Catholic protestants?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Anna,

Many thanks as always, sister in Christ. There are MANY more of these I have found. Reading what so many of the Fathers had to say about the rock being “the confession” of who Christ is and not “Peter” himself blew a huge hole in my Catholic apologetics when I was a “hardcore” Catholic. Reading “The Primacy of Peter” really got me questioning. Looking at papal politics got me questioning even more, and of course the horrific pastoral care and lousy everything else in my area sure didn’t help! And reading how 10 different Catholics view infallibility 10 different ways reminded me of the chaos of Anglicanism. Sometimes I think the two aren’t that far off “internally.”

Augustine’s quotes IN FAVOR of the papacy that are in the library here at Catholic Answers are really from his earliest days as a Christian. He changed his views on Peter over time. The way the Catholic media only publishes pro-Petrine views is like how some Anglicans only talk about John Henry Newman BEFORE he converted to Catholicism. You’re only getting half the story, half the truth…he developed his views just like we do.

Gurney,

This is the best post I’ve seen on the forums regarding Peter and Mt.16:19. I was just reading last night about Peter’s confession and the fact that Christ is the “rock.”

Excellent Gurney!

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,

Many thanks as always, sister in Christ. There are MANY more of these I have found. Reading what so many of the Fathers had to say about the rock being “the confession” of who Christ is and not “Peter” himself blew a huge hole in my Catholic apologetics when I was a “hardcore” Catholic. Reading “The Primacy of Peter” really got me questioning. Looking at papal politics got me questioning even more, and of course the horrific pastoral care and lousy everything else in my area sure didn’t help! And reading how 10 different Catholics view infallibility 10 different ways reminded me of the chaos of Anglicanism. Sometimes I think the two aren’t that far off “internally.”

Augustine’s quotes IN FAVOR of the papacy that are in the library here at Catholic Answers are really from his earliest days as a Christian. He changed his views on Peter over time. The way the Catholic media only publishes pro-Petrine views is like how some Anglicans only talk about John Henry Newman BEFORE he converted to Catholicism. You’re only getting half the story, half the truth…he developed his views just like we do.

gurneyhalleck1,

I read more of The Primacy of Peter late last night. It is a fascinating book. Should have finished it by now, but spent too much time on the forums the last few days. I need to read!

I recognized some of the quotes. My Rector, who has obvious EO leanings, has discussed some of these very quotes and ideas in his classes.

I’ve got a number of books in line to read. Need to spend less time here, until I can get through some of them.

Peace and blessings to you my friend,
Anna

 

[awatkins69]

On the original question, I know of two people who might possibly fit the bill

1. Cardinal Contarini: who formed a movement called the Spirituali in the 1530s, who adapted several Lutheran ideas including justification by Faith. They produced books that presented Lutheran ideas in Catholic ways. Contarini tried to negotiate a compromise agreement at the Conference of Regensburg in 1541, but it was considered that he had given away too much doctrinally to the Lutherans, and the agreement fell through. Contarini remained Catholic, but many of his supporters left the Church.
2. I may get jumped on for this, but I would also add, Cornelius Jansen, a 17th Century Dutch catholic who, although he remained staunchly Catholic, adopted many tenets on predestination and the lack of free will that followed those of Calvinism. His teachings were largely condemned as heretical, but he had a large following, particularly in areas where Calvinism was strong like France and Holland, and his movement caused a lot of conflict within the Church.

Thanks for answering my question! I’m definitely going to look up the Spirituali. Contarini is a better example than I thought. I thought he only tried to reconcile Lutherans by non-doctrinal means. He and his book may be a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Also, with regards to Jansen, that reminded me; what about Pascal?

 

[Axion]

Hi Anna,

Many thanks as always, sister in Christ. There are MANY more of these I have found. Reading what so many of the Fathers had to say about the rock being “the confession” of who Christ is and not “Peter” himself blew a huge hole in my Catholic apologetics when I was a “hardcore” Catholic. Reading “The Primacy of Peter” really got me questioning.

Once again people run into the protestant error of wrongly OPPOSING verses or interpretations, which are NOT in opposition, but in fact complimentary.

So, if a Father writes somewhere that Christ is the Rock, this is immediately seized on my controversialists to set against that person’s holding that Peter is the Rock. One thing I have learned in these apologetics discussions is that this is very unsafe analysis. A large number of scriptural passages have MANY COMPLIMENTARY LAYERS of interpretation - something certain protestant and atheist viewpoints in particular, cannot (or do not want to) see. They then try to set the rich complimentary depth of interpretation and symbolism into a false opposition. “If the Rock is Jesus, it cannot be Peter - never mind the fact that Simon was known as the Rock in scripture ever after,”

This false exegesis is seen time after time - “those who believe are saved”, they argue is in direct opposition to the clear message of passages saying that ACTING on your belief is central to salvation. Luther even wanted to throw out the Book of James because of this. The Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel, they say, therefore she cannot be Mary or the Church. No. She can be all three, for each are central to the deep message of the passage, each are deeply linked.

 

[awatkins69]

That’s a good point. Catholics believe not only in many different sense of Scripture, but within even each of these senses there are layers of meaning.

 

[Petergee]

Interesting. Thanks for that bit of history.

Yet it matters not how many ‘followers’ someone has. If he’s wrong he’s wrong, and these men were wrong.

Jansen was wrong.

Contarini was right. He never departed from the Catholic faith, and left those at Regensberg in no doubt that he would not ratify any agreement on doctrine or any otheer issue until it had been okayed by the Pope.

 

[Petergee]

Absurd. I never said one cannot love his country and be a Catholic.

What else can you possibly have meant by

Would Augustine have sided up with the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by legates in such an inappropriate and audacious fashion and accepted the indulgences, treasury of merit, and all the other medievel stuff? Maybe so? He was always pretty loyal to the papacy but also loved his own jurisdiction and domain.

The Treasury of Merit were by NO MEANS a part of the early Church. You’re thinking anachronistically…Indulgences in the early church…

I’m afraid it’s you who’s thinking anachronistically. Just because the extant ancient writings didn’t use the phrase “the treasury of merit” doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe in it. Much less that they denied it! Do you think that the Church didn’t believe in the Trinity for the first 200 years because they never mentioned the word? Now that is absurd, to use your language.

Your last quote says “The Catholic Church.” Of course Augustine was talking about the UNIVERSAL Church of pre-1054, not the post medievel Catholic Church with a universally all-powerful pontiff. His Catholic Church was unified and included east and west. You’re again trying to apply anachronistic modern Catholic apologetical cherry picking with your own sensibilities into a deep and complex man who lived in a different, unified Church in a different age with a pope who had altogether different authorities and limitations.

The Catholic Church has always been universal and unified with a universally all-powerful pontiff and included both east and west. The fact that certain of the pope’s powers were rarely used for a long time does not mean that it does not exist or that there were “limitations” on it . The fact that the majority (by no means all) of Christians in what had been the eastern area of christendom cut themselves off the pope does not detract at all from the universailty of the Catholic Church.

It’s astonishing that someone who claims to be so learned about St Augustione is not aware that he spent much of his writing and preaching trying to combat heretics. The followers of Christ have never been united! However the Catholic Church has always been one, just as Christ prayed on the night before He died that His Church would always be completely one. Do you say that Christ’s prayer to His Father was not answered?

 

[Petergee]

Augustine early in his career as a theologian and churchman was a believer in the primacy of the papacy and the Matthew 16:18 interpretation we hear in CAF daily. But later on in his life we see a more Orthodox/Protestant view of the papacy…

Read these quotes. These quotes come from later in his life while the bank of Pro-Papal quotes you’ll find at CAF occur early in his life before he developed a fuller understanding that is more of an Eastern Orthodox approach. All are annotated and documented, so feel free to look them up…cheers:

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

‘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.3 The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

And he goes on to say more things which it would take too long to mention.
Shortly afterward, after these words of his in which he approved of Peter’s faith and showed that it was the rock, he began there and then to show his disciples that it would be necessary for him to come to Jerusalem, and suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the scribes and the priests, and be killed, and on the third day rise again. 6John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/5, Sermon 183.14, p. 343.

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ 8A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

*Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? **Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? ***Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ. 13John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1992), Sermons, III/5, Sermon 149.6-7, p. 21

There is absolutely nothing “Eastern Orthodox”, much less “Protestant” about these quotes.

You REALLY need to read this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1005fea4.asp

Do you claim that because Christ called Himself a Shepherd therefore it is wrong for a clergyman to call himself “Pastor”?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck1,

There are some days when I am just slower than others … and then I get weeks like that! So, let me get a clarification:

A young Bishop Augustine identified that Matt 16:18 was talking about Peter the man (preparing the way for Peter to lead the Church as what we now call Pope) and then an old Biship Augustine identified this same verse as talking about “Peter’s confession”?

If Augustine did not repudiate his earlier writings concerning Peter the man, what do you think Peter’s confession does?

Ultimately, Augustine championed the papacy… so, I am not really sure where you are going with this. If the ‘hole’ that was blown in your Catholic apologetic has you concerned, then maybe you can work at getting it repaired. Looking at John 21:15-20 we see Christ not only working with Peter on his repentance for his three-fold denial, but giving Peter - and Peter alone, the authority to feed and tend lambs and sheep. Christ was a carpenter - and, there was no report of a flock of sheep down by the beach He was pointing to. No, the ‘lambs’ and ‘sheep’ were the followers of Christ and thier spiritual leaders. But, you know, it just doesn’t end there!

The 15th Chapter of Acts is instructive for several reasons. Here we have the turmoil caused by the “Jewish Christians” (“Jewish Catholics”…) in about 50AD who insisted that circumcision must be maintained. The concerned parties meet in Jerusalem and have this (apparently heated) discussion and then Peter rises and makes a definitive decision that ends the need for circumcision. There is nothing incompatable with circumcision itself and the Catholic faith - AS LONG AS you do not required this as a religious practice, it does not substitute or is additional for Baptism and there is no merit in the act. Basically, you can not be both if in doing so you conflicting doctrines. If you want to wash your hands before eating - hey - that is really a great idea for preventing sickness! But, as a religious practice, it amounts to nothing. Conversely, if you put your hand into a font of Holy Water and cross yourself, you are honoring God and this is a meritorious action in the use of a Sacramental!

Personally, I think repairing the ‘hole’ is both doable and necessary. The tools are right at hand - if you choose to use them.

God bless

God bless

Hi Anna,

Many thanks as always, sister in Christ. There are MANY more of these I have found. Reading what so many of the Fathers had to say about the rock being “the confession” of who Christ is and not “Peter” himself blew a huge hole in my Catholic apologetics when I was a “hardcore” Catholic. Reading “The Primacy of Peter” really got me questioning. Looking at papal politics got me questioning even more, and of course the horrific pastoral care and lousy everything else in my area sure didn’t help! And reading how 10 different Catholics view infallibility 10 different ways reminded me of the chaos of Anglicanism. Sometimes I think the two aren’t that far off “internally.”

Augustine’s quotes IN FAVOR of the papacy that are in the library here at Catholic Answers are really from his earliest days as a Christian. He changed his views on Peter over time. The way the Catholic media only publishes pro-Petrine views is like how some Anglicans only talk about John Henry Newman BEFORE he converted to Catholicism. You’re only getting half the story, half the truth…he developed his views just like we do.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your post is insulting on so many levels and your’re perfectly welcome to your anachronistic conclusions. You can pretend that Abraham Lincoln had air conditioning if you like. I resent your rude statement about Augustine and my knowledge of him as well as your post’s tone. Do you seriously think I don’t know about Augustine’s tireless efforts against Donatism, Pelagianism, etc.? Are you really going to insult me to that degree? I’m not replying to any of your posts if this is the way things are going to roll. Silly. You can’t prove the treasury of merit let alone all the other ascertions in these statements.

What else can you possibly have meant by

I’m afraid it’s you who’s thinking anachronistically. Just because the extant ancient writings didn’t use the phrase “the treasury of merit” doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe in it. Much less that they denied it! Do you think that the Church didn’t believe in the Trinity for the first 200 years because they never mentioned the word? Now that is absurd, to use your language.

The Catholic Church has always been universal and unified with a universally all-powerful pontiff and included both east and west. The fact that certain of the pope’s powers were rarely used for a long time does not mean that it does not exist or that there were “limitations” on it . The fact that the majority (by no means all) of Christians in what had been the eastern area of christendom cut themselves off the pope does not detract at all from the universailty of the Catholic Church.

It’s astonishing that someone who claims to be so learned about St Augustione is not aware that he spent much of his writing and preaching trying to combat heretics. The followers of Christ have never been united! However the Catholic Church has always been one, just as Christ prayed on the night before He died that His Church would always be completely one. Do you say that Christ’s prayer to His Father was not answered?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Pete, if you don’t want to see the truth, you’ll obscure it till the cows come home. That’s your right to do so. I just produced a slough of quotations from Augustine stating unequivocably that the “rock” was NOT Peter but Christ and the confession. If you want to ignore them, you’re welcome to. YOu can spin them all you like. I can do the same with Ambrose and many other Fathers. You can read modern Catholicism and post 1054 into anything you want. It’s fruitless.

There is absolutely nothing “Eastern Orthodox”, much less “Protestant” about these quotes.

You REALLY need to read this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1005fea4.asp

Do you claim that because Christ called Himself a Shepherd therefore it is wrong for a clergyman to call himself “Pastor”?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Take your time next time, tqualey, if these are the kinds of things you’re going to say. Take your time!

Augustine made many statements with a pro-petrine twinge to them for years. If you look at the second and later part of his tenure as Bishop of Hippo he is firmly in the corner of the more modern Orthodox view of Peter—that the Rock was the confession and Christ himself, not Peter. Cyprian also had the same view in the beginning but he and Firmillian grew out of that infancy and saw things differently over time.

I could easily cherry-pick quotes from John Henry Newman from his early days and what would it say? Anglicanism is a branch of Catholicism, right? Problem is, Newman dropped that belief and even converted to Catholicism. I know anglicans who try to cite Newman’s early days as some sort of proof-texting and I think that’s absurd. Either way in any denomination, one needs to look at the entire body of quotations and be honest about the conclusions. I think the hole needs to be repaired and you’re the one, not me, who needs some serious bond-o! I’m unsubscribing this thread because I think it’s a dead-end and the triumphalism and blinders are kicking in for some. I have no desire to continue on a dead road. God bless.

Hi, Gurneyhalleck1,

There are some days when I am just slower than others … and then I get weeks like that! So, let me get a clarification:

A young Bishop Augustine identified that Matt 16:18 was talking about Peter the man (preparing the way for Peter to lead the Church as what we now call Pope) and then an old Biship Augustine identified this same verse as talking about “Peter’s confession”?

If Augustine did not repudiate his earlier writings concerning Peter the man, what do you think Peter’s confession does?

Ultimately, Augustine championed the papacy… so, I am not really sure where you are going with this. If the ‘hole’ that was blown in your Catholic apologetic has you concerned, then maybe you can work at getting it repaired. Looking at John 21:15-20 we see Christ not only working with Peter on his repentance for his three-fold denial, but giving Peter - and Peter alone, the authority to feed and tend lambs and sheep. Christ was a carpenter - and, there was no report of a flock of sheep down by the beach He was pointing to. No, the ‘lambs’ and ‘sheep’ were the followers of Christ and thier spiritual leaders. But, you know, it just doesn’t end there!

The 15th Chapter of Acts is instructive for several reasons. Here we have the turmoil caused by the “Jewish Christians” (“Jewish Catholics”…) in about 50AD who insisted that circumcision must be maintained. The concerned parties meet in Jerusalem and have this (apparently heated) discussion and then Peter rises and makes a definitive decision that ends the need for circumcision. There is nothing incompatable with circumcision itself and the Catholic faith - AS LONG AS you do not required this as a religious practice, it does not substitute or is additional for Baptism and there is no merit in the act. Basically, you can not be both if in doing so you conflicting doctrines. If you want to wash your hands before eating - hey - that is really a great idea for preventing sickness! But, as a religious practice, it amounts to nothing. Conversely, if you put your hand into a font of Holy Water and cross yourself, you are honoring God and this is a meritorious action in the use of a Sacramental!

Personally, I think repairing the ‘hole’ is both doable and necessary. The tools are right at hand - if you choose to use them.

God bless

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

Quite an attitude you have been demonstrating. If there is anything to obscuring the truth and putting a spin on something you need not go farther then the next mirror.

Your knowledge of Augustine is not the issue. Your avoidance of the fact that Augustine was not the last word on this subject is.

This issue is quite simply that Peter, Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth. In his capacity - and that of his successors - he is the leader of the Church. When the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals ‘ex cathedra’ he speaks with absolute authority. None of the other bishops have this authority and Augustine never disputed it. This emphasis on the person of Peter vs the confession of Peter is very interesting - but, from the way I read your material it appears that you have managed - even with your self-proclaimned superior knowledge of Augustine - to become confused on who is in charge of the Christ’s Church on earth.

Now, why not try a little less attitude and read the other posts with less haste and irritation. We all can learn from one another, but only if we keep an open mind and peaceful heart.

God bless

Take your time next time, tqualey, if these are the kinds of things you’re going to say. Take your time!

Augustine made many statements with a pro-petrine twinge to them for years. If you look at the second and later part of his tenure as Bishop of Hippo he is firmly in the corner of the more modern Orthodox view of Peter—that the Rock was the confession and Christ himself, not Peter. Cyprian also had the same view in the beginning but he and Firmillian grew out of that infancy and saw things differently over time.

I could easily cherry-pick quotes from John Henry Newman from his early days and what would it say? Anglicanism is a branch of Catholicism, right? Problem is, Newman dropped that belief and even converted to Catholicism. I know anglicans who try to cite Newman’s early days as some sort of proof-texting and I think that’s absurd. Either way in any denomination, one needs to look at the entire body of quotations and be honest about the conclusions. I think the hole needs to be repaired and you’re the one, not me, who needs some serious bond-o! I’m unsubscribing this thread because I think it’s a dead-end and the triumphalism and blinders are kicking in for some. I have no desire to continue on a dead road. God bless.

 

[Petergee]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck,

Quite an attitude you have been demonstrating. If there is anything to obscuring the truth and putting a spin on something you need not go farther then the next mirror.

Your knowledge of Augustine is not the issue. Your avoidance of the fact that Augustine was not the last word on this subject is.

This issue is quite simply that Peter, Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth. In his capacity - and that of his successors - he is the leader of the Church. When the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals ‘ex cathedra’ he speaks with absolute authority. None of the other bishops have this authority and Augustine never disputed it. This emphasis on the person of Peter vs the confession of Peter is very interesting - but, from the way I read your material it appears that you have managed - even with your self-proclaimned superior knowledge of Augustine - to become confused on who is in charge of the Christ’s Church on earth.

Now, why not try a little less attitude and read the other posts with less haste and irritation. We all can learn from one another, but only if we keep an open mind and peaceful heart.

God bless

Amen.

Perhaps Gurneyhalleck you could start by trying to honestly answer the questions I asked you, instead of fobbing them off by throwing verbal bombshells absurdly accusing me of “insulting” you and in the same breath telling me I don’t want to see the truth and am deliberately obscuring it.

 

[Petergee]

There was also a tremendous political aspect to the Reformation.

True.

Lutheran theology would not have spread nearly as far without the support of the German princes who sought political independence from Rome.

You mean from the German Emperor. German princes had never been politically dependent on Rome.

If everyone in those days had access to information like we do today - in other words, were able to choose what they believed based a lot of available material - you no doubt would have many choosing Luther either because they agreed with him

You think people in those days didn’t choose to believe what they believed? Nobody can force you to believe something and never could. You think that the fact that you can surf the net for information about all types of beliefs makes our choice of what to believe wider? Arguably it makes it narrower. In any case pretty much everybody in Europe knew pretty much what Luther was proposing to be believed.

or because they decried the wrongful practice of selling indulgences

As far as I know no Catholic has ever sold indulgences, which the Catholic Church has always condemned as the crime of simony. The virtuous practice of giving alms as one of the good works necessary to earn an indulgence was falsely called by Luther the “sale” of indulgences.

and the impiety of some in the magisterium that so repulsed Luther. But once the swords came out it ceased to be a populist outrage and instead became a matter of keeping your head. Your prince converts and says he’ll burn you at the stake if you don’t? Your choice is pretty clear, unless you hold the fortitude to watch your entire family martyred.

The Reformation would have been so much less bloody if not for the Medieval mindset of its participants and antagonists.

The “medieval mindset” if there is such a thing, would have been repulsed by the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Christians.

The medieval era ended in 1453. The bloody consequences of the protestant revolt essentially occurred in the years 1529 to the late 18th century. When it blended into and essentially inspired the resulting even more bloody atheistic “enlightenment” slaughter of Christians from 1789 to the present day.

 

[jfoges]

i’ve studied some Reformation history. During the Reformation, especially early on, the lines could be blurred between Catholics and Protestants. Since at first the Protestants were hoping that the entire Catholic Church would accept their views, there were people who considered themselves Catholic but accepted the Reformed ideas. Erasmus is an interesting case. In some ways his ideas are similar to Protestants, but he had already formulated them before Luther. Erasmus was much older than Luther. When the Reformation began, Erasmus distanced himself from it and actively opposed Luther. They went from mutual respect to open hostility.

 

[losh14]

It seems we’re getting a little off the subject and into some more tense conversation. Should we return to the original question?

Contarini and Jansen were offered up as examples of Catholics who appeared to embrace at least some Protestant theology during the Reformation. Are there any other examples? Should we discuss these two more in-depth?