Attending an Anglican bible study

[Nicea325]

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.

And you misunderstood my question or side-stepped it. I asked you tell me where the early church taught the pope had to elect the bishops? Second of all, simply because Augustine was elected or chosen does not debunk or disprove the primacy of Rome.

You say you are Catholic,but I am starting to question it.You seem more Protestant than Catholic and by a long shot.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

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.

Okay and as noted a million times, NOT ONE church father ever said Peter is NOT the Rock. If one did,I sure would like to read his argument for Peter not being the Rock.

 

[Reuben_J]

And you misunderstood my question or side-stepped it. I asked you tell me where the early church taught the pope had to elect the bishops? Second of all, simply because Augustine was elected or chosen does not debunk or disprove the primacy of Rome.

You say you are Catholic,but I am starting to question it.You seem more Protestant than Catholic and by a long shot.

As a side note. I have seen posters here who started from one denomination but ended up converting to another. And it is all right here in CAF.

I don’t mean to say Gurney is and I am not referring anything about him. But if posters purposely identify themselves with denominations that are not theirs so that after a while revert to their true denomination so as to demonstrate they are converting away to the ‘preferred denomination’, then it is really a sad phenomenon that we have to put up here. After all this is just a forum, posters don’t have to go to that extend to prove their point.

 

[Nicea325]

As a side note. I have seen posters here who started from one denomination but ended up converting to another. And it is all right here in CAF.

I don’t mean to say Gurney is and I am not referring anything about him. But if posters purposely identify themselves with denominations that are not theirs so that after a while revert to their true denomination so as to demonstrate they are converting away to the ‘preferred denomination’, then it is really a sad phenomenon that we have to put up here. After all this is just a forum, posters don’t have to go to that extend to prove their point.

I agree.

 

[catharina]

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.

What exists within the Catholic Church is the authentic power
of both Scripture and Tradition. It is the Catholic Church that has maintained
its teaching authority, and faithfully passed on Tradition to all Christians today.

 

[catharina]

Protestant deominations were created in the first place by Luther and Henry, both of whom chose their own will over fidelity to the Catholic faith. Parse it as many ways as you chose but one still has to conclude that their personal actions caused lasting divisions that still exist outside the Catholic Church. Luther could call himself Catholic or a mongoose - but he was Catholic only as one is a fallen-away Catholic, an unfaithful Catholic, a reprobate Catholic. Ditto for Henry. There is no other way to describe the history. Both men abandoned the practice of the Catholic faith - and we see the results.

I’ll never see their actions as a “good.”

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

 

[TriuneUnity]

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

But mark, the issue here is not our interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I didn’t even give my interpretation of it. We are discussing the father’s interpretation of it.

 

[Reuben_J]

But mark, the issue here is not our interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I didn’t even give my interpretation of it. We are discussing the father’s interpretation of it.

Here are what some of the ECFs said:

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of **Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ **[Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that** Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine**, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, **who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ **[Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“Look at **[Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church **[Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

“There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian*

“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen * . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and **contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid **[Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

 

[Reuben_J]

… continue.

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby **declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” **(The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, **‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ **[Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Sechnall of Ireland

“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said:** ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock,** strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

Council of Chalcedon

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Which he retracted, Reuben. Yes, we know there were fathers who interpreted it that way. There were fathers who did not. The point being, it wasn’t a universal interpretation, or even the majority interpretation.

 

[catharina]

**Reuben J.

Most kind of you to present all of the above.

Many thanks. **

 

[Reuben_J]

Which he retracted, Reuben. Yes, we know there were fathers who interpreted it that way. There were fathers who did not. The point being, it wasn’t a universal interpretation, or even the majority interpretation.

I did not bring up the ECFs on this because it can be a very big subject. Beside the direction of the discussion has veered off from the OP’s intent.

Basically your contention, being ‘not universal interpretation’ has been answered by Nicea and I have no wish to repeat it except to say that the Church that was founded by Jesus and its visible existence which was built on the apostle Cephas is still what it is today. There are many Church Fathers, but the Church that’s built upon the rock determines which sayings are to be used as the foundation of the Church itself; not the ECFs to decide but the Church’s anointed successors beginning by the one who was given the keys to the Kingdom.

 

[Reuben_J]

**Reuben J.

Most kind of you to present all of the above.

Many thanks. **

You are welcome, catharina. It can be found in the library section of the CA. I just want to affirm you that you have done well. A good discussion is a two-way direction and both parties are responsible for the nature of that discussion.

 

[catharina]

You are welcome, catharina. It can be found in the library section of the CA. I just want to affirm you that you have done well. A good discussion is a two-way direction and both parties are responsible for the nature of that discussion.

Most kind of you. Thank you.

In general, I avoid threads such as these since it’s so painful to see folks attack the Faith.
To me when folks are attacking the Catholic Church, are attacking the treasured Faith,
it feels like on attack on Jesus Himself and on His most perfect will and promises.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Most kind of you. Thank you.

In general, I avoid threads such as these since it’s so painful to see folks attack the Faith.
To me when folks are attacking the Catholic Church, are attacking the treasured Faith,
it feels like on attack on Jesus Himself and on His most perfect will and promises.

Posting quotes from the ECF’s that disagree with the Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18 is an attack on Catholicism?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Differences of opinion and challenging theological ideas need not be interpreted as threats or attacks, Catharina. I’m sorry you feel that an intellectually-challenging exchange needs to be interpreted as an attack. I love debate, discussion, analysis, and being challenged intellectually. I’m a teacher, what can I say? I don’t find that threatening. I often ask my own friends to challenge my beliefs or thoughts and even take devil’s advocate in my own family when we talk politics. I try to see things from an objective stance and if I truly believe something is true, it should be unassailable and the facts should support it. It’s no attack, but it should build your apologetics ability and critical thinking as well as theological knowledge. A good basketball player like Kobe Bryant (go Lakers!) wants to play the Paul Pierces and Kevin Garnett’s and Celtics of the world. Why? It’s the BEST challenge out there. A good democrat should welcome a strong Republican in a debate to keep him on his toes. Ford needs Chevy. We bring out the best in each other’s standpoints and beliefs if we’re challenged. A challenge is not necessarily an attack. Something to consider…

Most kind of you. Thank you.

In general, I avoid threads such as these since it’s so painful to see folks attack the Faith.
To me when folks are attacking the Catholic Church, are attacking the treasured Faith,
it feels like on attack on Jesus Himself and on His most perfect will and promises.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I did not bring up the ECFs on this because it can be a very big subject. Beside the direction of the discussion has veered off from the OP’s intent.

Basically your contention, being ‘not universal interpretation’ has been answered by Nicea and I have no wish to repeat it except to say that the Church that was founded by Jesus and its visible existence which was built on the apostle Cephas is still what it is today. There are many Church Fathers, but the Church that’s built upon the rock determines which sayings are to be used as the foundation of the Church itself; not the ECFs to decide but the Church’s anointed successors beginning by the one who was given the keys to the Kingdom.

What about Nicea, Reuben?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Growing up as a young man, one thing (among many) that I truly loved about Catholicism was that it never took a victim mentality. No Catholics I knew ever let the “idol-worshipper” or “Mary worshipper” or “not real Christian” silly un-educated charges get to them. They let it roll off and took the high road. They never were like a special interest group or a group of whiners. I loved it.

Sadly, as Catholicism has grown a very large, wealthy, influential, media-savvy machine like Catholic Answers, EWTN, Envoy, and other media outlets, we are seeing ANY criticism or intellectual challenge to Catholicism as “a vicious attack” or “anti-Catholic.” Some Catholics are doing what Jews did when Mel Gibson tried to make the Passion of the Christ. Instead of “anti semitism!!” we’re hearing “anti-Catholic!” at our every turn. It’s just ridiculous. The Catholic League that ole Bill Donohue is in charge of thinks if someone spits on the sidewalk it’s somehow a swipe at the Pope. It’s knee-jerk and a victim mentality that is totally unecessary. I would think Catholics would welcome a robust debate…

Posting quotes from the ECF’s that disagree with the Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18 is an attack on Catholicism?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Sadly, as Catholicism has grown a very large, wealthy, influential, media-savvy machine like Catholic Answers, EWTN, Envoy, and other media outlets, we are seeing ANY criticism or intellectual challenge to Catholicism as “a vicious attack” or “anti-Catholic.” Some Catholics are doing what Jews did when Mel Gibson tried to make the Passion of the Christ. Instead of “anti semitism!!” we’re hearing “anti-Catholic!” at our every turn. It’s just ridiculous. The Catholic League that ole Bill Donohue is in charge of thinks if someone spits on the sidewalk it’s somehow a swipe at the Pope. It’s knee-jerk and a victim mentality that is totally unecessary. I would think Catholics would welcome a robust debate…

It is interesting, inasmuch as Catholics are so adamant that Scripture, tradition, and history will bear witness to their church’s teaching, I would think they would welcome such encounters. Of course, we know that since Scripture, tradition, and history do not tell the same story, I can understand the reticence to engage in serious biblical and historical exegesis. That being said, however, the victim mentality doesn’t quite match up with the sweeping triumphalism and denigration towards Protestants that is displayed in the forums. If you challenge such attacks on Protestants (as evidenced by the immature statements made about Anglicans)… the immediate recourse is to cry anti-Catholic.

 

[catharina]

Differences of opinion and challenging theological ideas need not be interpreted as threats or attacks, Catharina. I’m sorry you feel that an intellectually-challenging exchange needs to be interpreted as an attack. I love debate, discussion, analysis, and being challenged intellectually. I’m a teacher, what can I say? I don’t find that threatening. I often ask my own friends to challenge my beliefs or thoughts and even take devil’s advocate in my own family when we talk politics. I try to see things from an objective stance and if I truly believe something is true, it should be unassailable and the facts should support it. It’s no attack, but it should build your apologetics ability and critical thinking as well as theological knowledge. A good basketball player like Kobe Bryant (go Lakers!) wants to play the Paul Pierces and Kevin Garnett’s and Celtics of the world. Why? It’s the BEST challenge out there. A good democrat should welcome a strong Republican in a debate to keep him on his toes. Ford needs Chevy. We bring out the best in each other’s standpoints and beliefs if we’re challenged. A challenge is not necessarily an attack. Something to consider…

Any time I need your advice as to how I should speak, think, debate, observe, act or exchange ideas with hostile strangers, I’ll be sure to let you know. You’ve proved to be a very hostile stranger - no one has “attacked” me and my posts more sarcastically than you and as for your teaching skills; I don’t need to learn a thing from you. That I failed to point out your immature personal attacks as they occurred doesn’t mean I didn’t notice them. I simply moved past them. Frankly I don’t think there is a single thing you can teach me other than info re your views and opinions and the fact that you seem to have a very short fuse. I have no spiritual need or personal need to learn another thing re Lutheran ideas or Anglican ideas. I’m a Catholic. I will always reject the errors of Protestantism. It’s a given. Your worldview is not mine. It is not given to me to embrace your ideas. Deo gratias.