For those who left the Catholic Church

[BrandenRush]

and said:

“I left the Catholic Church because it went against the Bible.”

Have you ever stopped to wonder:

Where did the Bible come from?

I left the Catholic church because its teachings are not Christ’s in my opinion.

 

[Eileen_T]

You stated:

Check out this thread I think you’ll find that only very recently have some converts to Catholicism linked these two passages - because they’ve nothing to do with each other, otherwise !

I am replying to this, not the ECF bit, but why would they have commented on something if it was perfectly plain to everyone?

Back to your comment about recent converts… Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition, has the same linking of the two passages.

Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signified ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it." haydock1859.tripod.com/id34.html

 

[Delraek]

I agree, but Delraek is content to appeal to incredulity, rather than debate/discuss this.

Montalban,

What’s incredulous about the OT which happens to be inspired by God? If you refuse to give the OT any credence when it comes to interpreting Scripture, how can you even understand the Gospel of Matthew, which is full of OT references? Saint Augustine (an ECF!) is the one who said that the New Testament is concealed in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed by the New Testament. In fact, about three-fourths of the material of the NT is either a quotation from or allusion to what went before it. I don’t think we can really understand the New Testament until we have made a very serious study of the Old Testament.

And, anyway, why would an ECF have to mention Is 22 if he already understood what the “keys to the kingdom” passage meant?

Since neither of us is going to change our position, it’s probably pointless to continue this particular subject on this thread (which we’ve been “hijacking” ) anyway!

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

What’s incredulous about the OT which happens to be inspired by God?

Still no debate from you!

 

[coleraine]

I left the Catholic Church, but I’m not Protestant

Where did the Bible come from? The Orthodox Church

the orthodox was not the first church like the catholic church was. therefor the bible could not have come from it.

 

[Montalban]

You stated: I am replying to this, not the ECF bit, but why would they have commented on something if it was perfectly plain to everyone?

Back to your comment about recent converts… Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition, has the same linking of the two passages.

I’m aware of this. That was what was discussed in the other thread.

The first people to come up with this link are Protestants, which Catholics then adopted.

So you’re in fact learning from Protestants; as they had this truth revealed to them before you did!

The Early Church Fathers didn’t make such a link because the ‘key’ in the OT is not the same as the ‘keys’ in the NT.

This is further backed up by the evidence I gave that the keys were given to others. Thus John (the Son of Thunder) has them
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven”
John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1

 

[Montalban]

the orthodox was not the first church like the catholic church was. therefor the bible could not have come from it.

The Orthodox Church was founded at Pentecost. You’re probably confused by the fact it wasn’t then called the Orthodox Church.

 

[Delraek]

Still no debate from you!

What kind of answer is that?

debate

noun

1. a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; “the argument over foreign aid goes on and on” [syn: argument]
2. the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote)

verb

1. argue with one another; “We debated the question of abortion”; “John debated Mary”
2. think about carefully; weigh; “They considered the possibility of a strike”; “Turn the proposal over in your mind” [syn: consider]
3. discuss the pros and cons of an issue
4. have an argument about something [syn: argue]

 

[Montalban]

What kind of answer is that?

It’s based on you continually spamming this thread with Appeals to Incredulity to continue an off-topic ‘debate’.

If you were genuine in your wish to discuss this you’d adjourn to the proper threads and discuss it there, as I’ve encouraged you to do so.

But, alas!

 

[Delraek]

It’s based on you continually spamming this thread with Appeals to Incredulity to continue an off-topic ‘debate’.

If you were genuine in your wish to discuss this you’d adjourn to the proper threads and discuss it there, as I’ve encouraged you to do so.

But, alas!

There’s a tactic! When you’re unable to come up with intelligent responses to another person’s questions, just insult theirs…

 

[Montalban]

There’s a tactic! When you’re unable to come up with intelligent responses to another person’s questions, just insult theirs…

You’re still avoiding proper debate.

It’s not an ‘insult’ to properly describe your debate as an “Appeal to Incredulity”

As noted, if you were genuine, you’d discuss this on the appropriate thread.

That’s the challenge I laid to you, and you’ve avoided it - and you’ve advertised your avoidance of it by responding here with more non-debate!

 

[Deconi]

You’re probably confused by the fact it wasn’t then called the Orthodox Church.

Hmm. That looks familiar!

 

[coleraine]

John Cassian

But what are the other words which follow that saying of the Lord’s, with which He commends Peter? “And I,” said He, “say unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Do you see how the saying of Peter is the faith of the Church? He then must of course be outside the Church, who does not hold the faith of the Church. “And to thee,” saith the Lord, “I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This faith deserved heaven: this faith received the keys of the heavenly kingdom. See what awaits you. You cannot enter the gate to which this key belongs, if you have denied the faith of this key. “And the gate,” He adds, “of hell shall not prevail against thee.” The gates of hell are the belief or rather the misbelief of heretics. For widely as hell is separated from heaven, so widely is he who denies from him who confessed that Christ is God. “Whatsoever,” He proceeds, “thou shalt bind on earth, shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shalt be loosed also in heaven.” The perfect faith of the Apostle somehow is given the power of Deity, that what it should bind or loose on earth, might be bound or loosed in heaven. For you then, who come against the Apostle’s faith, as you see that already you are bound on earth, it only remains that you should know that you are bound also in heaven. But it would take too long to go into details which are so numerous as to make a long and wearisome story, even if they are related with brevity and conciseness."

“On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius”

Book III

Chapter XIV “How the confession of the blessed Peter is the faith of the whole Church.”
shepherd…
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.”

Leo the Great “Sermon III”. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II)

Hey, at least you’ve not pressed me to discuss a position on the veracity of Ignatius’ texts based on some unknown person’s comments on them!
This is not the place for these discussions however as we’re hijacking this thread.

your misinterperating scripture. jesus never sia dthe church literally belonged to peter, just that he would be the rock for it. the church belongs to christ. peter is the rock jesus decided to build it upon. peter was then the pope, which is neccesary for the catholic church to have. he ran the church…not own it.

 

[Montalban]

your misinterperating scripture. jesus never sia dthe church literally belonged to peter, just that he would be the rock for it. the church belongs to christ. peter is the rock jesus decided to build it upon. peter was then the pope, which is neccesary for the catholic church to have. he ran the church…not own it.

I’m not misrepresenting it at all. I accept Peter is the rock. What I’ve shown, by sourcing the Bible AND the Early Church Fathers is that he’s not the only one.

All you’ve done is presented the same kind of indignant appeal Delraek’s done. It’s a non-argument.

I present evidence.

You guys present ‘just-so’ argument in the vein of “You’ve misrepresented the Bible”, “You must be kidding”, “Don’t you know Christ established the Catholic Church” etc. None of which deals with directly with anything I’ve cited.

Besides that, this is the wrong thread for such a discussion.