Can Protestants even judge heresy?

[mgoforth]

Juan Maldonatus, Spanish Jesuit theologian in the 1500’s wrote about Mt. 16:18:

"There are among ancient authors some who interpret “on this rock,” that is, “on this faith,” or “on this confession of faith in which thou hast called me the Son of the living God,” as Hilary, and Gregory Nyssen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets “on this rock,” that is, “on myself Christ,” because Christ was the rock. But Origen “on this rock,” that is to say, “on all men who have the same faith.” (source: Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, pgs. 343-344)

The Hilary referred to above wrote in *De Trinitate *regarding Matt. 16:18:

“This faith it is which is the foundation of the church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

and Augustine in his Retractiones:

"For it was not said to him: “Thou art a rock” (petra), but, “Thou art Peter" (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon recieved the name Peter. Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more probable.”
(Philip Schaff, 3:306)

Far from being dogmatic, Augustine left it up to the person to decide…

French theologian ordained priest in 1636, Jean de Launoy, surveyed the Church Fathers on this verse and found that 16 times the “rock” is identified as Christ, 44 times it’s identified as the confession of faith that Peter had just made, and only 17 times was the rock considered to be Peter (and you still have to take that to mean Petrine supremacy).

Even Catholic historians grant that the church Fathers were split on the interpretation of this passage.

And yet Augustine wrote:

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail”

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.”

St John Chrysostom had all this and more to say about Peter:

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

“Peter, the base, the pillar…” (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

“For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which he entrusted to Peter and his successors.” (De Sacerdotio, 53)

I see clear evidence that Origen viewed Peter as “first among equals” as well:

“Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful.” (Commentaries on John 5,3)

“Look upon the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? ‘O you of little faith,’ He says, ‘why did you doubt!’” (Homilies on Exodus 5,4)

And Hilary? Yep, another pretty clear quote:

“Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

How can they say all these things about Peter, but at the same time deny that he is “first” among the apostles? Hmmm, it doesn’t seem to make logical sense…

You could interpret Matt 16 to say that Jesus is the rock (which he certainly is) or that the Church is the rock (it is also since it’s the body of Christ), but how do those interpretations deny that Peter was the head of the apostles? Basically, if you read ALL of these Fathers’ writings it becomes pretty clear that the same Fathers you mention did indeed see Peter as the first leader of the entire Church.

That’s the second fatal flaw of Sola Scripture…reading one or two verses or quotes in isolation and building a whole doctrine around them, instead of reading all the writings as a whole.

 

[HPM1984]

I guess I wasn’t aware that any protestant churches did this anyway…can you give an example?

Yes the Preusbyterian Church of America that is rulled by Bishops and is not a democracy. I also would think that the Scottish Presbyterian Church would also do this. A pastor can be taken from his post as can a Bishop if they teach a doctrine in conflict with the Confession of Westminster or the doctines (such as Infant Baptism being a sign of the new circumcision).

 

[JonNC]

The point I was trying to make is that many Catholics on this site state that the diversity of Protestant beliefs (not what we would consider heresy, but diversity in non-essentials) is proof of false religion, when there is also much diversity (and liberty) within Catholicism.

So, can you give me a few examples of what your communion would consider “non-essentials”. The discussion of essentials and nonessentials always leaves me queasy, so for me as a Lutheran the baseline the Augsburg Confession, the Apology and Small Catechism, as well as the Creeds and early councils.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Differing Protestant denominations allow people to worship with other like-minded people much the same way many Catholics in big cities can pick from differing Catholic churches in the area.

Peace, my friend.

I interpret this in a slightly different way. I think the key word is “like-minded”. So, for example, when I was ELCA, I often worshipped at the local Episcopal Church because the TEC and ELCA are in full communion. That’s the meaning of like-minded. Simialrly, the Anglican and Lutheran Churches who are of the Porvoo agreement in Europe. So, unless Baptists and Assemblies of God have some similar form of reciprocal relationship, I don’t think the poster meant it as open-ended as your example might imply. Certainly, the relationship between the ELCA and TEC may not be exactly the same as the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches, but there is a similarity.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Peace, my friend.

I interpret this in a slightly different way. I think the key word is “like-minded”. So, for example, when I was ELCA, I often worshipped at the local Episcopal Church because the TEC and ELCA are in full communion. That’s the meaning of like-minded. Simialrly, the Anglican and Lutheran Churches who are of the Porvoo agreement in Europe. So, unless Baptists and Assemblies of God have some similar form of reciprocal relationship, I don’t think the poster meant it as open-ended as your example might imply. Certainly, the relationship between the ELCA and TEC may not be exactly the same as the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches, but there is a similarity.

Jon

Blessings as well. Perhaps I did misunderstand the poster and the statement. However,some Protestants try to justify going to their own local church and going to another denomination is the same as a Catholic going to another parish. Not true…way different and not even a comparison.

 

[JonNC]

Blessings as well. Perhaps I did misunderstand the poster and the statement. However,some Protestants try to justify going to their own local church and going to another denomination is the same as a Catholic going to another parish. Not true…way different and not even a comparison.

Well, you know me. I agree 100%.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Well, you know me. I agree 100%.

Jon

My friend you have a safe and happy Thanksgiving with your loved ones. Pray for unity.

 

[JonNC]

My friend you have a safe and happy Thanksgiving with your loved ones. Pray for unity.

Same to you, my friend.
Pray also that Americans remember this day who we are to give thanks to, on Thanksgiving.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Same to you, my friend.
Pray also that Americans remember this day who we are to give thanks to, on Thanksgiving.

Jon

Indeed!

 

[boastinjesus]

When was the Trinity defined as essential?

Are you saying that it didn’t matter whether or not a person believed in the Trinity before the council?

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes the Preusbyterian Church of America that is rulled by Bishops and is not a democracy. I also would think that the Scottish Presbyterian Church would also do this. A pastor can be taken from his post as can a Bishop if they teach a doctrine in conflict with the Confession of Westminster or the doctines (such as Infant Baptism being a sign of the new circumcision).

Scott Hahn calls the Presbyterians the “split P’s” and it sounds like the PCofA is one body for the USA and it is not…check the family tree…

thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_presbyterian.asp

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (General Synod) grew out of the Seceder Movement that broke with the Church of Scotland in the 1740s. It was organized in the United States in 1790. In 1822, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church split into northern and southern branches. The southern branch continues today as the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (General Synod). The church is a member of the International Conference of Reformed Churches.
Most Recent Membership Data:
Year 2003

•Clergy: 399
•Churches: 268
•Members: 40,703

This is not a large number that in the denominational world speak for otherss.

 

[boastinjesus]

In my experience and in my opinion Protestants somehow tend to quote out of context, take for instance…
COLOR]

Nice diversion. So did you check the source, or the others listed? You create an error Protestants have made and slam that instead of dealing with the issue… I was responding to the challenge that Peter as the Rock has been the unanimous interpretation by the CC since the beginning and provided sources to the contrary.

 

[CopticChristian]

Are you saying that it didn’t matter whether or not a person believed in the Trinity before the council?

I believe in asking a question and answering a question. Answering a question with a question either means…

You don’t understand the question.
You don’t know the answer.
You are uncomfortalbe in answering the question.
You know that answering the question may lead to dialogue you choose not to have.
You don’t understand the natural mode of discussion in question answer format.
You infer what you believe and then ask a question based on your inference without answering the question.

I suggest that there may be other reasons as welll…the best way to discuss anything is to answer a question…

When was the Trinity defined as essential

 

[Contarini]

Yes the Preusbyterian Church of America that is rulled by Bishops and is not a democracy.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. No Presbyterian denomination has special officials called “bishops”–that’s why Presbyterians are Presbyterians and not Episcopalians.

From a Presbyterian point of view, presbyter and bishop are essentially interchangeable titles.

You are right, however, about the strict church discipline of conservative Presbyterian groups.

The PCA is the largest conservative Presbyterian denomination in America (quite distinct from the ARPC to which CopticChristian refers). Also relatively more moderate than some of the smaller groups.

Scott Hahn was the member of a tiny breakaway group. As with many traditions, there are lots of small groups but most people belong to one of a few large groups:

Note that the PCA claims that it had around 360,000 members in 2000. The PCUSA, which is the “mainline” Presbyterian denomination in the U.S., claims 2.3 million members. I believe that all the other groups are considerably smaller than the PCA.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

Nice diversion. So did you check the source, or the others listed? You create an error Protestants have made and slam that instead of dealing with the issue… I was responding to the challenge that Peter as the Rock has been the unanimous interpretation by the CC since the beginning and provided sources to the contrary.

Protestants can’t quote Augustine correctly?

My answer was no diversion. This is your inference. Let me clarify. Protestant can quote whatever they want…the conclusion has to align with something. I gave an instant where I distrust Protestants because they quote out of context. You call this a diversion. I call this a fact. I directed you to Jesus, Peter and the Keys if you look back. This should provide you the answers you need.

When I was in College, Medical School, and after numerous years taking classes of other sorts…I found that I was never given answers to much of anything, rather opportunity for self discovery…when I asked questions…it was assumed I was intelligent, it was assumed I could read, it was assumed I could reason and make conclusions…when I was given information to read after asking a question…I then discussed the question asked…and was told…now if I had given you my answer you would not have gained the understanding you have…

So to you I say do some research and read some books for self discovery…I make the same assumptions…try Jesus Peter and the Keys…one of the authors, Scott Butler was a former Protestant before becoming Catholic and is my daughter’s Godfather, I learned much from him concerning Protestant thought as he became Catholic…you can see him on YouTube…read, investigate, I can’t change your mind…only you can…

 

[Contarini]

Scripture, Tradition, consistency of teaching and Faith make me believe what you deny to be true.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’m not sure you know what I deny about Catholicism. What I am denying in this context is simply that a general epistemological question is a valid way of dismissing Protestantism.

How many institutional churches are there that speak for specific bodies, one, two, three…?

Do Episcopalians speak for Jonathan Bernis or Bennie Hinn or the Baptists?

Neither do Catholics. . . .

As I said, the difference is that Episcopalians don’t claim to speak for the Catholic Church. Typically Episcopalians see your Communion’s claim as “arrogant”–a characterization with which I strongly disagree, since I don’t think arrogance can be predicated of theological positions per se, but only (in this context) of people who make theological claims to which they have no right. My fellow Episcopalians generally seem to see a claim to be the true Church as inherently self-refuting. I have never seen any logic to this position:shrug:.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’m not sure you know what I deny about Catholicism. What I am denying in this context is simply that a general epistemological question is a valid way of dismissing Protestantism.

Neither do Catholics. . . .

As I said, the difference is that Episcopalians don’t claim to speak for the Catholic Church. Typically Episcopalians see your Communion’s claim as "arrogant"–a characterization with which I strongly disagree, since I don’t think arrogance can be predicated of theological positions per se, but only (in this context) of people who make theological claims to which they have no right. My fellow Episcopalians generally seem to see a claim to be the true Church as inherently self-refuting.** I have never seen any logic to this position:shrug:.**Edwin

This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it? (Never mind that Catholics do have to engage in a lot more fallible interpretation than many conservative apologists admit.)

I accept the above that you deny.

Neither do Catholics. .

I disagree. I believe and you deny that the Magesterium speaks for all Christendom.

I agree Episcopalians cannot speak for Catholics. I understand the Episcopalians are the Anglican Church in America. I am not sure. Is there anything binding on Episcopalians by the authority of Episcopalians or is it just suggestions?

Arrogance is subjective and is predicated on a preformed bias. The relevance? Jesus was felt to be arrogant for claiming to be the Son of Man…and was crucified…certainly that was subjective…

You don’t believe that the Magesterium has the right to a claim, and you have free will…billions of Catholics and I disagree. We have a standstill. We agree to disagree.

Logic sometimes is superseded by Tradition/Scripture and Faith. I believe in One God…and The Holy Catholic Church…I say this every Mass and believe it to be true…Faith is sometimes not logical or do you believe that all elements of Faith have to pass the test of logic?

I see your style of teaching has been tempered and for this I commend you professor.

 

[ltwin]

Blessings as well. Perhaps I did misunderstand the poster and the statement. However,some Protestants try to justify going to their own local church and going to another denomination is the same as a Catholic going to another parish. Not true…way different and not even a comparison.

It would probably be more like going from a Catholic parish to an Eastern Orthodox one. To take the Baptists and the Assembly of God analogy further, there is not institutional communion between the two. However, each one sees the other as Christian based on the common confession of faith that Jesus is Lord and as part of the universal church. While there are differences, the person is not required to change the essential beliefs he has always held concerning the gospel in order to participate fully in services.

 

[CopticChristian]

**]
It would probably be more like going from a Catholic parish to an Eastern Orthodox one. **

To take the Baptists and the Assembly of God analogy further, there is not institutional communion between the two. However, each one sees the other as Christian based on the common confession of faith that Jesus is Lord and as part of the universal church. While there are differences, they are usually minimal and the person is not required to change the essential beliefs he has always held concerning the gospel.

I am not sure of the answer here. I do not think that a Catholic that becomes Orthodox or an Orthodox that becomes Catholic would be labeled “heretic”…

AOG and Baptist is a mixed bag for there is no one Baptist community and AOG vary even though there is a central website…kind of funny when you think of it, centrality in a website.

 

[ltwin]

I am not sure of the answer here. I do not think that a Catholic that becomes Orthodox or an Orthodox that becomes Catholic would be labeled “heretic”…

AOG and Baptist is a mixed bag for there is no one Baptist community and AOG vary even though there is a central website…kind of funny when you think of it, centrality in a website.

To my knowledge most Baptists would not label the AOG a heretical group and vice versa. You are right, there is no central authority for Baptists but there are large groupings that mostly believe the same thing.