PJ, maybe the Spirit told him you were in their midst.
Somehow, I can imagine that being said about some Protestants.
I’ve done this one before, recently, but I do have my hobbies.Somehow, I can imagine that being said about some Protestants.
Remember that the first written recording of the phrase “catholic church” is from St. Ignatius of Antioch, who actually happened to be a disciple of John the Apostle, so who knows, perhaps he learned the phrase from a Johannine circle of disciples, or from the Apostle himself.
Before Oriental Orthodoxy split off after the Council of Chalcedon, the Catholic Church was pretty much the only game in town.
It really is that simple. I highly doubt Christ left a Church for people to bicker and have odd arcane disputes about this and that; I’ve always found the Catholic interpretation to be the most straightforward and direct. “This is my Body”. We take His word for it, no need to try and comprehend what “is” means in some bizarre, arcane philosophical way.
“Upon this rock I will build my Church.” We take His word for it.Understand, thank you. Another close disciple to Paul also wrote, “To those knowledgeable of the Lord’s way, keep them, as many as are written”.
Yes, somewhat, though I am told some remained and grew with little or no contact with Rome.
The bickering ,and universalness have been side by side since the beginning
I think the Orthodox would disagree. Transubstantiation is the opposite of ‘simple’ . I think the Orthodox accepts the words, without any explanation such as transubstantiation.
No, you take the Catholic interpretation, implication, of those words. And again, implication is not that simple.Evolving is not that simple.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation explains, to the best of human reason, how the change happens. That the change happens is something believed by pretty much all non-Protestant churches, from the Assyrian Church of the East, to the Armenian Orthodox Church, to the Tewahedo Orthodox Church of Ethiopia. These other churches may not have the Aristotelian understanding of accidents and essence/substance of things, but they do profess that the change happens, they do have validly consecrated bishops that go back through an unbroken line to one of Christ’s Apostles, and since their sacraments are valid, the change really does happen in their liturgies.
Thing is, the earliest Christians seemed to understand that Christ was speaking of Peter and the subsequent See established in Rome.
No, just the cherry picked ones, usually context liteThing is, the earliest Christians seemed to understand that Christ was speaking of Peter and the subsequent See established in Rome.
A broader reading of Church Fathers paints a very different picture. Rohzek’s posts of Latin Fathers in THIS THREAD ought to have made that patently clear.Yep. Real Presence is what, transub is how, in language of accommodation.The doctrine of Transubstantiation explains, to the best of human reason, how the change happens. That the change happens is something believed by pretty much all non-Protestant churches, from the Assyrian Church of the East, to the Armenian Orthodox Church, to the Tewahedo Orthodox Church of Ethiopia. These other churches may not have the Aristotelian understanding of accidents and essence/substance of things, but they do profess that the change happens, they do have validly consecrated bishops that go back through an unbroken line to one of Christ’s Apostles, and since their sacraments are valid, the change really does happen in their liturgies.
Thing is, the earliest Christians seemed to understand that Christ was speaking of Peter and the subsequent See established in Rome.
Nobody doubts that some known Church Fathers also said the rock refers to either Peter’s confession of faith; or to Jesus Himself.No, just the cherry picked ones, usually context lite
I suppose, for this specific discussion one could also say “all Protestant and Orthodox attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.”
I agree that cherry picking is a problem – from all sides.No, just the cherry picked ones, usually context lite
Nobody doubts that some known Church Fathers also said the rock refers to either Peter’s confession of faith; or to Jesus Himself.
Here’s two issues though:
*]Even earlier Church Fathers and figures in the early Church quite explicitly said, and thus understood, that Peter was the rock; Tatian the Syrian, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian, Ephraim the Syrian, all writing before Bede, Jerome, Paschasius Radbertus, etc. claimed explicitly that Peter is the rock.
*]Multiple Protestant Biblical scholars concede this fact. Look closely at what I said. Protestant Biblical scholars accept this, and this is not in their best interest. Yet they still accept it. D. A. Carson, Craig S. Keener, Dr. Oscar Cullman, etc. all agree that there’s a wordplay going on in Matthew 16:18. Specifically, Dr. Cullman says this:
I suppose, for this specific discussion one could also say “all Protestant and Orthodox attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.”
And I would’ve gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling -]kids/-] Eastern Orthodox Christians!
Even so. I have no problem with it. As the words Lewis put into his eponymous character in his LETTERS TO MALCOLM, "The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand.” Transubstantiation is as noble an attempt to explicate how the wheels go around as one might hope for. Or might hope to comprehend.
I can’t speak of how well known he is; I first saw him in one of Steve Ray’s books.
Some Church Fathers? How about the majority.Nobody doubts that some known Church Fathers also said the rock refers to either Peter’s confession of faith; or to Jesus Himself.
How about you put their explicit claims out here in their broader context, so we can see what it was they meant by those explicit claims.Even earlier Church Fathers and figures in the early Church quite explicitly said, and thus understood, that Peter was the rock; Tatian the Syrian, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian, Ephraim the Syrian, all writing before Bede, Jerome, Paschasius Radbertus, etc. claimed explicitly that Peter is the rock.
If you were arguing with a Protestant, you might have a point.
Protestants are your red headed step children, so they have naturally inhereted a lot of their errors from the Church they came out of. They have nothing in common with the Orthodox Church.
I only saw some of them, and they weren’t very early.
catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-popeHow about you put their explicit claims out here in their broader context, so we can see what it was they meant by those explicit claims.
The point is, Protestants also deny that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. Yet here’s those Protestant scholars that explicitly claim that Catholic exegesis is correct in this regard. So what’s going on? Do you think they’re suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance? Or perhaps they’re actually analyzing the context and coming at the correct conclusion?
Except Protestants don’t tend to believe that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. Why do you think they lost bishops, sacraments, Apostolic Succession, all of that? Do you think they lost all that yet retained the Papacy? 
They don’t tend to accept that Matthew 16:18 is a reference to Peter. So what “errors” have these “red headed step children” of ours “inherited”? Hmm, sounds like you’re trying to trick us into not reading it. Or reading it (gotta watch out for reverse psychology). Won’t work, I’m going to do the opposite.
Hilary of Poitiers and Jerome are hardly late, both being Doctors of your church. They understood Matthew 16:18 as a metaphor of greater meaning applicable to everyone in addition to being personal. As for your citations, more context would be appreciated. Additionally, I didn’t realize that the Sacred Tradition of saints deteriorated over time thereby making the contributions of Saints Hrabanus Maurus, Radbertus, and Bruno of Segni all negligible. Nevermind the fact that most of these men were highly revered well into the Early Modern Period, and their obscurity is only a recent phenomenon.
Fair enough, since I can’t either.