question out here first. He keeps saying that based on what he has read of NT Wright, He has come to the conclusion that Luther and the Reformers “got it wrong” with respect to “justification by faith”. He sited James and and other points where works come into play also. But he also says Roman Catholics got it wrong - I am going to have to ask about this.

But first to the forum - First, do you think he is regarding Roman Catholic theology as a “gospel of works” when he says this (before I tick him off by asking that), and second, is there a “Catholic perspective” on the “New perspective on Paul”? How is what Wright describes as justification similar/different to the Catholic position? We are only on Romans 4, but it sounds pretty similar so far.

With all good wishes I refer you to the on-line work of Fr. John Hardon SJ.
The specific work is
Protestantism
by FR. JOHN HARDON, S.J.
at
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0699.html

Father Hardon is a very well-known Catholic theologian who died in recent years.

A separate reference to him is as follows:
from
[therealpresence.org/hardon.htm](http://www.therealpresence.org/hardon.htm)

"Servant of God
Father John A. Hardon, S.J. 

Twentieth Century Theologian
and
Advocate of Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration 


 
Father John A. Hardon, S.J. is considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of our century. As an author, speaker, retreat master, and consultor for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, his name is well known. He, as does Pope John Paul II, advocated the laudable practice of Eucharistic Adoration."

Another reference speaks to his position as Servant of God John Hardon:
hardonsj.org/

I can’t imagine why a Catholic would seek answers to questions of Faith among Anglicans.

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

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

NO need for dramatics and the double-team waterworks. Nobody is double-teaming you. You just had a couple of people disagreeing with you. It happens in real life and in here at times. I’ve had as many as five or six people pecking at me before. I didn’t whine about it or expect sympathy from all, just kept presenting my argument. And when I realized my argument wasn’t persuasive or well-enough delineated, I used better sources or rationale. You kept repeating the same verbage with some insults thrown in like implying Triune was deaf and dumb. If you have never seen more than one person disagreeing with a person on CAF until now, you must’ve been in a section of this forum I’ve never been to!? Also, why mention that we’re “male?” What does that have to do with anything? What speaks for itself?

It makes me feel so pleased that a few more Catholics dropped into this thread and supported the essence of my statements. The two male Protestants who would accuse me of a lack of charity proved themselves to be biased toward one another and against me as soon as I exited the thread. This is no surprise at all. That they are buddies who allow them to double-team presents seen a play in action that I’ve never seen on CA until now. It too speaks for itself.

**You can say it’s “laughable” that folks like yourself have driven away Catholics from the Church but the fact is I’m right. I’ve had many many Catholics IM me and tell me that the lack of charity, the language you used in your post like “got it!” and implying someone is slow and dumb in your sarcasm as well as that tow the line or be a cafeteria Catholic stuff drove them away. Protestants don’t need to make their case in here if you keep talking the way you’re talking, catharina. They’ll be driven away if they think the snide and disrespectful tones of your posts are typical of Catholic rhetoric. Luckily for you, most people in here know that most Catholics are kind, charitable, nice people. Most Catholics with whom I discuss theology and religion in here are kind, well-spoke, temperate, and humble. Go back and read your posts and be honest about the sarcasm, biting remarks, and the tone. Seriously. Go check it out and be honest. **
As for gurneyhalleck1’s claim that it is “people like” me who drive others away from Catholicism, I can only say “laughable.” Driving an “other” away from the Catholic Church would require that the “other” is Catholic. Clearly he and his buddy are not.

Peace and God’s grace to all.
Happy Mother’s Day to those who are celebrating the occasion.

 

[catharina]

NO need for dramatics and the double-team waterworks. Nobody is double-teaming you. You just had a couple of people disagreeing with you. It happens in real life and in here at times. I’ve had as many as five or six people pecking at me before. I didn’t whine about it or expect sympathy from all, just kept presenting my argument. And when I realized my argument wasn’t persuasive or well-enough delineated, I used better sources or rationale. You kept repeating the same verbage with some insults thrown in like implying Triune was deaf and dumb. If you have never seen more than one person disagreeing with a person on CAF until now, you must’ve been in a section of this forum I’ve never been to!? Also, why mention that we’re “male?” What does that have to do with anything? What speaks for itself?

I am dreadfully sorry that you’re so terribly distressed. Hope you can find some comfort.

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

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Who is “belittling” Catholics? When did disagreement and Biblican exigesis become belittling? If someone disagrees with Catharina’s conclusions about a Scriptural reference or statement by an ECF, is that belittling? A good debater can keep a spirited argument going using data, precedents, facts, and conclusions that are sound without resorting to emotional outbursts or barbs, right? What is belittling about being challenged intellectually? And why is a disagreement with Catholicism always and every time interpreted as “anti-Catholic?” I know you probably don’t agree with the modern Jewish position that Jesus is NOT the saviour of the world. Does that make you “anti-semitic?” Pretty harsh terms.

Catharina, I’m here to cheer you on. You are holding up well in the discussion. Your position is exactly where 500 years of differences have lead us.

Concerning the op:

Non-Catholics should be able to belittle Catholics without a Catholic troublemaker in their midst.

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

 

[catharina]

Who is “belittling” Catholics? When did disagreement and Biblican exigesis become belittling? If someone disagrees with Catharina’s conclusions about a Scriptural reference or statement by an ECF, is that belittling? A good debater can keep a spirited argument going using data, precedents, facts, and conclusions that are sound without resorting to emotional outbursts or barbs, right? What is belittling about being challenged intellectually? And why is a disagreement with Catholicism always and every time interpreted as “anti-Catholic?” I know you probably don’t agree with the modern Jewish position that Jesus is NOT the saviour of the world. Does that make you “anti-semitic?” Pretty harsh terms.

You deliver ‘harsh’ but you won’t accept ‘harsh?’
Hmmmmmmmmm … hope you find some peace today.

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

 

[mark_a]

Who is “belittling” Catholics? When did disagreement and Biblican exigesis become belittling? If someone disagrees with Catharina’s conclusions about a Scriptural reference or statement by an ECF, is that belittling? What is belittling about being challenged intellectually? And why is a disagreement with Catholicism always and every time interpreted as “anti-Catholic?” I know you probably don’t agree with the modern Jewish position that Jesus is NOT the saviour of the world. Does that make you “anti-semitic?” Pretty harsh terms.

Sorry I wasn’t more clear, but I was speaking of the op. I was saying that a Catholic has no business being a troublemaker at a non-Catholic bible study.

Simple as that.

A good debater can keep a spirited argument going using data, precedents, facts, and conclusions that are sound without resorting to emotional outbursts or barbs, right?

We’ve crossed paths here enough times for you to know I’m not a good and/or gracious debater.

I try to control myself, but usually jump in when the back-slapping yuk-fest against Catholics starts. I doubt you’d see it that way.

 

[catharina]

Sorry I wasn’t more clear, but I was speaking of the op. I was saying that a Catholic has no business being a troublemaker at a non-Catholic bible study.

Simple as that.

We’ve crossed paths here enough times for you to know I’m not a good and/or gracious debater.

I try to control myself, but usually jump in when the back-slapping yuk-fest against Catholics starts. I doubt you’d see it that way.

Wow. I had no idea you two have “history.”
IMO, your posts on this thread have seemed quite gracious.

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

 

[Nicea325]

Uhm, what are you talking about? Those are quotes from the church fathers. You asked for sources where some of the fathers said the rock was Peter’s confession. There you are.

And what are you talking about? As I said, the quotes you provide is always used by those against the papacy as a nail in the ‘coffin’ to debunk the RCC teaching. The same attempt has been made by the notorious anti-Catholic James White and he like so many neglect to mention everything else in the Augustinian corpus that refutes the typical proof-texting,touts the passage as some kind of coup de grace.

Likewise, even if for the sake of argument,Augustine has said that Peter was definitely **NOT the rock **in Matthew 16 (which,by the way, NO Father ever said), the Fathers taught and practiced what most Protestants FAIL to understand-that the Petrine succession was of apostolic origin and was an organic outgrowth of the Holy Spirit’s leading and protection of the Church and would have been adhered to even if Matthew 16 had no existed.

What you like so many fail to factor in is development of doctrine-the fact that Christian doctrine and practice develop over times as need arises. No different than the canon, Trinity, and Incarnation.

There you are

 

[Nicea325]

Reuben…were any of the quotes that I posted from Protestants? Nicea asked for quotes from the church fathers that stated the rock is Peter’s confession. Since you are Catholic, I assume you also believe that those church fathers held to a papal office as successor to Peter. Yet they didn’t interpret Matt 16:18 as referring to Peter, but to his confession. Therefore, Protestants do not need to say that Matt. 16:18 is referring to his confession as there have been Protestants who have advocated the view that the rock refers to Peter and Catholics who have said that the rock refers to his confession.

It does, however, make Vatican I’s statement that the church has “always and at all times” interpreted Matthew 16:18 to refer to Peter false.

Nope! It makes it false when Protestants proof-text the church fathers and they do it all the time. To asume and believe the ECF were ‘Protestant’ is absurd,because none were Protestant to being with.

 

[Nicea325]

In Isaiah 28:16 Christ is called the rock as the cornerstone of Zion. We are told Christ is the rock again in 1 Peter 2:8. Both show us Christ as the Rock. One rock is enough, some might say.

But regarding the Fathers, here’s the answer to your question:

If we, too, have said like Peter ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God’…we become a Peter. For every disciple of Christ is a Rock. And upon every such rock is built every word of the Church and the polity in accordance with it.–Origen (c. 245, E) 9.456

"But if you suppose that upon only Peter the whole Church is built by God, what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or about each one of the apostles? Shall we dare to say that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against Peter in particular, but that they will prevail against the other apostles…?–Origen

I’m getting tired of typing quotes I find so I’ll keep this simple…

**St. Cyril of Alexandria **(In Is.4, or. 2 pg 70, 940) tells us that Christ Himself is the rock
**St. John Chrysostom **(In Matt. hom. 54, 2; in Gal. comm. I, I) say the Rock is a symbol of Peter’s faith, the rock not actually being him

Epiphanaeus and Theodoret say the same things as above (Haer. 59, 7) and (Quaest. in Exod. interr. 68.) respectively

Chrysostom also says in his Matt. homily 54, 3 “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church’ that is upon the faith of his confession.”

Mark, the friend and follower of Peter, whose teaching he repeats does not record that Jesus said anything in reply to Peter’s confession probably because Peter did not speak of it in his teachings and wished it passed over in silence. But Peter published to all men his denial, hence Mark records it. This is a proof that Peter was far removed from self-love…Eusebius(Dem. Evang. 3,5)

Wow! I have never read any of those quotes before? How about giving me something new instead of the same ‘proof-texting’ by Protestants? Been there,done that.

 

[TriuneUnity]

And what are you talking about? As I said, the quotes you provide is always used by those against the papacy as a nail in the ‘coffin’ to debunk the RCC teaching. The same attempt has been made by the notorious anti-Catholic James White and he like so many neglect to mention everything else in the Augustinian corpus that refutes the typical proof-texting,touts the passage as some kind of coup de grace.

You asked for quotes that show some of the church fathers stating that the rock is Peter’s confession. You were provided them. Paragraphs of interpretation by an ECF is not proof texting. It’s their interpretation of the passage. I don’t know how James White gets into it, nor do I recall anyone saying that any of them were Protestant. But if you don’t like what that particular father said about Mt. 16:18, that’s entirely your prerogative.

 

[mark_a]

You asked for quotes that show some of the church fathers stating that the rock is Peter’s confession. You were provided them. Paragraphs of interpretation by an ECF is not proof texting. It’s their interpretation of the passage. I don’t know how James White gets into it, nor do I recall anyone saying that any of them were Protestant. But if you don’t like what that particular father said about Mt. 16:18, that’s entirely your prerogative.

You make good points, all well taken. Church fathers aren’t perfect, they don’t bring us the Church, the Church brings us the fathers.

Catholics don’t take nearly the narrow view of Church fathers that some here, trying to put words in our mouths, would have folks think. If so, we would never bring up Origen and Tertullian.

The Lutheran view of Luther might serve as an example of how Catholics may view the ECF.