Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[Montalban]

Where are these other Churches today? Where is the Church of Rome? Your polemic doesn’t work.

This is the “God’s Justice” argument that someone wants to both make, and deny they’re making.

 

[Montalban]

Two apologies due. Firstly, I missed this post, when I answered the other two by you.

Bishopite:

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.

My apologies for this inference. However what is really frustrating is that you continually re-work what I say. I’ve posted for several MONTHS now many Church Fathers. You respond by saying I’ve cited a single father.

And yes, you keep misrepresenting what I say, such as

Bishopite:

however quoting Montalban Peter has a "kind of primacy"which of course means he is has is a kind of leader; that he is the head Apostle.

I never said he was the head. I explained at some lengths how we can believe that God the Father (being the first ‘cause’ of all things) can thus be said to have a type of primacy, but this does not mean that the other two persons in the Trinity are any less God. They are all of one Will.

I explained this kind of ‘primacy’ for a long period of time and then to have you turn it around is indeed very frustrating. You turned ‘kind of Primacy’ (which is a phrase hedged with conditions) to one of determined support.

As you just did for what I cited re: Jerome claiming that I was arguing that ALL the Fathers believed what he said.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1734880]
Two apologies due. Firstly, I missed this post, when I answered the other two by you.

My apologies for this inference. However what is really frustrating is that you continually re-work what I say. I’ve posted for several MONTHS now many Church Fathers. You respond by saying I’ve cited a single father.

Thanks for the apology. I’m sure it is frustrating but you have posted so much in this thread that I’m not always sure what you believe. You have clarified your stance and now I understand what you mean. I did NOT SAY that you only posted ONE Church father that would be crazy, being you’ve quoted Chrystosom, Ignatius, Jerome and others, how could I say you’ve used ONLY ONE Church father? It was a mix up indeed!! What I said was the only Church father you have used on Peter being the leader because of he was older was Jerome. You only used one Church father on that specific issue, that’s all I said and meant. Really I’m not out to try to twist what you have said nor believe that would be a sin on my part and I would apologize if I were deliberately misrepresenting you or your words but I have NOT attempted to do so.

And yes, you keep misrepresenting what I say, such as

I never said he was the head. I explained at some lengths how we can believe that God the Father (being the first ‘cause’ of all things) can thus be said to have a type of primacy, but this does not mean that the other two persons in the Trinity are any less God. They are all of one Will.

Alright now I understand with more clarity what you are saying as Peter having a “type of primacy.”
God the Father, has a type of primacy even though the other person of the Trinity are fully equal, yes I would agree and if the parallel of the papacy were modeled like the Trinity then I could see your point, however the papcay isn’t modeled like the Trinity;the union of a man an woman in marriage bringing forth childbirth is a clearer example of the Trinity. Interestingly there is a word used Catholic theology called circumincession which decribes the Holy Trinity, in that one of the persons doesn’t do anything that isn’t in perfect union with the other persons of the one Godhead and if the Trinitarian model was used then I would understand your position as Peter having a kind of primacy.
I

But Peter is paralleled I believe more like Jesus since He is the True Rock the True shephard who guides His sheep and built His foundation. Peter is the Rock on Earth who also shephard the sheep like Jesus to the Apostles. And then we could say the Apostles shephard their sheep (their communities) as Jesus shephards His sheep and also as the Peter shepards his Earthly sheep.

I explained this kind of ‘primacy’ for a long period of time and then to have you turn it around is indeed very frustrating. You turned ‘kind of Primacy’ (which is a phrase hedged with conditions) to one of determined support.

I NEVER intended to mean that you support the Pope or the notion of the papacy.

As you just did for what I cited re: Jerome claiming that I was arguing that ALL the Fathers believed what he said.

Again, I didn’t say that you said ALL the fathers claimed what Jerome said, you misread what I said and meant. I’m sorry for not being more specific. I only said that you used one Church father in one instance that being Jerome says Peter is older than John. My point isn’t that you have only used one father, of course you haven’t but on the Peter is older than John so he is therefore a leader issue only Jerome was cited.

From reading your past posts on the fathers you make the case that the fathers say all the Bishops are equal and I as a Catholic don’t have a problem with that at all. But the fathers also make many inferences to Scripture and Scriptural concepts with terms like the chair of Peter… Jerome says in letter 15 to the Bishop of Rome…

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XV.html?highlight=jeromes,letter,15,chair,of,peter#highlight

Oh by the way, this is from as you can see www.ccel.org which I still think has a dubious translation in some areas (well I’ve found one to be honest) but of course there are Bible translations that also have been called questionable like I said in an earlier post; the NIV Bible which uses the word teachings in 2 Thes 2:15,3:6, 1 Cor 11:2 instead of traditions when speaking of the word tradition in a postive sense. When tradition is being used in the negative it keeps the word (paradosis). In all honesty the www.ccel.org is very convienent and easy to search.

 

[steve_b]

This is the “God’s Justice” argument that someone wants to both make, and deny they’re making.

You see it as justice, I see it as promise.

 

[Bishopite]

Post #880, I said this…

"

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1)."http://www.catholic.com/library/Auth...ope_Part_1.asp

But apparently the word “presidency” isn’t found in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans found at the www.ccel.org translation found at…ttp://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/…m#P1797_305873

The www.ccel.org site is a Protestant translation by Phillip Schaff, who wasn’t an anti-Catholic but did NOT agree with Catholicism and was a reformed Protestant.

This commentary by Calvin College a Protestant college says this about Ignatius, I’ve cut it in sections in order to show how someone could read Ignatius a Church father for example and have several differing interpretations of the same document.
So again WHO decides what Ignatius meant?

This is the quote from Ignatius to the Romans…

“Greetings in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, from Ignatius, the “God-inspired,” to the church that is in charge of affairs in Roman quarters228”

ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.vi.ii.iii.iv.html?highlight=ignatius,the,church,in,romans,which,holds,presidence#highlight

The first …

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/

228Bizarre as some of Ignatius’ expressions are, this one is most perplexing, and has exercised commentators not a little. The Greek is: prokathētai en topō chōriou Rōmaiōn. The words en topō might conceivably be taken as “in dignity,” and the whole clause rendered: “Which has a precedence of dignity over the district of the Romans.”

The second…

Another suggestion has been to read Christou for chōriou: “Which presides over the district of the Romans in the place of Christ.” The most usual rendering has been: "Which presides [has the chief seat] in the district of the region of the Romans. This is somewhat barbarous. It also presents an ambiguity: is the presidence exercised over the whole Church or only over the district in which the Roman church has its seat?

So, even this Protestant commentator allows for the possiblity of Ignatius saying the Bishop of Rome having “presidence exercised over the whole church” albeit the commentator says it presents an “ambiguity.”

Even though this site for the most part has some great quotes and it is easy to search for sure but also has a bias against the papacy and Catholicism; which doesn’t suprise me since it IS a Protestant site.

My point is who decides which interpretation to follow? Just as Scripture can have a number of interpretations from the same verse, who decides what is the truth?

This is the third…

My own rendering is modeled on the phrase ho topos tēs chōras, which means “the local circumstances of the district.” If, then, the Greek text is correct and topos has the sense of “local circumstances,” the expression, literally rendered, would be: “Which has the chief seat in the local circumstances of the district of the Romans.”

Continued…

 

[Bishopite]

Now…juxtapose all of the above possible interpretations with Scripture, specifically Mt 16:15-19 which is the primary verse Catholicism points to as Peter having primacy and I say the second interpretation is the most convincing and most probable of the three.

Post #695

In Matt 16:18, when Jesus speaks of building *his *church, certainly ‘church’ cannot be interpreted to refer simply to the local Matthean community, in isolation from the other Christian communities. (A universalistic outlook in Matthew is attested in 28:18-19 where the disciples are commissioned to go forth to make disciples of all nations and baptize them.) But Matthew also knows of ekklesia applied to the local community (18:17). It is interesting that the binding/loosing power to the disciples (18:18) is mentioned in the context of the latter, while the binding/loosing power given to Peter is mentioned in the context of the former." Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg; New York: Paulist: 1973), 100." [Jesus, Peter and the Keys page 69]

“As the word ekklesia] is used in Matthew it has two slightly different meanings. In 16:18 the Universal Church is in view, in 18:18 the local assembly (cf. the apparent fluctuation in Acts and the Pauline epistles).” W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 11, in J.A. Emerton, C.E.B. Cranfield, and G.N. Stanton, eds., The International Critical Commentary, (Edinburgh:Clark, 1991), 629." [Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing]

 

[Montalban]

You see it as justice, I see it as promise.

What I see is you still insist on making a “God’s Justice” argument, then at the same time claim you’re not.



And the Orthodox Church still goes on! Despite attacks from Catholics and Moslems

 

[Montalban]

So, even this Protestant commentator allows for the possiblity of Ignatius saying the Bishop of Rome having “presidence exercised over the whole church” albeit the commentator says it presents an “ambiguity.”

Even I said that you ‘might’ just interpret a number of ways, which is why it’s important to look at his works on a whole, and he’s the one who insists there’s none higher than a bishop

'nuff said:thumbsup:

 

[steve_b]

What I see is you still insist on making a “God’s Justice” argument, then at the same time claim you’re not.



And the Orthodox Church still goes on! Despite attacks from Catholics and Moslems

You mean this is sort of like when God came to Adam and said did you eat the fruit? Adam said it was the woman YOU gave me that made me do it. (that a boy Adam, don’t take responsibility, blame God)

Then God asked the woman, did you eat the fruit? It was the SNAKE that made me do it. (That a girl Eve, don’t take responsibility, blame the snake, but hey, at least you didn’t blame God)

Then God comes to the Orthodox and says well??? we didn’t do it, it was the CATHOLICS and the MUSLIMS fault.

sheesh!!

 

[havemercy]

What the heck is a thread about a rock doing at 19 pages?

 

[Montalban]

Then God comes to the Orthodox and says well??? we didn’t do it, it was the CATHOLICS and the MUSLIMS fault.

As noted, you’ve still not been able to determine what kind of argument you wish to have.

God’s Justice, or not. Your choice

 

[Montalban]

What the heck is a thread about a rock doing at 19 pages?

This thread seems to have almost ground to a halt

 

[steve_b]

As noted, you’ve still not been able to determine what kind of argument you wish to have.

God’s Justice, or not. Your choice

I told you multiple times, I focused on*** promise***

 

[Redbandito]

What I see is you still insist on making a “God’s Justice” argument, then at the same time claim you’re not.



And the Orthodox Church still goes on! Despite attacks from Catholics and Moslems

Attacks from Catholics? Wait a second here! Are we on an Orthodox website trying to persuade you your church is wrong? I don’t think so. I believe it is quite the opposite. In fact, my experience with the Orthodox faith is one of strong antagonism towards Catholics. I would say you are a perfect example of such.

I would say the Catholic Church has been quite humble and patient in approaching the East for reconciliation. You are free to see it differently. However, the last two successor’s of Peter have taken great pains for the sake of unity between our respective churches. I think you would do well to take such an attitude.

 

[Redbandito]

This thread seems to have almost ground to a halt

Actually, that happened several pages ago. Which is why I chose to exit gracefully back then. This thread has been going in a circle for quite a while.

 

[Montalban]

I told you multiple times, I focused on*** promise***

No matter what you want to call it it’s still “God’s Justice” argument.

How do you ‘judge’ the promise is kept, by measuring God’s Justice (you used examples of churches that have been destroyed by Islam, etc.)

 

[Montalban]

Attacks from Catholics?

Fourth crusade.

Wait a second here! Are we on an Orthodox website trying to persuade you your church is wrong?

You’ve completely misread the context of this debate.

Here’s a recap.

One Catholic, tired of dealing with ‘evidence’ decides to say (paraphrase) “What’s the point in arguing, the whole thing is clear, God’s justice is clear; the Catholic church is big and successful. The Orthodox church doesn’t exist in Antioch, Constantinople, etc…”

Although he now has re-labelled this the “God’s Promise” argument it’s still the same. And to this, in order to show the flaws in the argument I’ve pointed out examples where the Orthodox church has suffered, such as Smyrna 1922.

I don’t think so. I believe it is quite the opposite. In fact, my experience with the Orthodox faith is one of strong antagonism towards Catholics. I would say you are a perfect example of such.

Because you’re idea of compromise is simply to surrender to Catholicism. At the same time you guys missioned into Orthodox lands. “White man speak with forked tongue” they used to say in westerns.

I would say the Catholic Church has been quite humble and patient in approaching the East for reconciliation. You are free to see it differently. However, the last two successor’s of Peter have taken great pains for the sake of unity between our respective churches.

What a great thing then that you seem to think that this is all from your side.

I think you would do well to take such an attitude.

Thanks for your ‘advice’.

 

[Montalban]

William Webster claims to have an exhaustive collection of quotes from Church Fathers at
christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html

There’s a nice little work on Catholic claims re: Augustine’s Sermon 131* at
aomin.org/Sermo131.html

And there’s an Orthodox work at
trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_infalibility_pope.shtml
**

*the dubious use of the “Rome has spoken…” quote.
** this site in general seems quite antagonistic towards other Orthodox. This should make interesting reading for Catholics here

 

[Redbandito]

Fourth crusade…

Okay? And? You don’t think it is a bit ironic that you would be complaining about “Catholic” attacks on the “Orthodox church” while you are over here attacking Catholicism? Sorry, I just find that ironic.

You’ve completely misread the context of this debate…

Here’s a recap…

Actually, I understood the debate quite clearly to this point. Thanks for the recap. Maybe irony is just lost on you.

One Catholic, tired of dealing with ‘evidence’ decides to say (paraphrase) “What’s the point in arguing, the whole thing is clear, God’s justice is clear; the Catholic church is big and successful. The Orthodox church doesn’t exist in Antioch, Constantinople, etc…”.

Yeah, I get that. I am not arguing for or against him.

Although he now has re-labelled this the “God’s Promise” argument it’s still the same. And to this, in order to show the flaws in the argument I’ve pointed out examples where the Orthodox church has suffered, such as Smyrna 1922…

Again, thanks for the recap.

Because you’re idea of compromise is simply to surrender to Catholicism. At the same time you guys missioned into Orthodox lands. “White man speak with forked tongue” they used to say in westerns…

Not shockingly, this is a very self-serving way of looking at it. I don’t think surrendering to Catholicism had anything to do with my post. However, you like playing the victim role, so whatever helps you feel better. As for missioning, big deal! There are Orthodox churches, not in line with Rome, in the West. What’s your point? You talk as if this is such a one-sided persecution. I believe the ex-communications were mutual brother.

What a great thing then that you seem to think that this is all from your side…

I don’t. That’s your spin. You would rather win an argument than seek to reconcile our differences. That’s fine. But this will continue to stand between us. I was not antagonistic to you. You brought your intellectual pride here and talked down to us silly Catholics, because “how dare” we not “understand the Scriptures and Church Fathers.” Remember, you are a guest (albeit a welcome one) over here, try to use some manners. I think you would be surprised how receptive people would be.

Thanks for your ‘advice’.

My pleasure. If only you would take it.

 

[Montalban]

Okay? And? You don’t think it is a bit ironic that you would be complaining about “Catholic” attacks on the “Orthodox church” while you are over here attacking Catholicism? Sorry, I just find that ironic.

No. The point is that the “God’s Justice” argument is flawed. I don’t believe in it. I’m showing by way of pathos that if one were to go down that avenue, one could just as well make certain argument about the Catholic church.

Rather than deal with the fact that it’s an invalid argument per se you’ve got your hackles up because you see someone making the same kind of argument towards the RC Church, and thus missing the point… in the context of this thread.

Actually, I understood the debate quite clearly to this point. Thanks for the recap. Maybe irony is just lost on you.

Not at all. I understand the argument I’m trying to make. It seems you’re only concerned in arguing (appealing to indignation) when someone applies the same argument back.

How can I be soooooo impolited, when the RC Church has done such wonderful things. Point missed by you.

Yeah, I get that. I am not arguing for or against him.

You’re arguing against an ‘example’ argument being made against the RC Church

Again, thanks for the recap.

You need it

Not shockingly, this is a very self-serving way of looking at it. I don’t think surrendering to Catholicism had anything to do with my post.

It’s what Catholics call ‘compromise’, by the way

However, you like playing the victim role, so whatever helps you feel better. As for missioning, big deal! There are Orthodox churches, not in line with Rome, in the West. What’s your point? You talk as if this is such a one-sided persecution. I believe the ex-communications were mutual brother.

This is still going off-topic. I kept calling him to get back into discussing the Church Fathers. You simply want to continue down that path

I don’t. That’s your spin. You would rather win an argument than seek to reconcile our differences. That’s fine. But this will continue to stand between us. I was not antagonistic to you. You brought your intellectual pride here and talked down to us silly Catholics, because “how dare” we not “understand the Scriptures and Church Fathers.” Remember, you are a guest (albeit a welcome one) over here, try to use some manners. I think you would be surprised how receptive people would be.

More indignation. You can’t have both arguments; welcome guest; how dare I have a different opinion. As to the Church Fathers, you’re more than welcome to raise some real points and discuss them with me. I expect you’ll say “What’s the point?” or you don’t have enough time. Every time someone’s been willing to discuss evidence so have I!

You’re right I believe you’re wrong about the Church Fathers. However you feeling indignant about that is not an argument. I’ve got to enormoursly great lengths to construct arguments for why I believe what I believe, even finding web-references so you(pl.) can check out the resources yourselves. I am still here on this forum and would more than welcome further discussion on this. But alas for the past few days I’ve had one person making a “God’s Justice” argument then claiming he’s not, and you saying how dare I be critical of so welcoming and wonderful a church. That’s two not-on-topic arguments and I still don’t ‘ignore’ you. Yes, I am confident of my position. I have yet to be graced with the deal of humility that you think I need exhibit, nor that which I should.

My pleasure. If only you would take it.

Free advice worth every penny.