Attending an Anglican bible study

[Nicea325]

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.

I respect your view,but I disgree wholeheartedly. Again,no where does any church father say Peter was definitely the NOT the Rock in Matthew 16.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I respect your view,but I disgree wholeheartedly. Again,no where does any church father say Peter was definitely the NOT the Rock in Matthew 16.

How is Augustine saying, “Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession” my view? He said it whether it’s my view or not.

 

[Nicea325]

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!

Interesting. May you please tell me where the early church taught bishops had to be elected solely by the pope?

 

[mark_a]

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?

This is theological hair splitting that does not make sense when understood along with the rest of the passage.

 

[Non_Serviam]

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?

No, but neither did he suggest that God is two or four. His understanding didn’t contradict later understanding. As TriuneUnity points out, some of the Fathers held Peter as Rock and Peter’s confession as Rock to be mutually exclusive propositions.

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.

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.

I agree that there is a great deal of logical coherence to Catholic teaching. The Catechism is a very coherent document with several unified lines of teaching in it. (That said, I believe one has to “creatively reinterpret” a number of pre-Vatican II to make them “agree” with that coherence)

The question is, when Jesus prayed that we all be one was he talking about believers or would he be satisfied with just a set of unified teachings? If the latter, then Catholicism is indeed on the right track. If the former, we all have some work to do.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I find it difficult to believe that any Christian has had the desire to “abandon the faith.” I think it’s true that they thought the Catholic Church had lost its way and believed themselves to be stearing the Church back on course but I think it’s pretty wild to think they were abandoning the faith. The Anglicans, for example, kept the Nicean Creed, the Apostles Creed, upheld the decisions of the councils, kept the Augustinian view of Original Sin, the filioque, the liturgy very similar to Catholicism, the three-fold ministry like Catholicism, apostolic succession, stations of the Cross, the same liturgical calendar, the same beliefs about ex opere operato, the same beliefs about infant baptism, the same beliefs about lex orandi, lex credendi, the same eschatology, the same Holy Week and Lenten as well as seasonal practices, on and on.

You might also remember that the Vatican backed up the Spanish Armada against England wishing the Spaniards to invade and conquer England to Catholicize it. You might also recall the Vatican saying anyone who assassinated Elizabeth I would be pardoned for the sin of murder and even blessed for it. You might also remember she was excommunicated by the pope and Rome was taking Peter’s Pence money from England pre-Reformation and giving said funds to nations like France and Spain to use against Britain in wars. England also was free of Roman Catholic occupation for centuries until it was taken over. The Celtic Church operated openly and successfuly prior to the Catholic jurisdiction kicking in.

And Henry had no machinations toward breaking off prior to the “Great Matter.” In fact, he even was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the pope for his treatise against Martin Luther, hardly a guy planning a separation from Rome. Henry’s case would’ve been granted an annulment were it not for the pesky fact of having a family member as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire that would look down upon a pope for wronging Catherine in London.

The Orthodox are right on one thing—how much of the Catholic Church’s own corruption, horrible decisions, unwillingness to reform herself, and poor leadership as well as underestimating the threat of separation led to the Reformation?

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.

 

[Nicea325]

How is Augustine saying, “Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession” my view? He said it whether it’s my view or not.

I’ll ask you again,give me one church father who denied Peter was definitely NOT the Rock? Their words not mine,not my writings or views.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ll ask you again,give me one church father who denied Peter was definitely NOT the Rock? Their words not mine,not my writings or views.

If Augustine is saying that the Church is not built on a man, what does that mean other than it is not founded on a man? If the rock is not Peter, but his confession of faith, doesn’t that mean that Peter is not the rock?

 

[catharina]

**I find it difficult to believe that any Christian has had the desire to “abandon the faith.” ** I think it’s true that they thought the Catholic Church had lost its way and believed themselves to be stearing the Church back on course but I think it’s pretty wild to think they were abandoning the faith. The Anglicans, for example, kept the Nicean Creed, the Apostles Creed, upheld the decisions of the councils, kept the Augustinian view of Original Sin, the filioque, the liturgy very similar to Catholicism, the three-fold ministry like Catholicism, apostolic succession, stations of the Cross, the same liturgical calendar, the same beliefs about ex opere operato, the same beliefs about infant baptism, the same beliefs about lex orandi, lex credendi, the same eschatology, the same Holy Week and Lenten as well as seasonal practices, on and on.

You might also remember that the Vatican backed up the Spanish Armada against England wishing the Spaniards to invade and conquer England to Catholicize it. You might also recall the Vatican saying anyone who assassinated Elizabeth I would be pardoned for the sin of murder and even blessed for it. You might also remember she was excommunicated by the pope and Rome was taking Peter’s Pence money from England pre-Reformation and giving said funds to nations like France and Spain to use against Britain in wars. England also was free of Roman Catholic occupation for centuries until it was taken over. The Celtic Church operated openly and successfuly prior to the Catholic jurisdiction kicking in.

And Henry had no machinations toward breaking off prior to the “Great Matter.” In fact, he even was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the pope for his treatise against Martin Luther, hardly a guy planning a separation from Rome. Henry’s case would’ve been granted an annulment were it not for the pesky fact of having a family member as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire that would look down upon a pope for wronging Catherine in London.

None of the above points is news to me.
I learned it in Catholic grammar school in the 1950s - including Henry’s title Defender of the (Catholic) Faith, worn by Elizabeth II today.

Abandoning the Faith was the primary act - rejecting the leadership of the Roman Pope.
Of course that is the desire - breaking with Rome is breaking with the chair of Peter.
Shall/can ANYONE reform anything from without? Of course not.

Catholic Martyrs of the European anti-Papal Movements, pray for us.

 

[mark_a]

The question is, when Jesus prayed that we all be one was he talking about believers or would he be satisfied with just a set of unified teachings? If the latter, then Catholicism is indeed on the right track. If the former, we all have some work to do.

We simply can’t be one when we are not in agreement on our non-negotiables (ie “truths”).

That seems obvious to me within Protestantism alone. Even moreso when we speak of Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[Non_Serviam]

We simply can’t be one when we are not in agreement on our non-negotiables (ie “truths”).

That seems obvious to me within Protestantism alone. Even moreso when we speak of Orthodox and Catholics.

Agreed. That is why we need to work to separate our interpretations of the Apostles’ teaching from the Apostles’ teaching. Then we have a solid basis for increased unity and being led into all truth.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Mark, please provide the context that you claim I’m leaving out here that would show I’m splitting hairs and misrepresenting the text? I look forward to reading what you claim I’ve omitted and what hairs have been split…

This is theological hair splitting that does not make sense when understood along with the rest of the passage.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never said they did. I am simply saying that Catholics try and retro everything from the Medievel times with anachronisms. I’ve heard a myriad of Catholics claim that the pope has always had universal jurisdiction from day one. Again Matthew 16:18 over and over…They claim he has always had supreme ability to defrock and install bishops at will.

Fact is, they didn’t. When they did participate in excommunications or defrocking it was after requests from multiple bishops to do so in obvious circumstances, no unilaterial moments of monarchical arbitrary motions.

You misunderstand my post. I’m saying they didn’t have the power as Catholics today claim they did. Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, and the rest prove their dioceses elected them, they weren’t ok’d by the papacy.

I notice two different camps of Catholic in CAF:

a) The Catholic Church and the Pope have always 100% had total control over all the Church, East and West, there was everything in the early church you see now–indulgences, purgatory, immaculate and assumed Mary, adoration of the Eucharist, auricular confession, the same sexual teachings etc.
and then there’s the other angle

b) The Catholic Church can change and evolve and introduce new things. Development Doctrine, Newman style. It’s ok. No, they didn’t have indulgences, purgatory, infallibility, etc. but it naturally developed as it should by the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

A and B are contradictory but cohabit the Catholic ethos. The unity of doctrine and mind in Catholicism that some see in here I don’t see. These are radically different modes of seeing Catholicism.

Interesting. May you please tell me where the early church taught bishops had to be elected solely by the pope?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Protestant martyrs of the Reformation and Inquisitions pray for us, too!

The Church of England and the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. did not see it as “abandonment” at all. They saw the Catholic Church as having abandoned the fundamentals in exchange for medievel misconceptions about penance, grace, justification, sacraments, and truths of the Christian religion.

They were not diabolically-oriented louses trying to frustrate and create false idols in place of the true pearl of Catholicism. They had sincere intentions.

I think it’s important that to have a civil discourse, whether it be political or religious, we usually assume the other camp has good intentions. Take Humanae Vitae. I don’t agree with it. I actually find it to be very wrong on many fronts. However, I think the pope, the bishops, and those who helped study birth control and assist in aiding the pope to write the document truly believed that birth control was sinful and that they were saving souls, doing the right thing, and making a positive difference. Do I agree with the conclusions? Nope. But I don’t think the other camp is malicious or abandoning reason or having black hearts. I bring this up NOT so we can get off on a tangiant about NFP and birth control (eesh, no) but to point out that I don’t think my opponent or the other side is ill-intented.

Luther did not wake one day and seek to destroy! He died calling himself a Catholic. He believed he had no choice but leave. He felt the truth was on his side. For that I admire him greatly. I don’t admire Henry VIII a bit. I find him to be a creep, cold-blooded, calculating, slothful, and callous. But I think the reformers in England like Cranmer used the situation to clean up what they felt was an ecclesiastical bully in their country and reform the theology that had not existed in England prior to Rome coming there.

None of the above points is news to me.
I learned it in Catholic grammar school in the 1950s - including Henry’s title Defender of the (Catholic) Faith, worn by Elizabeth II today.

Abandoning the Faith was the primary act - rejecting the leadership of the Roman Pope.
Of course that is the desire - breaking with Rome is breaking with the chair of Peter.
Shall/can ANYONE reform anything from without? Of course not.

Catholic Martyrs of the European anti-Papal Movements, pray for us.

 

[GKC]

You and your Articles…

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

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…?

 

[mark_a]

Mark, please provide the context that you claim I’m leaving out here that would show I’m splitting hairs and misrepresenting the text? I look forward to reading what you claim I’ve omitted and what hairs have been split…

Seems to me you are splitting hairs by interpreting Augustine’s Catholic interpretaion of:

13 8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

You guys talk about the simple interpretation of scripture, but when Catholics do it, you go through all sorts of contortions to disprove it.

 

[Reuben_J]

TriuneUnity:

If Augustine is saying that the Church is not built on a man, what does that mean other than it is not founded on a man? If the rock is not Peter, but his confession of faith, doesn’t that mean that Peter is not the rock?

I think every Catholic would agree that the Church is not built on a man as they would agree that Jesus founded the Church and that the central message of the Church is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Peter was the man who would lead the visible Church and that the he was the rock upon which this Church started. Just as Jesus is the Rock, Peter was the rock (small letter), just as you and I are the little Jesus. Don’t we often say, “I can the Christ in you?”

The Church can also explain Mt 16 from that perspective that it’s built on the confession of Peter’s as St. Augustine wrote. This in no way is saying that Peter is not the rock in Mathew 16. The sentence is very clear; one cannot understand it in any other way. Interpolation is a difficult way to go about it. We can expound on the words of the scripture but we should be honest on their meaning.

 

[Nicea325]

If Augustine is saying that the Church is not built on a man, what does that mean other than it is not founded on a man? If the rock is not Peter, but his confession of faith, doesn’t that mean that Peter is not the rock?

Oh so now you are claiming he did say it,but sugar-coated it? Tell me where that equates into: Peter is definitely not the Rock. Why would Augustine not simply express what he truly meant? I have yet to study anything by Augustine where he sugar-coats his orthodox beliefs (i.e., infant baptism,Mary,Trinity,etc,etc). Sorry,but I do not accept interpolations of Augustine’s works.

 

[GKC]

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.

Historically, that is not an accurate picture of what Henry did, or tried to do. But this, as we are agreed, is not a point that needs discussion here.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I find it difficult to believe that any Christian has had the desire to “abandon the faith.” I think it’s true that they thought the Catholic Church had lost its way and believed themselves to be stearing the Church back on course but I think it’s pretty wild to think they were abandoning the faith. The Anglicans, for example, kept the Nicean Creed, the Apostles Creed, upheld the decisions of the councils, kept the Augustinian view of Original Sin, the filioque, the liturgy very similar to Catholicism, the three-fold ministry like Catholicism, apostolic succession, stations of the Cross, the same liturgical calendar, the same beliefs about ex opere operato, the same beliefs about infant baptism, the same beliefs about lex orandi, lex credendi, the same eschatology, the same Holy Week and Lenten as well as seasonal practices, on and on.

You might also remember that the Vatican backed up the Spanish Armada against England wishing the Spaniards to invade and conquer England to Catholicize it. You might also recall the Vatican saying anyone who assassinated Elizabeth I would be pardoned for the sin of murder and even blessed for it. You might also remember she was excommunicated by the pope and Rome was taking Peter’s Pence money from England pre-Reformation and giving said funds to nations like France and Spain to use against Britain in wars. England also was free of Roman Catholic occupation for centuries until it was taken over. The Celtic Church operated openly and successfuly prior to the Catholic jurisdiction kicking in.

And Henry had no machinations toward breaking off prior to the “Great Matter.” In fact, he even was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the pope for his treatise against Martin Luther, hardly a guy planning a separation from Rome. Henry’s case would’ve been granted an annulment were it not for the pesky fact of having a family member as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire that would look down upon a pope for wronging Catherine in London.

The Orthodox are right on one thing—how much of the Catholic Church’s own corruption, horrible decisions, unwillingness to reform herself, and poor leadership as well as underestimating the threat of separation led to the Reformation?

Standing by for anyone to request the story of how Henry got the Defensor Fidei title. The whole story, that is. Again. It’s more than just the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum.

GKC