Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damo73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see that you quote Robert Sungenis. As a layman his writings have no value for doctrine in the Catholic Church but even worse, Catholics in the Eastern Christianity section have labelled him a heretic for some of his views. Does he have the approval of the Magisterium?
 
Universally the Bishops can’t (that’s why Eastern Orthodox can agree on a simple thing like the canon)
You will find that the Catholic Church has never been rigid about the biblical canon. Even at the time of the schism in 1054 AD the Eastern Catholics had a slightly different canon to the Western Catholics. It had never bothered the Pope of Rome nor the Patriarchs.

Despite the list attributed (wrongly) to Pope Damasus, the Western canon tended to wobble around a bit over the centuries. You will find that books such as Esdras 4, the Book of Manasseh and Maccabees 4 are included in the Vulgate prior to the Roman Church’s publication of the 16th century Clementine Vulgate. Esdras itself was only removed from the official Roman Bible (the Clementine) when it was replaced by the Nova Vulgata in 1979 by Pope John Paul II.

Believe it or not, but the canon of the Old Testament in the history of the Roman Catholic Church is not as rock solid as most Roman Catholics these days imagine. Books have been dropped over the centuries but this tends to be glossed over today. People just do not know.
 
Fr Ambrose;1717773]I see that you quote Robert Sungenis. As a layman his writings have no value for doctrine in the Catholic Church but even worse,
Are you having problems with Scripture? Mt 16:19 and 18:18 in the Greek are VERY explicit Fr. Ambrose.

So does that mean you are going to defame his name like Mark Bonocore? Really Fr. and you want me to trust you on the patristics? Who are you to say a layman has “no value” for doctrine?
Robert Sungenis is an outstanding apologist and even though he apparently has a few views that are in question, he nevertheless is in full communion with the Catholic Church. I’ve talked to him on several occasions and he is a very charitable and intelligent man. I quote the book “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” which quotes Sungenis who also contributed to the book. You should read it…it would perhaps do you some good.
Catholics in the Eastern Christianity section have labelled him a heretic for some of his views. Does he have the approval of the Magisterium?
I don’t engage in gossip, maybe you like to gossip but PLEASE LEAVE ME OUT!! Gossip is what we Catholics call SIN. Sungenis as far as I know follows the dogmas of the Church that’s all I know.
 
[Fr Ambrose;1717791]You will find that the Catholic Church has never been rigid about the biblical canon. Even at the time of the schism in 1054 AD the Eastern Catholics had a slightly different canon to the Western Catholics. It had never bothered the Pope of Rome nor the Patriarchs.
Check the council of Trent April 28, 1564 that’s where they formally dogmatized the canon which had first been cited as a whole by the council of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus and the full list of the council of Rome can be found here…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
Despite the list attributed (wrongly) to Pope Damasus, the Western canon tended to wobble around a bit over the centuries. You will find that books such as Esdras 4, the Book of Manasseh and Maccabees 4 are included in the Vulgate prior to the Roman Church’s publication of the 16th century Clementine Vulgate. Esdras itself was only removed from the official Roman Bible (the Clementine) when it was replaced by the Nova Vulgata in 1979 by Pope John Paul II.
You’ve said this before it’s not even an argument. Trent merely dogmatized what the council of Rome first cited.
Believe it or not, but the canon of the Old Testament in the history of the Roman Catholic Church is not as rock solid as most Roman Catholics these days imagine. Books have been dropped over the centuries but this tends to be glossed over today. People just do not know.
Sorry,I don’t agree with your a-historical views.
 
I don’t engage in gossip, maybe you like to gossip but PLEASE LEAVE ME OUT!! Gossip is what we Catholics call SIN. Sungenis as far as I know follows the dogmas of the Church that’s all I know.
I am not engaging in gossip. Sungenis comes under strong criticism from other Catholic apologists on several issues. For example, the revered James Likoudis, founder of Catholics United for the Faith, takes Sungenis to task for denouncing Pope John Paul and publically questioning the Pope’s orthodoxy. See tcrnews2.com/LikoudisSungenis.html

So it would seem that if I criticise Sungenis you call it "gossip.’ What do you call it when Sungenis criticises the Pope?? Is that not a sin in your book?
 
Check the council of Trent April 28, 1564 that’s where they formally dogmatized the canon which had first been cited as a whole by the council of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus and the full list of the council of Rome can be found here…
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
The canon of the Council of Rome was never strictly adhered to by Rome.

For example, when Trent made its determination on the canonical books, the Catholic Bible of the 16th century included 3 and 4 Esdras in the text of the Bible as perfectly canonical and inspired scripture. It also included the very short Book of Nehemiah. And it had included these books in the Bible for the past 1000 years. After Trent the revised Clementine Bible was published and these books were removed from the body of the Bible and placed in an appendix.

At one time even Psalm 151 was included in the Latin Vulgate.

See
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1623769&postcount=462

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1627184&postcount=485

(There may be other posts addressing this?)
 
My opinion would be that Matthew 18:18 does not speak of the apostles individually, but collectively.
I agree, how’s this lessen it in terms of power? Where does Jesus say “I give you these powers only in accordance to Peter?”

Am I saved ‘less’ than Peter because Jesus spoke to him in particular, and the rest of humanity in general?
This may have a direct reference to the words directed to Peter “upon this rock I will build my Church.” Therefore the Church, collectively speaking,as a unity, does indeed,have in possession, the keys, which have been given to Peter… the foundation upon which the Church has been built.
Andre
How do you know this? I’ve cited Church Fathers who say that they all got the keys, but you seem to think there’s two classes of ‘power’ granted here. What proofs do you have?
 
You do this perpetually, you see a few words and assume something that isn’t at all there. “Equal honour” does NOT mean “equal authority” does it? Both Peter and John were Bishops therefore both receive “equal” honour,
You do this all the time, you don’t engage in what is said. All you wish to do here is offer supposition. By what basis have you determined that there’s two different classes of ‘honour’ here?

Please offer more than your suppose so
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.
Another one of yours again! Simply pretending that I support that Peter was the head of the Apostles. I don’t say this at all. But you have done this so many times that it can’t be an accident.
This is a typical stretch you make when you quote the fathers, you read where a Church father says all Bishops are equal, so what? Of course they ARE!! They are all Bishops. But one Bishop stands out because he has a “kind of primacy” Peter=Rock=Kepha.
And another of yours - which you’ve still not addressed. All Catholic bishops are not equal! That’s false. Many posts ago I cited your Catechism which shows the Pope can interfere. He’s a super-bishop.

So in summary you offer supposition, you misrepresent what I say, and you repeat a falsity about Catholic bishops, having avoided dealing with the evidence I cited from the Catechism.
 
I don’t engage in gossip
Yet you’re quite happy to continue to re-work what I’ve said; pretending that I believed Peter was head of the Apostles.

I note too that you’ve dropped your objections to Schaff, without acknowledging you were wrong by quoting a loony site.

I also note you continue to avoid engaging the evidence I put to you re: bishops in the Catholic church, but are more than happy to go on stating that in the RC Church all bishops are equal.

One can almost see you reaching for the legal fiction that as a ‘bishop’ (or Rome) the pope is equal to the other bishops, which was the same lie the emperor Augustine used when he debated in the Senate as another ‘mere’ senator.
 
The canon of the Council of Rome was never strictly adhered to by Rome.
What about the Prayer of Manasses? It got moved to an Appendix in the Clementine version, and then dropped after Vatican II; from the Nova Vulgata.

Who uses the The Stuttgart Vulgate, by the way?

Also Vatican II got rid of a number of saints (Saint Ursula)*, or just removed some from the Universal Calendar of Saints (such as Saint Christopher) (see below). First they perform miracles, then they don’t exist!

If you want other differences within the church there’s the eastern Catholics who say the Nicene Creed sans addtion (filioque; if I can mix French with Latin in an sentence), and the western Catholics who say the Nicene with the filioque.
Today the story of Saint Ursula is overwhelmingly considered to be fiction, and as a result in 1969 Pope Paul VI suppressed her cult as part of a larger revision of the Catholic canon of saints.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Ursula
NB
this is not the same Ursula as Julia Maria Ledóchowska

Also of interest is a Catholic feast day for someone not a saint…
Hildegard of Bingen
…
Hildegard was one of the first saints for which the canonization process was officially applied, but the process took so long that all four attempts at canonization (the last was in 1244, under Pope Innocent IV) were not completed, and remained at her beatification. However, she was already called a saint by the people before the canonization attempts. As a result of the long-standing devotion of the people to Hildegard, her name was taken up in the Roman martyrology at the end of the 16th century without a formal canonization process, earning her the title of saint. Her feast day is September 17.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Hildegard_of_Bingen
AND
moving about a bit…
The Fourteen Holy Helpers
…
While each has a separate feast day, the Fourteen Holy Helpers are honored together on August 8. Barbara, Catherine of Alexandria, Christopher, and Margaret of Antioch were dropped from the list of saints for universal veneration in the reform of the Roman Catholic liturgy in 1969 by Pope Paul VI. In 2004, Pope John Paul II reinstated the Feast of St Catherine of Alexandria, the voice to St. Joan of Arc, as an optional memorial on November 25.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Holy_Helpers
 
Compare the first passage
Matthew 16:19
I [Jesus] 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."
with the second…
Matthew 18:18"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." It shows all the Apostles being made equal.

All you need do is show how these two passages mean two distinct powers/rights of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’
I highlighted and underlined the difference for you, which is the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” That’s the difference
 
[Montalban;1717991]
Another one of yours again! Simply pretending that I support that Peter was the head of the Apostles. I don’t say this at all. But you have done this so many times that it can’t be an accident.
I’ve always tried to clarify your position that you DON’T. And I have absolutely no guilt because there is and was NO sin. I’ve always tried to clarify that you don’t support the papacy. But if you want to think that then that’s your perogative; interestingly, you did say that Rome has “a kind of supremacy”
Rome has a kind of ‘supremacy’ because it is Apostolic (note it has ‘an’ apostolic chair, not ‘the’ apostolic chair)
What “kind” of supremacy does Rome have?
 
You don’t know that none of the others do. All you know is that he addressed one letter to the Romans in that manner. The only questions you put therefore come from
a) you assuming that this is so
and
b) ignoring earlier when I posted the introductions he gives to each of the churches he wrote to. They all differ. He also addresses Polycarp as having none above him but Jesus. But sure, some may want to re-construct his writing to only look at Romans.
One could just as easily look at one of these greetings in isolation and note…

  1. *]Ignatius wrote 6 letters. Only to the Church of Rome did he use presidency. Can you point to any Church father who says these other Churches hold the presidency along with the Church of Rome?
    *]With exception to the letter to the Romans, all the other greetings were remarkably short.
    40.png
    montalban:
    to the Ephesians

    Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plenitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

    This is an eastern church therefore he’s predicting that it will never waiver from the glory of God.
    Where is this Church today? Compare it to the Church of Rome 1900 years later…
    40.png
    montalban:
    this is the worst of your assumptions. It was in fact not novel that each of those bishoprics was the ‘head’ of the churches in its region. Again I note you’ve ignore the evidence I cited re: the other greetings to other regional churches.
    Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ, which is in Philadelphia of Asia, which hath found mercy and is firmly established in the concord of God and rejoiceth in the passion of our Lord and in His resurrection without wavering, being fully assured in all mercy; which church I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, that is eternal and abiding joy; more especially if they be at one with the bishop and the presbyters who are with him, and with the deacons that have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom after His own will He confirmed and established by His Holy Spirit.
    IGNATIUS to the Philadelphians
    What of this Church today? What of the Church of Rome?
    40.png
    montalban:
    In essence it is no different than praising any of the other churches such as
    “The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from whence also I write to you. They are here with me for the glory of God, as also are ye; and they have comforted me in all things, together with Polycarp bishop of the Smyrnaeans. Yea, and all the other churches salute you in the honour of Jesus Christ. Fare ye well in godly concord, and possess ye a stedfast spirit, which is Jesus Christ.”
    IGNATIUS
    Epistle to the Magnesians, 15:1
    One could, if one so desired look to this in isolation and make the most of the fact he says ALL churches salute their church.
    Or that in 10:2 of his Epistle to the Romans he notes that they’ve taken instructions
    Apart from Rome, what of these other Churches today? They are in Turkey which is 99.9% muslim. Your assumptions don’t work.
 
You don’t know that none of the others do. All you know is that he addressed one letter to the Romans in that manner. The only questions you put therefore come from
a) you assuming that this is so
and
b) ignoring earlier when I posted the introductions he gives to each of the churches he wrote to. They all differ. He also addresses Polycarp as having none above him but Jesus. But sure, some may want to re-construct his writing to only look at Romans.
One could just as easily look at one of these greetings in isolation and note…

  1. *]Ignatius wrote 6 letters. Only to the Church of Rome did he use presidency. Can you point to any Church father who says these other Churches hold the presidency along with the Church of Rome?
    *]With exception to the letter to the Romans, all the other greetings were remarkably short.
    40.png
    montalban:
    to the Ephesians

    Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plenitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

    This is an eastern church therefore he’s predicting that it will never waiver from the glory of God.
    Where is this Church today?
    40.png
    montalban:
    this is the worst of your assumptions. It was in fact not novel that each of those bishoprics was the ‘head’ of the churches in its region. Again I note you’ve ignore the evidence I cited re: the other greetings to other regional churches.
    Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ, which is in Philadelphia of Asia, which hath found mercy and is firmly established in the concord of God and rejoiceth in the passion of our Lord and in His resurrection without wavering, being fully assured in all mercy; which church I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, that is eternal and abiding joy; more especially if they be at one with the bishop and the presbyters who are with him, and with the deacons that have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom after His own will He confirmed and established by His Holy Spirit.
    IGNATIUS to the Philadelphians
    Where is this Church today?
    40.png
    montalban:
    In essence it is no different than praising any of the other churches such as
    “The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from whence also I write to you. They are here with me for the glory of God, as also are ye; and they have comforted me in all things, together with Polycarp bishop of the Smyrnaeans. Yea, and all the other churches salute you in the honour of Jesus Christ. Fare ye well in godly concord, and possess ye a stedfast spirit, which is Jesus Christ.”
    IGNATIUS
    Epistle to the Magnesians, 15:1
    One could, if one so desired look to this in isolation and make the most of the fact he says ALL churches salute their church.
    Or that in 10:2 of his Epistle to the Romans he notes that they’ve taken instructions
    Where are these other Churches today? Where is the Church of Rome? Your polemic doesn’t work.
 
The only one making a ‘special point’ is you. He notes all churches are equal. But you hone in on the one occasion he uses one term to think that this means that it’s the president church of all of Christendom.
Of the Churches he writes to how many are still here 1900 years later?
40.png
montalban:
Elsewhere as you point out, he makes a blanket statement about all churches; that they’re headed by a bishop.
If they are all equal, why even bring up the term presidency?
40.png
montalban:
So if you want to take this phrase in isolation as you have done, and ignore all the other Epistles where he praises other places, and ignore these works when he calls on all to submit to each other, and where he notes every church headed by a bishop is complete, then you’ve got a case.
I take the phrase and apply it to 2000 years of history. Not to a moment of time when he penned those 6 letters. The other 5 Churches aren’t there anymore. The Church of Rome is. And as St Paul said in HIS letter to the Church of Rome, your faith has been heard around the world, and Satan will be crushed under your feet.
 
Others have chosen to make light of this. Take Smyrna for example. 1922 the various allied powers, including America had naval vessels that sat idly by whilst the Turks were destroying the last vestiges of the Christian community there.

Perhaps you think that this is a sign of God’s justice? (Like 1204 or 1453?)
Re: Smyrna i.e.
  • Lzmir (today), was conquored by the muslims around 1026. Are you gonna blame the allied forces and America for THAT?
    Re: God’s justice,
  • I personally haven’t ever used that argument for this.
  • I prefer in this case to focus on the promises of God. He sets apart a leader, He changes his name to Peter, says He will build His Church on Peter, and not even the gates of Hell will prevail against it. I can either take that promise to the bank, or else all the other promises are suspect.
  • And we ought to be able to see this promise played out in history.
40.png
montalban:
I’m sure that the spread of Christianity by Catholic Spain in South America proves God’s smiling upon their methods?

I don’t think you can make an argument along the lines that God approves of the church that’s the most ‘powerful’.
The Blessed Mother (patroness of the Americas) appeared as a pregnant young woman to Juan Diego, to make a point concerning all the child sacrifices the Aztec Indians were performing to their gods. In one 4 day period, in dedication for a temple, 80,000 captive men women, and children were sacrificed to their gods by the Aztecs. Long story made short, 9 million Indians converted to Catholicism. It was the biggest single conversion EVER to the Catholic Church!!! Way to go mom 👍 The feast is Dec 12.

sancta.org/
 
I agree, how’s this lessen it in terms of power? Where does Jesus say “I give you these powers only in accordance to Peter?”
My point would be that the Church, being Christ’s Body, is one in unity. However, because of our lack of faith (Ye of little faith) division exists where there ought not to be. In other words, if we had within our hearts the True Faith, there would be no need for any Peter,or Pope, or Bishop, as we would be equal to these. Since our faith is weak,physical signs are given in order for us to keep the true Faith. Such signs express unity by being themselves unit elements.
The bishop is an example…Ignatius wrote that only one Bishop is found in a local Church and through him, is found the Church’s unity.

**IGNATIUS to the Philadelphians

CHAPTER 4
4:1 Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist
(for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and
one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar,
as there is one bishop…

IGNATIUS to the Trallians
2:2 It is therefore necessary, even as your wont is,
that ye should do nothing without the bishop;**

But, why was it neccessary to have only one bishop in every local church as oppose to several, if it were not to identify the unity within the church?
Now, what if the bishop entertained a certain teaching which is contrary to the Catholic Church, such as was found by one of Ignatius’ successor, Paul of Samosata? Since Paul was not in unity with The Catholic Church in teachings concerning the nature of Jesus, he was to be deposed, and replaced.
Therefore, the local bishop must be only a representative of **something else **which truly must be considered the true source of unity, according to it’s sanctified nature.
The question would be what source of unity is at least hinted among the early christian writers? The only thing I can think of would be the church of Rome.

Ireneaus Book III
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.

I understand this to mean “the faithfull everywhere”, that is, every church are preserving the apostolical tradition continuously by following the teachings of Rome.
Now, certainly, he continues and speak of all the ancient churches built by apostles hold also the correct doctrines, however, it seems, that Rome for certain reasons is the one that every church ought to agree with, if there are some dispute
concerning a certain teaching.
Am I saved ‘less’ than Peter because Jesus spoke to him in particular, and the rest of humanity in general?
No; the gift of Salvation is for all;and how one will be rewarded is up to Christ…and I put trust in His judgement ;). Notice that Jesus revealed Himself to all of His apostles after He had risen from among the dead. He then said to Thomas “more blessed is he/she who believes yet do not see”. Therefore, the apostles (including Peter) are not “more blessed” because they have received direct revelations from Christ.
Also, if you look at post # 732,you will see that I do not view Peter as a man, but a Holy Office.
How do you know this? I’ve cited Church Fathers who say that they all got the keys, but you seem to think there’s two classes of ‘power’ granted here. What proofs do you have?
Again, I believe the Church, as One, has the keys…this means you and I as well. “If” our faith (yours and mine) were perfect, we would naturally be led by the Holy Spirit into all Truths…and I personally believe this will one Day happen.
But until then, we need a source where the truth is taught. I have Catholic priests and a local bishop. However, these days, I must say, they are not always in agreement with Rome…so who am I to listen to…them or the teachings coming from Rome?

Andre
 
Others have chosen to make light of this. Take Smyrna for example. 1922 the various allied powers, including America had naval vessels that sat idly by whilst the Turks were destroying the last vestiges of the Christian community there.

Perhaps you think that this is a sign of God’s justice? (Like 1204 or 1453?)
Re: Smyrna i.e.
  • Lzmir (today), was conquored by the muslims around 1026. Are you gonna blame the allied forces and America for THAT?
    Re: God’s justice,
  • I personally haven’t ever used that argument for this.
  • I prefer in this case to focus on the promises of God. He sets apart a leader, He changes his name to Peter, says He will build His Church on Peter, and not even the gates of Hell will prevail against it. I can either take that promise to the bank, or else all the other promises are suspect.
  • And we ought to be able to see this promise played out in history.
40.png
montalban:
I’m sure that the spread of Christianity by Catholic Spain in South America proves God’s smiling upon their methods?

I don’t think you can make an argument along the lines that God approves of the church that’s the most ‘powerful’.
The Blessed Mother (patroness of the Americas) appeared as a pregnant young woman to Juan Diego, to make a point concerning all the child sacrifices the Aztec Indians were performing to their gods. In one 4 day period, in dedication for a temple, 80,000 captive men women, and children were sacrificed to their gods by the Aztecs. Long story made short, 9 million Indians in Mexico converted to Catholicism. It was the biggest single conversion EVER to the Catholic Church!!! Way to go mom 👍 The feast is Dec 12. Tomorrow is the feast of the Immaculate Conception. 🙂

sancta.org/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top