Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[runandsew]

So you argument is merely to direct one to another page where your ‘proofs’ lie.

And that reference itself is to a dozen different ‘lessons’, so somewhere amongst all that is your proof.

In other words you want me to research for you.

However you should note that I don’t deny that Gregory had already begun to act like a bishop of bishops. I pointed out that he obejected to anyone using that title.

It’s the same time of title that Tertullian and others opposed, which the modern Papacy now uses.

It’s simply a point on the development of the modern Papacy.

But still your church pretends that there’s a certain equality amongst bishops

I think that “lie” is such a strong word, I would tend to use the words, “tell the truth”
I guess that the books that you read have a different view of history that the resources that I look up. I could say that your resources “lie” but that would only anger you.

As for all the audio programs, I mentioned that the issue of St. Gregory was on the # 7 program.
You don’t have to listen to it and I don’t expect that you will.
I’ll admit that I am weak when it comes to all the Church Fathers writings but I am trying to learn.
Thank you for your response to my post.

 

[Montalban]

I think that “lie” is such a strong word, I would tend to use the words, “tell the truth”

Lie is also a word used in a different tense from ‘lay’ as in where the proofs are. This is the way I used it. The proofs lie in the position; that being the web-site to which I was directed. In short I was responding to yet another time where someone has directed me to go look up the proofs for them. As I stated then “In other words you want me to research for you.”

I guess that the books that you read have a different view of history that the resources that I look up. I could say that your resources “lie” but that would only anger you.

Even though I didn’t use the word in that context, I apologise for any anger you feel from what I wrote.

As for all the audio programs, I mentioned that the issue of St. Gregory was on the # 7 program.
You don’t have to listen to it and I don’t expect that you will.
I’ll admit that I am weak when it comes to all the Church Fathers writings but I am trying to learn.
Thank you for your response to my post.

At least this is better directions to where your ‘evidence’ lies.
You seem also to have an identity issue, as you seem to be responding on behalf of “Semper Fi”.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Jerome’s work is another point in the development of the modern Papacy.Jerome, like Augustine, changed his mind as he went. He believed that all the Church had the keys…

Bishopite:

All of the Apostles can only make use of the keys of the kingdom, collectively if they are under the head, that is completely different from them receiving the keys of the kingdom personally as does Peter from Jesus. Notice Peter is the head and all of the Apostles have access to the keys if and only if they are under the one who has “no occasion for schism” (Peter). Jerome’s writing simply affirms Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox are the ones who created schism.

Don’t you ever tire of just-so argument? Repeatedly I ask you to show the evidence for a two ‘tier’ system of binding and loosing.

Montalban:

It is interesting to read on as to why he believes Peter was chosen as the head; because of his age; not because of ‘the keys’. It is also interesting to note here that his writing is still at odds with the Catholic Catechism that teaches Peter ALONE has the keys.

Bishopite:

You’ve again missed read what Jerome was saying.

I haven’t done this at all. He says Peter was older. Peter should be the leader.

Montalban:

He is talking about virginity that’s why he says…

Which is to suggest that the non-Virgin should be leader; which goes against the present Papacy too.

Bishopite:

So to you is Peter the first among equals?

I have already noted he has a sense of ‘primacy’.

Bishopite:

And you believe Peter was the head because of his age and rely on “ONE” Church father to support your theory?

Oh please. Of all the people I discuss things with you are the most prone for gross misrepresentation. I don’t believe you could possibly be doing so by accident. You know full well I’ve not relied on ‘one’ Church Father. I must protest to you once again, personally. The next time, I will do so in a more formal way. You don’t get any points for such work. Try going back to Ignatius saying all bishops are equal, or Paul saying that all the Apostles are the foundation of the church.

Goldfish have a memory of only 15 seconds, so I’m lead to believe. Is it that great a deal that you blank out posts from only yesterday?

Montalban:

Jerome had gone east (to Antioch) and there was, unfortunately much division. Jerome began to believe that a single authority would safe-guard against such divisions. He states this in the beginning of the letter…

Bishopite:

Notice how Jerome appeals to the Bishop of Rome, you gloss over that and focus on that which only you want.

This is you again misrepresenting what I said. If I were trying to deceive you I’d not use any quote where he appeals to Damasus.
Honi soi y mal pense.

Your form of debate is still to ignore my questions, repeat ad nauseum your own ‘just-so’ (and quote mines) and to misrepresent what I said. You’ve twice in the course of this debate claimed I support the Papacy. I half expect you to do the same again.

If you continue like this, with an utter lack of respect for what I write (and note I endeavour to address all your concerns) then I shall be done with you, for I had hoped that you were genuinely here to discuss (certainly not to agree, but to discuss at least) this topic.

I note too you utterly fail to engage in any of the evidence I put forward by Kelly regarding the historical context.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1724474]
He appealed to Damasus again (Letter XVI).
He calls Peter the rock, and also Christ
As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!
Jerome
Letter to Damasus
Letter XV.2
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P473_87702

but also…
“Now the Rock is Christ.”
Jerome
Letter to Damasus
Letter XXII.6
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P583_110510

Right Jesus is FIRST the Rock and then Peter is the Rock on Earth. What’s the problem with Christ being the TRUE Rock and Peter being the rock on Earth? Scripture says in different senses, that they both are Rock. As Scripture says we share many of Jesus’ titles because He shares them with us…

**Jesus is creator yet we procreate
**Jesus is THE shepherd but shares it with Peter and the Apostles
**Jesus is THE priest yet shares it with the Apostles and their sucessors
**The Church is built upon Jesus (first) then Peter and the Apostles.

Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:1-2), yet when it comes to creating human life Jesus shares this role with men and women, mediating his creatorship through us via sexual intercourse. The human soul is created by God, out of nothing, at the instant the marital union produces a new body. The Lord could have chosen to create human life, body and soul, directly and unilaterally, but he didn’t, preferring instead to make his role as Creator dependent in a way on human action.

Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (John 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (John 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph. 4:11).(After saying he’s the Good Shepherd, Jesus says he’s the* only* shepherd (John 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement doesn’t conflict with him making Peter shepherd over the flock (John 21:15-17) or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph. 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd, thus implying lesser shepherds (1 Pet. 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 ([there is] one shepherd, heis poimen) is the same as 1_Timothy 2:5 ([there is] one mediator,* heis mesites*).) The apostles and their successors, the bishops, are truly shepherds also.

Jesus is the high priest of the New Covenant, eternally present before the Father, mediating his once-for-all sacrifice for our redemption (Heb. 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:5-10, 7:15-26, 8:1, 9:11). But the Bible also says Christians are called to share in Christ’s priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5-9; Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).

Jesus is the supreme judge (John 5:27, 9:39; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim 4:1), yet Christians are called to share in Christ’s judgeship. They will be judges in heaven, even judging the angels (Matt. 19:28, Luke 22:30, 1 Cor. 6:2-3, Rev. 20:4).

Jesus is the sovereign king of the universe (Mark 15:32; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 15:3, 17:14, 19:16), but he shares his kingship with all Christians, who in heaven will wear crowns, sit on thrones, and reign as kings alongside Jesus–but always subordinate to him. Our Lord says, “I will give the victor the right to sit with me on my throne, as I myself first won the victory and sit with my Father on his throne” (Rev. 3:21). (See also Matt. 19:23; Luke 22:30; Rev. 1:6, 5:10).

Jesus forgives our sins and reconciles us to the Father (2 Cor. 5:18-21), but he calls us to share in various ways in his ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation (Matt. 9:5-8, 18:18; John 20:21-22; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; James 5:14-15).

Clearly, no Christian can usurp Christ’s unique roles as Creator, shepherd, priest, king, judge, and reconciler, but each Christian is called to share in these roles in subordinate ways. The principle of sharing in Christ’s roles extends, in the form of intercessory prayer, to Christ’s mediatorship as well.
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea1.asp

 

[runandsew]

Lie is also a word used in a different tense from ‘lay’ as in where the proofs are. This is the way I used it. The proofs lie in the position; that being the web-site to which I was directed. In short I was responding to yet another time where someone has directed me to go look up the proofs for them. As I stated then “In other words you want me to research for you.”

Even though I didn’t use the word in that context, I apologise for any anger you feel from what I wrote.

At least this is better directions to where your ‘evidence’ lies.
You seem also to have an identity issue, as you seem to be responding on behalf of “Semper Fi”.

Oh, never mind…

 

[steve_b]

Don’t you ever tire of just-so argument? Repeatedly I ask you to show the evidence for a two ‘tier’ system of binding and loosing.

Mt 18:15-20 is used (Primarily Mt 18:18) by those attacking papal claims to show all the apostles not just Peter got the keys, and therefore all the bishops that follow receive that power too. Even though

• “keys” are never mentioned in the context of Mt 18:15-20
• “bind and loose” in these passages refers to sin and no other issue is described.
• sin must be taken to the Church
• and two or three must agree
  Mt 16:13-19 (and other passages) are used by Catholics to show that Peter is the leader of the Church, he received the “keys” to the kingdom personally from Jesus, AND has the power to bind and loose. He didn’t get any restrictions put on his receiving the keys

---

Mt 16:
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15"But what about you?" he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ

---

Mt 18:
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Regarding your question on bind and loose,

• Bind and loose in Mt 18 vs Mt 16, is tied to sin, AND "Take it to the Church" so by definition, take it to the Church must include and can’t ignore Peter.
• Peter has the keys, AND can bind and loose singularly. The Language by Jesus to Peter in Mt 16 was in the singular both for the keys AND bind and loose
• Peter can bind what the others bind, but he can also loose what the others bind and bind what they loose. Because he is leader of the apostles, and the Church, made so by the Father.

 

[steve_b]

I told you were the church is. You brought up the “God’s Justice” argument, and you’re still going on so as to avoid real debate regarding the Church Fathers.

I’m not avoiding anything. If you recall, I said earlier,

“You try and make your case with ECF’s alone. You think your interpretation of the ones you quote is correct. My question to you then is simple. How does YOUR interpretation of their writings play out in history?”

We’ve got 2000 years to look at.

 

[mich2]

All it takes is a twisting of standard Catholic belief in the line-up of Popes, and you’re there! It’s a bit like someone defending evolution by coming up with a novel path of descent of men from gerbils; a different path-way that no one else accepts, but evolution is still held to be true.

Maybe, Montalban; I’m not a theologian.But from what I understand in what I read, I do believe that support is given.
Again, from the commentary on the Recognitions of Clement, Rufinus writes :’

For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops of the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter?Now, of this we have heard the explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter; that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate,and that he (Clement) he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found in the case at Caesera where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zachaeus, ordained by himself, as bishop.
And in this way both statements will apear to be true, both that thes bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher’s seat on the death of Peter.

Notice that only Clement is ordained for the office of apostleship…the others are ordained for the office of episcopate.

… I personally believe in evolution as well.

Why Rome alone as Peter founded several Sees.

I personally don’t see neccessarily Rome being the issue, but Clement. I do understand that Rome could have been a strategic location, but Clement is more important in the succession of Peter, so that if Clement would have been the bishop of Antioch, then Antioch would have become the seat of the successors of Peter in terms of the office of Peter.

However he’s not the first, as Peter founded Antioch, first.
Secondly, the idea of having two bishops is not ‘orthodox’. It is a distortion of the Image of Christ (which is the Church on earth), as is having two Eucharistic celebrations for two different parts of the community.

The image at first must have comprised of the bishop under the leadership of the apostle who founded the church. The apostle’s jurisdiction involved the area where he founded the churches, making him an image of what we catholics would call a archbishop.

“The Eucharist, as distinct from other expressions of ecclesial life, is unthinkable without the gathering of the whole Church in one place, that is, without an event of communion; consequently, it manifests the Church not simply as something instituted, that is, historically give, but also something con-stituted, hat is constantly realised as an event of free communion, prefiguring the divine life and the Kingdom to come.”
Zizioulas, J. D., (1985), “Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church”, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p22
He then goes on to rail against even the Eucharist being celebrated twice on the same day in the one church; for all of us should be gathered together in one ‘community’ to have communion.

But where I live, there are two churches, not one. Some for who do not speak french,celebrate the Eucharist in their language within their church and vice versa.

con’t…

 

[mich2]

This is besides the point. As Peter founded the Chair in Antioch as well, for Clement to say he has succeeded to Peter’s Chair in Rome would in no way negate the fact that someone else succeeded to his Chair in Antioch (which is also known as Peter’s Chair).

I understand the chair in Antioch to be a very imporant See,indeed. The only difference is that, as I understand it, Ignatius succeeds Peter as a successor of and apostle, where Clement, I would view succeeds Peter as a successor of the office of Peter.

I would ask you to consider that Antioch was also founded by Peter. I cited a Pope who recognised this. John Chrysostomon, in boasting about Antioch also stated this. You simply seem to pass this information by.

I believe that all of the apostolical sees have an important eminense within the church , Montalban. Irenaeus, while speaking of Rome as being the church of which every church ought to agree with, he goes on to say that councils concerning difficulties in certain teachings ought to be held in any of the apostolical churches.Such were called Patriarchal churches.

Also, I believe the Orthodox Church has great wealth to offer to the church of Christ. Since the Second Vatican Council, it seems that our sanctuaries have been robbed. The Orthodox churches are much more beautiful and pious. However, the Second Vatican Council’s strength, in my opinion was the change of heart within catholics, which, in turn, gave us, what I believe to be it’s most gracious fruit , in the person of John Paul II.

Andre

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maybe, Montalban; I’m not a theologian.But from what I understand in what I read, I do believe that support is given.
Again, from the commentary on the Recognitions of Clement, Rufinus writes :’

For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops of the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter?Now, of this we have heard the explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter; that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate,and that he (Clement) he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found in the case at Caesera where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zachaeus, ordained by himself, as bishop.
And in this way both statements will apear to be true, both that thes bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher’s seat on the death of Peter.

Notice that only Clement is ordained for the office of apostleship…the others are ordained for the office of episcopate.

Quoting Clement is a waste of time. Apart from his Letter to the Corinthians, all the rest of the letters attribued to him are spurious, including the two supposedly addressed to James.

 

[Montalban]

mich2:

Maybe, Montalban; I’m not a theologian.But from what I understand in what I read, I do believe that support is given.
Again, from the commentary on the Recognitions of Clement, Rufinus writes :’

For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops of the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter?Now, of this we have heard the explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter; that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate,and that he (Clement) he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found in the case at Caesera where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zachaeus, ordained by himself, as bishop.
And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher’s seat on the death of Peter.

Notice that only Clement is ordained for the office of apostleship…the others are ordained for the office of episcopate.

I can not follow that you’d peg your beliefs to this one writer and ignore a swathe of other writers who believe that other Sees were also “Peter’s”. I haven’t yet got around to the fact that Rufinus’ ‘orthodoxy’ was always under question; for he supported Origen. (though I have quoted Origen, myself, I haven’t relied on this one writer).

mich2:

… I personally believe in evolution as well.

I’m not a Darwinist, but I would find it absurd if someone who claimed to be threw away a ‘lineage’ agreed upon in order to ‘defend’ it.

mich2:

I personally don’t see necessarily Rome being the issue, but Clement. I do understand that Rome could have been a strategic location, but Clement is more important in the succession of Peter, so that if Clement would have been the bishop of Antioch, then Antioch would have become the seat of the successors of Peter in terms of the office of Peter.

Excepting that this still ignores the fact that Antioch is seen as also being a successor to Peter

mich2:

The image at first must have comprised of the bishop under the leadership of the apostle who founded the church. The apostle’s jurisdiction involved the area where he founded the churches, making him an image of what we Catholics would call a archbishop.

This too is a novel interpretation. Apostles weren’t bound to one area, the fact Peter and Paul travelled around the central and eastern Mediterranean undermines another of your ideas; one you’ve offered no proof for; the ‘archbishop’.

mich2:

But where I live, there are two churches, not one. Some for who do not speak French,celebrate the Eucharist in their language within their church and vice versa.

This is ‘un-orthodox’

mich2:

I understand the chair in Antioch to be a very important See,indeed. The only difference is that, as I understand it, Ignatius succeeds Peter as a successor of and apostle, where Clement, I would view succeeds Peter as a successor of the office of Peter.

Of which I’ve yet to see proof of, other than you repeating that you think that this is the case; and basing a belief on someone un-orthodox quoting a spurious book.

Montalban:

I would ask you to consider that Antioch was also founded by Peter. I cited a Pope who recognised this. John Chrysostomon, in boasting about Antioch also stated this. You simply seem to pass this information by.

 

[Montalban]

mich2:

I believe that all of the apostolical sees have an important eminence within the church , Montalban. Irenaeus, while speaking of Rome as being the church of which every church ought to agree with, he goes on to say that councils concerning difficulties in certain teachings ought to be held in any of the apostolical churches.Such were called Patriarchal churches.

Have dealt with Irenaeus before. He states that Rome is an archetype of a Catholic Church. He states then that one should agree with this.
He’s in fact saying

All ‘orthodox’ (or ‘Catholic’ churches) are like ‘example’ (using Rome as the example). And that all churches should agree with the ‘example’ of all the churches. That is, all the churches should be in agreement with each other.
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus “Against Heresies” Book 3.iii.2

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859

He doesn’t accord Rome any superiority in power, and in fact is stating that the example of Rome must apply equally to all the other churches that have likewise kept to Christian tradition. They are thus all equal.

 

[Montalban]

Right Jesus is FIRST the Rock and then Peter is the Rock on Earth. What’s the problem with Christ being the TRUE Rock and Peter being the rock on Earth? Scripture says in different senses, that they both are Rock. As Scripture says we share many of Jesus’ titles because He shares them with us…

**Jesus is creator yet we procreate
**Jesus is THE shepherd but shares it with Peter and the Apostles
**Jesus is THE priest yet shares it with the Apostles and their sucessors
**The Church is built upon Jesus (first) then Peter and the Apostles.

Nothing you’ve said here I disagree with.
In fact I’ve said these things myself. Peter is the rock. But not exclusively. We can be ‘the rock’ too, by sharing the faith that Peter had, as the other Apostles were also the ‘foundation’ with Jesus the ‘corner-stone’

However your church says that Peter alone is the rock, or that we can only share in ‘the rock’ through the office of the Papacy.

 

[steve_b]

you’re still going on so as to avoid real debate regarding the Church Fathers.

I’ve been over this with you before in other threads.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1559373&postcount=319

The facts are already in the book. Debate won’t change those facts. I’m interested in how Our Lord’s promise plays out in ALL of history, not just the 1st century, or the 2nd, or the 3rd, but continues all the way down to today and beyond.

 

[Montalban]

Quoting Clement is a waste of time. Apart from his Letter to the Corinthians, all the rest of the letters attribued to him are spurious, including the two supposedly addressed to James.

And Rufinus, by himself, is dubious.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1729549]

First of all, I wasn’t so sure I would respond to you any longer because you think its acceptable to faciley use ad hominem attacks against me and my intelligence. It’s quit sad really.

I read this in post #896…

Montalban said… “Goldfish have a memory of only 15 seconds, so I’m lead to believe. Is it that great a deal that you blank out posts from only yesterday?”

I also thought that I shouldn’t respond since I might, (according to you) distort what you’ve said or accuse you of supporting the papacy; something I’ve NEVER said nor inferred nor done and my conscience is quite clear.
I have never said you support the notion of a Pope and have purposely gone out of my way to show you don’t accept the papacy as valid; besides anyone who would read your posts would know you don’t agree with the notion of a Pope!

You, on the other hand, at times, resort to ad hominem attacks and not just on me, remember NotWorthy? He was tired of it and left this thread for a time. Did you so much as apologize to him?

It is very easy to attack others with ad hominem replies… really I could easily do it back, but I don’t see the benefit of such unChrist-like behavior.
The only post that I’ve seen that is worse is Fr. Ambrose who engaged in calumny against Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore in post #401…

As an example of the dreadful way that Catholic apologists treat one another, have a look at what the Catholic Mark Poulson says about Mark Bonocore.

Here is just a couple of samples:

“Bonocore is an archetypical fundamentalist, in the bad sense of the word. That is, Bonocore’s reasoning is viciously circular, his thought is shallow, his attitude is arrogant, and he is as incapable of being on the receiving end of a dialogue as a brick is of being a dartboard.”

“He is a grown man with a four year-old’s understanding of the faith, and he holds on to that faith with the grip and pugnaciousness of a rabid bulldog.”

See how they love one another, these Catholic apologists!!!

For more (some of it is humorous if you’re in the mood) go to: http://www.tektonics.org/af/bonocore01.html#matt2

Is this type of behavior acceptable in the Eastern Orthodox moral theology? I sure hope not. This is a sign of a lack of humility and has pride written all over it. And I’ve not as of yet seen an apology from either of you. Do you expect those who read this thread to respect your opinion or Fr. Ambrose when they read that?

 

[Bishopite]

Nothing you’ve said here I disagree with.
In fact I’ve said these things myself. Peter is the rock. But not exclusively. We can be ‘the rock’ too, by sharing the faith that Peter had, as the other Apostles were also the ‘foundation’ with Jesus the ‘corner-stone’

However your church says that Peter alone is the rock, or that we can only share in ‘the rock’ through the office of the Papacy.

Peter is exclusively the vicarious Rock if you will. He is the Rock upon Earth, upon which Jesus builds His Church. Sure the Apostles are rock in another sense and we are all rock in a sense too, I agree but our rockness isn’t that of Peter because of his office. But there is only one vicarious Rock (Peter) who holds the keys to the kingdom; it’s an office a dynastic office with sucessors.

Much like a prime minister or our president who is a citizen of his country, all the citizens are equal in the sense of their citizenship; the president of prime minister is still a citizen but with an office that has power over-and-above the citizens.

Wow can you believe I remembered my last post? Ha, sometimes I feel as smart as a Gold fish!

 

[Bishopite]

Originally Posted by Bishopite
And you believe Peter was the head because of his age and rely on “ONE” Church father to support your theory?

Oh please. Of all the people I discuss things with you are the most prone for gross misrepresentation. I don’t believe you could possibly be doing so by accident. You know full well I’ve not relied on ‘one’ Church Father. I must protest to you once again, personally. The next time, I will do so in a more formal way. You don’t get any points for such work. Try going back to Ignatius saying all bishops are equal, or Paul saying that all the Apostles are the foundation of the church.

You totally misread what I said. I said that you use one Church father (Jerome) who supports the idea that Peter was the leader because of his age, only Jerome apparently to you, supports the notion that Peter was the leader of the Apostles because of his age and that’s why I asked you to show proof that other fathers said the same thing as does Jerome.

I DIDN’T say nor mean that you ALWAYS USE one Church father!! Of course you don’t use just one father. I didn’t at all mean that.

 

[Montalban]

You totally misread what I said. I said that you use one Church father (Jerome) who supports the idea that Peter was the leader because of his age, only Jerome apparently to you, supports the notion that Peter was the leader of the Apostles because of his age and that’s why I asked you to show proof that other fathers said the same thing as does Jerome.

I DIDN’T say nor mean that you ALWAYS USE one Church father!! Of course you don’t use just one father. I didn’t at all mean that.

Actually
You completely misread what I said. I don’t say that they all say that Peter was leader because of his age. Else, I’d cite more examples of other Fathers saying this. I tend to cite the Fathers I claim say something. On this matter I only cited Jerome, because, as far as I’m aware, he’s the only one who believed this.

See if you can follow this.

I said Jerome believes Peter is the leader because of his age AND I cite Jerome saying this. That’s it. Finito. No more. Jerome says it. I cite him saying it.

NEVER have I said that they all believe this. NEVER EVER.

I have been talking about the ‘development’ of the idea of the Papacy.

One person might believe Rome is supreme because it was the capital. Another might say because it was founded by the oldest Apostle. In short, all these ‘evidences’ cited for the Papacy ARE NOT EVIDENCES FOR THE PAPACY.

The modern Papacy idea is that Peter is the leader because HE ALONE WAS CHOSEN TO BE THE ROCK.

I cited the Catechism saying this. I asked you again and again and again to address it, and see what happens when you don’t? You get to come up with strange new ways of inventing my argument.

Let me try putting this another way just in case the above is too difficult.

The Catholic Church says that the Pope is the sole inheritor of Peter who was the leader because he was chosen for this role by Jesus.

To this you believe that Father “A”, “B”, and “C” offer support for this notion.

We look to the writing of Father “A” and he says “Peter was the leader”
Why?
“Because he was the oldest”

Does this agree with the Catholic Church? Only insofar as he was the ‘leader’. The reason ‘why’ he is leader is incredibly important and in this case Father “A” DOES NOT AGREE. Therefore to rely on Father “A” as a support for the Papacy is dubious, given that he was not a believer in the sense that you teach. The reason ‘why’ is absolutely central to the discussion.

Enter me; I examine this aspect of his belief and show this. This is the ‘end’ of the matter in that sense. There’s no need to believe that what he said was widely believed. It’s not to say Fathers “B” and “C” say the same thing. However, given time, I might show what Father “B” says, and he might say “Peter is the leader” BUT then adds “But that leadership died with him”. Thus again I would show that Father “B” does not agree wholeheartedly with your stance. Therefore to rely on these men as advocates of your system of church is to be deceptive.

That’s why, bringing this back to the actual debate at hand, I didn’t gloss over what Jerome said at all. I cited that he accepted Peter as the leader. I quoted it extensively. I cited also ‘why’ he thinks Peter is leader. He was ‘developing’ it in his own mind. I showed the historical context; an age where-in he moved to a stronger support of the Papacy due to the ‘schism’ in the east.
Context. Context. Context.

Into those times when Jerome hardens his support for Damasus we have the Christian east totally ignoring the Pope by continuing to maintain that each bishop is his own boss. They ignore the summons to meet in the west (by tradition only the emperor could call an Ecumenical Council). They ignore the man Damasus supports in Antioch. John Chrysostomon (and it’s a nice tie-in with earlier argument) continued to give his support for the ‘legitimate’ Antiochian bishop, Meletius.

This is all because the idea of the Papacy being the ‘boss’ is new. Sure, the Pope may have had some kind of leadership role in the west, and this grew stronger over time, but in the east, we were maintaining the way the church was always run. The idea of the Papacy being boss of the whole world was still an idea that was being ‘developed’. Jerome is an example of this by offering up a ‘reason’ for the Papacy, which is like someone ‘brainstorming’ coming up with ideas for why the Papacy is the leader. Eventually a more ‘concrete’ set of reasons would be made for the Papacy.

 

[Montalban]

Peter is exclusively the vicarious Rock if you will. He is the Rock upon Earth, upon which Jesus builds His Church. Sure the Apostles are rock in another sense and we are all rock in a sense too, I agree but our rockiness isn’t that of Peter because of his office. But there is only one vicarious Rock (Peter) who holds the keys to the kingdom; it’s an office a dynastic office with successors.

I am not aware of you providing any proof that there’s a difference in ‘rockiness’. Like ‘binding and loosing’ all I get from you is you repeating that it must be so. Why? Because it is, because it is, because it is.

Much like a prime minister or our president who is a citizen of his country, all the citizens are equal in the sense of their citizenship; the president of prime minister is still a citizen but with an office that has power over-and-above the citizens.

At CHOGM you have a number of Prime Ministers all equal to each other, but all “Prime Minister” within their own country.
(CHOGM refer en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHOGM)
The head of CHOGM is the Queen (Elizabeth Windsor) and she’s head in ‘honour’. She ‘represents’ the whole, as an ‘archetype’ for what we all believe.
And yet, she’s not the actual leader of some countries in the Commonwealth, which are in fact Republics (e.g. India).
“Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, and as such is the symbol of the free association of its members. This title, however, does not imply any political power over Commonwealth member states, and does not automatically belong to the British monarch. In practice, the Queen heads the Commonwealth in only a symbolic capacity, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who is the chief executive of the organisation.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

(and the ‘chief-executive’ is only ‘head’ of this association, but not holding any legal power over the members of the association)

Thus I too can come up with an example that best expresses the way of the Church.

Wow can you believe I remembered my last post? Ha, sometimes I feel as smart as a Gold fish!

It’s getting better all the time. Better. Better. Better.