Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[NotWorthy]

Excepting if Peter made this ruling then Paul & co’s testimony that followed it would be superfluous.

Where did Paul over-ride this Council? From memory he rebuked Peter for going against what was agreed to

Didn’t Paul later revoke the eating stipulations that James instituted? I, too, am going by memory and I’m tired.

Yes, I know. When Peter speaks, you thin that’s the end of the matter, even though Paul then gives testimony and every one is silent as he speaks, and then James uses words like “It is my decision” This to you means “It is your decision”

A problem with possessive pronouns? What’s your’s is mine?

Paul gives testimony? Paul merely tells of the wonders that are happening among the gentiles through the Apostles. He’s not arguing anything against what Peter has declared.

It’s also interestng, James doesn’t simply say, “It is my decision”, does he? He says, “Peter has spoken… His words agree with the prophets… it is my judgement, therefore.…”. It sounds like James is basing his decision on Peter’s words, after weighing them with Scriptures.

Anyway, I find interesting that the RC Church claims that there’s been no change to the position of Pope.
Referring to the first Vatican Council the Pope said “Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).”
Pope Leo XIII
Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church)
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1896
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13SATIS.HTM

Although the Papacy has developed throughout the centuries, we see evidence of the authority in every century beginning with Clement in the first.

The modern idea of the Papacy however is absent from the writings of Ignatius. This man sees that there’s no one above bishop. He makes this explicit too.

Except for that little “presidency” issue. You haven’t convinced Bishopite or myself of anything to the contrary.

Many Catholics also use as support the all too ‘neat’ phrase attributed to Augustine “Roma lecuta est; causa finita est.” (“Rome has spoken; the case is closed.”) This is supposed to be from Sermon 131:10. One apologist site* actually agrees that this is NOT a quote, but tries to suggest that it sums up the spirit of Augustine’s sermon.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

You might want to read that web-page again. Here’s what it says:

**ames White, ** the Reformed Baptist apologist and anti-Catholic critic, wrote an article for his web site (apparently in response at least partly to this one) attacking the credibility of Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating and Steve Ray for their use of the common saying from St. Augustine: "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." While no one needs my defense (their books, research, scholarship, and integrity speak for themselves), I thought I would make some comment on White’s article. First, that this is an accurate summary (though not a direct quotation) of St. Augustine’s words is admitted in the notes of the Protestant edition of the Church Fathers (edited by Philip Schaff, among others): “Hence the famous words: ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est,’ which is often quoted as an argument for the modern Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. But it is not found in this form, though we may admit it is an epigrammatic condensation of sentences of Augustine. The nearest approach to it is in his Sermon CXXXI [131]…” (NPNF Series 1, Volume 1, page 21)

 

[Bishopite]

Excepting if Peter made this ruling then Paul & co’s testimony that followed it would be superfluous.

Where did Paul over-ride this Council? From memory he rebuked Peter for going against what was agreed to

Yes, I know. When Peter speaks, you thin that’s the end of the matter, even though Paul then gives testimony and every one is silent as he speaks, and then James uses words like “It is my decision” This to you means “It is your decision”

A problem with possessive pronouns? What’s your’s is mine?

Anyway, I find interesting that the RC Church claims that there’s been no change to the position of Pope.
Referring to the first Vatican Council the Pope said “Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).”
Pope Leo XIII
Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church)
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1896
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13SATIS.HTM

The modern idea of the Papacy however is absent from the writings of Ignatius. This man sees that there’s no one above bishop. He makes this explicit too.

You don’t accept a development of the papacy because you reject it outright. Catholicism has a much more developed theology than Eastern Orthodox e.g., no unity on the canon?
A more developed Church may look different to others but it is the same Church; you Montalban looked different as an infant as apposed to now as an adult, yet as an infant or adult you are the same person. That is why the “office” of the papacy looks different in the early Church and Christianity also, yet both are the same, just grown up.

Many Catholics also use as support the all too ‘neat’ phrase attributed to Augustine “Roma lecuta est; causa finita est.” (“Rome has spoken; the case is closed.”) This is supposed to be from Sermon 131:10. One apologist site* actually agrees that this is NOT a quote, but tries to suggest that it sums up the spirit of Augustine’s sermon.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

Yes, you are correct. I have tried to find it in the past and haven’t and have been told by a reliable source that it doesn’t exist. Also Luther’s supposed analogy quote of the snow covered dung hill doesn’t exist either although, metaphorically it would match his view of justification and imputed righteousness.

Also, earlier I asked you if www.ccel.org was an Eastern Orthodox site? Well it’s not, it’s from Calvin College who has Phillip Schaff’s translations of the Early Church fathers, at least the web site I read made this claim. They claim that Schaff’s translations are wrong and is based on the same “corrupt” texts as was the NIV (New International Version Bible translation). The NIV does have a few problems, one being the word Tradition (paradosis) where they only use the word Tradition when it speaks in the negative i.e., Mt 15, and when Tradition is used in the positive ,2 Thes 2:15, they use “teachings.” I have the NIV copy and others so this is true about the NIV. Anyway, don’t get me wrong I’m NOT saying the www.ccel.org translation of the early Church fathers is good or bad, I don’t actually know since I don’t well enough know Greek or Latin.
And I’ll warn you, this site is very anti-Eastern Orthodox and of course anti-Catholic for sure, but if you want to read it yourself here is the link…
exorthodoxforchrist.com/criteria_-_eoc.htm

 

[Montalban]

Ahhhh, and here I thought they complained about Victor’s wisdom in doing this, not his authority to do so. Oh well…

It says why they rebuked him.

Yes, and I thought “universal bishop” implied one bishop (with no need for other bishops), instead of many bishops (with one bishop to resolve disputes and further the teachings of the Church).

This has been a long thread, though…

Universal Bishop is the idea of the Pope having special functions throughout the church, for he’s the only bishop who can interfere in all other bishoprics, and as odd as it might sound can function without all other bishops, because they only hold their power from him, not he from them

 

[Montalban]

Not Worthy:

Paul gives testimony? Paul merely tells of the wonders that are happening among the gentiles through the Apostles. He’s not arguing anything against what Peter has declared.

I agree he’s not arguing against what Peter said. The whole reason for the council is because Paul wanted a matter settled. He offers testimony in support of a position that is the same as Peter’s. The very point is is that if Peter made a declaration his speaking after-wards is totally superflouous. It goes to the “Rome has spoken; that is the end of the matter” idea. For in this case Peter spoke, but Paul and his collegue had still to speak. Then James speaks. All hadn’t stopped the moment Peter makes his prononucement.
Not Worthy:

It’s also interestng, James doesn’t simply say, “It is my decision”, does he? He says, “Peter has spoken… His words agree with the prophets… it is my judgement, therefore…”. It sounds like James is basing his decision on Peter’s words, after weighing them with Scriptures.

It is still James’ decision. The very fact that he doesn’t just say “Peter has spoken” and that’s the end, he’s putting Peter’s words in context as why he’s in agreement. He’s putting Peter in the context of other people. He should have said (for your version) (if he were to speak at all) “Peter has spoken, that is the end of the matter”
Not Worthy:

Although the Papacy has developed throughout the centuries, we see evidence of the authority in every century beginning with Clement in the first.

I noted over the course of time some sites that mis-quote the east as ‘supporting’ Peter the Rock (rock; as believed by the modern RC Church).
I am aware of several Catholic sites that use Holy Fathers out of context…
catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp
globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
This last list itself is linked from a vast number of sites:
geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html
ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS4.HTM
catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html
jloughnan.tripod.com/the_rock.htm
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=239960
srv1.ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ206.HTM
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

I’ve dealt with specific claims throughout this thread. Thus the ‘evidence’ isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. You’re more than welcome to deal with any of these specific counter-claims I made.
Not Worthy:

Except for that little “presidency” issue. You haven’t convinced Bishopite or myself of anything to the contrary.

I know, simply because you both wish to concentrate on one verse, and apply your own modern notions of ‘president’. If you wish to deal with the other evidence from Ignatius re: bishops being the boss, you’re more than welcome.
Not Worthy:

You might want to read that web-page again.

I did indeed read that. You assume because I hadn’t quoted it I hadn’t read it.
This ‘admission’ seems only to be known to Catholics. (Google it and you only find it on ‘bringtoyou’ web-site), not for example the CCEL site that contains the ‘source’ of Schaff quotes.

However you really should note that Catholic apologist sites continue to pass it off as a quote.

 

[Montalban]

Here’s a Catholic web-site quoting the Sermon…
Sermon CXXXI
10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. "They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge."What is, “not according to knowledge”? "For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When you find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.
americancatholictruthsociety.com/aug131.htm
The issue here is not “Rome alone has spoken” but the African See and the Church in Rome have spoken. To settle such matters two neighbouring churches would decide. That is the ‘finality’ of Rome’s judgment. Africa has spoken. Rome too now has spoken.

However Augustine also notes when they are not to appeal beyond Africa.
Canon CXXV.
(Greek cxxvi.) That presbyters and clerics are not to appeal except to African Synods.
Item, it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighbouring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops, shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoso shall think of carrying an appeal across seas he shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa.
The Canons of the CCXVII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled at Carthage.
Commonly Called the Code of Canons of the African Church.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-146.htm#P9789_1812531

Rome has no place to ‘speak’ here. In fact Rome might be in error!

Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed."
Letter XLIII
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-01/npnf1-01-23.htm#P3273_1296667

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Phew! Cannot believe that this thread is still running!

Did you know that the letter to Pope Damasus attributed to Saint Jerome and supporting papal primacy seems to be a bit of a fake?!

See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore
and
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I
[Spurious] "Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. 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! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist. "

 

[Montalban]

Phew! Cannot believe that this thread is still running!

Did you know that the letter to Pope Damasus attributed to Saint Jerome and supporting papal primacy seems to be a bit of a fake?!

Eek, indeed
The number of times that these sites take Fathers out of context is amazing. That some still continue to pretend the words attributed to Augustine are a ‘quote’ is to be a reflection of the strength of their case; like the Donation of Constantine - still used well after it was know as a forgery.

And here we have it again with Augustine. Augustine is in fact saying “We’ve spoken, and now has Rome; that is the end of the matter”. Which is not to say Rome has spoken, but that a second church (which happens to be Rome) has spoken. Else why’d he oppose people from his own church appealing to popes in Rome? (Because they had no authority over such matters in his church).

But I don’t wish to be getting away from Ignatius. Sure he refers to Rome as the president in that country. Does he mean “To the church that is president (over all other churches) that resides in Rome”? No. If you take his words out of context you might come to that conclusion, but every where else he is consistent is saying that the local bishop is the head of his own church. There is no more church beyond the bishop. There’s no super-bishop between Jesus and each local church. There’s not church that’s a church only because of its relation to Rome.

Again, if people wish to believe in the Papacy, that’s fine for them, but it’s a notion foreign to the early church.

Peter may be ‘the rock’ but he’s not the only one.

 

[Bishopite]

Phew! Cannot believe that this thread is still running!

Did you know that the letter to Pope Damasus attributed to Saint Jerome and supporting papal primacy seems to be a bit of a fake?!

See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore
and

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I[Spurious] "Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. 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! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist. "

The article says it “seems” to be a spurious document, so it may be or it may not be. I’ve read many posts that claim the papacy was created/invented; ironic that even Wikipedia acknowledges the existance of a pope in the early Church. Interestingly in the very same Wikipedia article you posted it says this about St. Jerome and Pope Damasus

“There [in Contantinople] he [Jerome] seems to have spent two years; the next three (382-385) he was in Rome again, in close intercourse with Pope Damasus and the leading Roman Christians. Invited there originally to the synod of 382 held for the purpose of ending the schism of Antioch, he made himself indispensable to the pope, and took a prominent place in his councils.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

Gosh it does say Jerome “made himself indispensable to the pope,”
Fr. Ambrose you should alert www.Catholic.com (Catholic Answers) immediately about their apparent “spurious” quote from Jerome.
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

Oh well, at least we have Augustine…

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *5 [A.D. 397]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (*Sermons *131:10 [A.D. 411]).
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

 

[Montalban]

It saddens me when one person won’t answer my questions now decides to ignore facts I present. Thus I see a sermon presented (by one who quote-mines) that I had already dealt with. At least this time the source is credited!

As to the following…
“There are many other things which most rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consensus of peoples and nations keeps me, authority established by miracles, nourished on hope, increased by charity, made stable by antiquity keeps me, the succession of the priesthood, from the very see of Peter the Apostle to whom the Lord commended the care of His sheep after His resurrection up to the present pontificate keeps me, finally the very name Catholic keeps me, for it is not without reason that among so many heresies only this Church obtains it, so that even though all heretics want to call themselves “catholic,” nevertheless when some visitor to a city asks ‘Where is the Catholic Church?’ no heretic would dare show him his own basilica or meeting house . . . Should you meet someone who does not yet believe the Gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say ‘I do not believe’? For my part I would not believe the Gospel, except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Letter of Mani called “Fundamental,” 4-5, A.D. 397).

No one denies that Peter was given to feed the sheep. Why is it that so many things keep him Catholic, and he lists the ‘consent of the people’ first? I would like to see the piece in a more fuller context. I suspect he is no more then repeating the theme of Irenaus in Against Heresies, 3:3-4.

As to ‘chair’ of Rome…
“…who could afford to disregard even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished…,”
Letter XLIII.3.7
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-01/npnf1-01-23.htm#TopOfPage
Rome has a kind of ‘supremacy’ because it is Apostolic (note it has ‘an’ apostolic chair, not ‘the’ apostolic chair)

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1710291]It saddens me when one person won’t answer my questions now decides to ignore facts I present. Thus I see a sermon presented (by one who quote-mines) that I had already dealt with. At least this time the source is credited!

Ironic how you use the words quote-mines in such a pejorative way, yet I’m simply quoting the very website that runs these forums (Catholic Answers) as you use their forums. Perhaps you could ask them why they use quote-mines? www.catholic.com

No one denies that Peter was given to feed the sheep. Why is it that so many things keep him Catholic, and he lists the ‘consent of the people’ first? I would like to see the piece in a more fuller context. I suspect he is no more then repeating the theme of Irenaus in Against Heresies, 3:3-4.

Can’t you see the writing on the wall brother? Jesus says only to Peter…feed my sheep, three times…and who feeds sheep? A shepard. Peter shepards the whole flock.

As to ‘chair’ of Rome…
“…who could afford to disregard even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished…,”
Letter XLIII.3.7
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-01/npnf1-01-23.htm#TopOfPage
Rome has a kind of ‘supremacy’ because it is Apostolic (note it has ‘an’ apostolic chair, not ‘the’ apostolic chair)

Yes…Rome has a “kind of ‘supremacy’” thank you for acknowledging that, finally you can see the light, well, just a little

Don’t worry I’m NOT accusing you of supporting the idea of a Pope or as you call it, a “super-bishop.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The article says it “seems” to be a spurious document, so it may be or it may not be.

No, the article does not say “seems.” It simply says it is spurious.

"A section from a spurious letter purporting to be from Jerome to Pope Damasus is at the entry Pope Damasus I. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr. Ambrose you should alert www.Catholic.com (Catholic Answers) immediately about their apparent “spurious” quote from Jerome.
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

There is so much that is wrong with some of the quotes on that website that it is difficult to know where to begin to correct it. I’ve addressed some of the misuse of some of the quotes in earlier posts.

One of the worst examples is the truncated and mangled version of the quote attributed to Saint Gregory of Rome writing to the Pope of Alexandria Eulogius. This quote has been so distorted that it is honestly very difficult not to suspect the author guilty of the intention to be deceptive. (Of course he may have simply taken the quote from another unscrupulous article, in good faith.)

Here is what Pope Gregory actually wrote. Compare it with the version on that website.

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors… I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair… holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19)… though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.
For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside …

Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop

Do you see that phrases which have been cunningly ommited in the webpage you reference - the sections where the Pope says that Rome and the other two Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria are equal.

For example, this has been cut out:
“…with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.”

And this has been cut out:
“Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside…”

The distortion of this quote on www.catholic.com is very bad scholarship and does the site no credit.

 

[Bishopite]

No, the article does not say “seems.” It simply says it is spurious.

"A section from a spurious letter purporting to be from Jerome to Pope Damasus is at the entry Pope Damasus I. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore

Yep, you are correct Fr. Ambrose and I was wrong, it is spurious, so says… newadvent.org/cathen/02466a.htm

Hey, even Montalban’s favorite patristic site translated by Protestant Phillip Schaff, (who was no supporter of the papacy) says so

ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.v.lxxiv.htm

Wow, you know it’s amazing how one spurious letter means that the papacy is false even though there is SO much evidence that proves otherwise

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Wow, you know it’s amazing how one spurious letter means that the papacy is false even though there is SO much evidence that proves otherwise

Above and beyond all the quotes which we can bring forth either pro or contra, there is the Canon law of the Church which in a sense supercedes them all.

Canon law is definitive.

It speaks volumes about the reality of the Church’s structure. It tells us of the Church’s self-perception.

See how the first Ecumenical Council of 325 AD limits the jurisdiction of Rome, and Alexandria and Antioch (the three Petrine Sees) to their respective territories. The ecclesiology is pretty clear for these Councils Fathers and there is no hint of papal supremacy or papal universality.
"The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis.

"As also the Roman bishop over those as are subject to Rome.

“So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdiction over those faithful who are under them.”

Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, 325 AD

---

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Wow, you know it’s amazing how one spurious letter means that the papacy is false even though there is SO much evidence that proves otherwise

Of the 14 quotes on that website 7 of them are misquoted or misrepresented.

If there is such a great amount of evidence why is it necessary to resort to such means?

 

[Montalban]

Ironic how you use the words quote-mines in such a pejorative way, yet I’m simply quoting the very website that runs these forums (Catholic Answers) as you use their forums. Perhaps you could ask them why they use quote-mines? www.catholic.com

I have dealt with specific quotes that they have used and shown them in context. You simply re-quote what they say. Mine is an attempt to engage in debate/discussion; hoping someone might challenge what I’ve put forward. Yoursis to attempt a serious of pronouncements that requires suspension of the mind and simply to listen to your lesson… which isn’t really yours, anyway, but someone elses.

And for the record several years ago I wrote to them. Then I joined this web-site as it was felt to be the better option in engaging in an ongoing discussion

Can’t you see the writing on the wall brother? Jesus says only to Peter…feed my sheep, three times…and who feeds sheep? A Shepard. Peter shepards the whole flock.

Already dealt with. He’s not the only shepherd.

Here’s it again…
Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

(note more than one overseer of the flock!)

Even Peter exhorts others to feed the flock

1 Peter 5:2

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind

Even Pope Leo the Great stated that there are many shepherds.

Many shepherds!

“…though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.”
Even a pope recognised this!
Leo the Great “Sermon III”. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II) quoted at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-175.htm#P2769_633599

Yes…Rome has a “kind of ‘supremacy’” thank you for acknowledging that, finally you can see the light, well, just a little

This is you again ‘discovering’ something and crowing about it, when I’ve mentioned it heaps of times. Like when you post from quote mine sites as if you’re actually discovering evidence and engaging in debate.
#294 of this thread I did so.
#24
at thread “What was the point?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1485714&highlight=%22kind+primacy%22#post1485714

Don’t worry I’m NOT accusing you of supporting the idea of a Pope or as you call it, a “super-bishop.”

But you do imagine Ignatius to do so.

So in summation of your points here, rather than deal with the responses I’ve made to certain quote-mines, you simply direct me to ask someone else about them. You then suppose Peter is the only shepherd, despite evidence I’ve already raised on this matter. You then are ‘amazed’ to discover that I mention a kind of primacy, that I’ve already mentioned. Then you follow this up to make a statement about not accusing me of doing something you’re quite happy to pretend Ignatius is doing; all without actually engaging in debate on any of the evidence on that!

In even shorter form, you simply avoid discussion. Well done.

 

[Montalban]

Wow, you know it’s amazing how one spurious letter means that the papacy is false even though there is SO much evidence that proves otherwise

As Fr. Ambrose points out in his question, why’s such evidence still being used?

I for one have cited several ‘evidences’ from the quote-mines you use, and have only been engaged in discussion on but a few. See for example post #658 where Firmillian’s words are miss-used. No one wished to take that one up
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1687220&highlight=Firmilian#post1687220

The one about Ignatius which people at least have discussed is interesint in that many here use a method of defence that simply requires one to concentrate on his introduction to Romans, ignore the wider context; him being specific about the limitations of church hierarchy; & apply a modern American notion to the meaning of ‘presidency’.

There’s other examples of miss-use. For instance this site: catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp states that
“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2)."

This would seem prima facie quite convincing. However they left out a bit…
"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-95.htm#P4844_991182

That is, they welcome the teachings of Leo, because they are the truth, as are the teachings of Cyril. They are not saying ‘these are the teachings of our leader’, otherwise they wouldn’t have put Cyril on the same footing as Leo

I don’t know if you believe that this is deceptive, but I do, because not including this bit changes the whole context. It is deceptive because the quote-out-of-context would have someone believe that the council simply sung the praises of the Pope. They did more than that, singing the praises of two bishops.

 

[Montalban]

There is so much that is wrong with some of the quotes on that website that it is difficult to know where to begin to correct it. I’ve addressed some of the misuse of some of the quotes in earlier posts.

The distortion of this quote on www.catholic.com is very bad scholarship and does the site no credit.

Some three or so years ago several Catholic friends of mine offered me as ‘proofs’ of their church such web-site quote mines. I was immediately impressed but decided to check out the quotes against a wider context.

I was so sorely disappointed that I wrote to several. Of those that replied the common thread was one of indignation that I would even question the issue; most assumed I was a Protestant.

I felt that if a church uses such ‘evidence’ to support its case then its case isn’t very strong.

 

[RyanL]

Icons…
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/d/d9/180px-Iconpeter.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/17/Petersinai.jpg/180px-Petersinai.jpg



http://www.exeter-cathedral.org.uk/Icon/images/19.jpg

Ever seen an icon where someone other than St. Peter has the keys?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

(Gee - I hope I got the context of the icons correct… )