How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[joe370]

Early Church quotes about Peter as the Rock; the same people that collected, selected, compiled (out of a bevy of heretical writings) codified and canonized the Bible…

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)

“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Kephas, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian (220 A.D.):

“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying …

“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter*? ‘On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)
The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])
The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):

“Peter, the Rock of the Church …” (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). “Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).
Origen (230-250 A.D.):

“See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church …” (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’” [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

“Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded.” (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

“Peter, upon whom is built Christ’s Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.” (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)
St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):

“For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring …” (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).

“God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord’s word, upon a Rock …” (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).

“Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church …” (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).
St. Ephream the Syrian (350-370 A.D.):

“Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head and fountain from which all My teaching flows.” (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1).

“Peter, who was called Kephas, he who was captured on the sea shore, and who received testimony from the great Shepherd, that ‘Upon this Rock I will build my Church.’” (Ephraem T. iiii. Gr. De Sacred).

"That Rock which He set up that Satan might stumble thereon, Satan, on the other hand, wished to put this Rock in the way of the Lord that He might stumble upon it, when Peter said, ‘Far be it from Thee, Lord.’ [Matt 16:22-23] (Ephraem, Sermo de Transfig. Dom., Sec. IV).
St. Hilary of Poitiers (356 A.D.)

“Blessed Simon who, after his confession of the Mystery, was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church and received the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hilary, De Trinitate, 6:20).

“Peter, the first Confessor of the Son of God, the Foundation of the Church, …” (Hilary, Tract in Ps. cxxxi.)

“And in truth Peter’s confession obtained a worthy recompense …Oh! in thy designation by a new name, happy Foundation of the Church, and a Rock worthy of the building up of that which was to scatter the infernal laws of the gates of hell!” (Hilary, Comm. in Matt. c. xvi.)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (363 A.D.):

"Our Lord Jesus Christ then become man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled His disciples, He asked, ‘Who do you say that I the Son of man am?’ …And all being silent, for it was beyond man to know, Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using language of his own finding, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says unto Him, ‘Thou art the Christ,’ and not simply that, but, ‘the Son of the living God.’ And a blessing follows the speech. …’ …and upon this Rock I will found my Church …’ " (Cyril, Catech, xi. n. 3).

"He said to Peter, ‘And upon this Rock I will build my Church.’ " (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures, 18:25).
Optatus (367 A.D.)

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas “Rock”] - of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
St. Gregory Nazianzen (370 A.D.):

“See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.” (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii).

"Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock … (Gregory Naz., T. ii.)

“[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys.” (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)
St. Gregory of Nyssa (371 A.D.):

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.” (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic).

 

[joe370]

“Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)
St. Basil the Great (371 A.D.):

“The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church.” (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.).

“The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock …” (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).
St. Epiphanius (385 A.D.):

“Blessed Peter, who for a while denied the Lord, Peter who was Chief of the Apostles, he who became unto us truly a firm Rock upon which is based the Lord’s Faith, upon which Rock the Church is in every way built.” (Epiphanius, Adv. Haeres).

"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as the Chief of the Apostles testifies, he who was found worthy to be blessed by the Lord, because the ‘Father had revealed unto him.’ …This was befitting in that the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ ‘The gates of hell’ are heretics and heresiarchs. For, in every way, the faith confirmed in him who received the Keys of Heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith …And He heard from the same God, Peter, ‘feed my lambs;’ to him was entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of His own Master. (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor., 9).
St. Ambrose of Milan (385 A.D.):

“Peter is called the Rock because, like an immovable rock, he sustains and joins the mass of the entire Christian edifice.” (Ambrose, Sermon 4).

“Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ, ’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistancy of firm faith.” (Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.).

“[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
St. Asterius of Pontus (387 A.D.):

“Peter went not away unrequited and unrewarded; but was declared “blessed” by the truly Blessed, and was called the Rock of faith, the foundation and substructure of the Church of God.” (Ambrose, Hom. in Apost. Pet. et Paul, tom ii.).
St. John Chrysostom (387 A.D.):

“…and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit).

“Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote).

“Peter, … that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession.” (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)
St. Jerome (393 A.D.):

"Christ is not alone in being the Rock, for He granted to the Apostle Peter that he should be called ‘Rock’. " (Jerome, Comm. on Jerimias 3:65).

“For what has Paul to do with Aristotle? Or Peter to do with Plato? For as the latter (Plato) was prince of philosophers, so was the former (Peter) prince of Apostles: on him the Lord’s Church was firmly founded, and neither rushing flood nor storm can shake it.” (Jerome, Against the Pelagians 1:14a).

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division.” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark on Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
St. Augustine (410 A.D.):

“These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands.” (Augustine, Christian Combat).

“…Why! a ****** that is cut from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly.” --St. Augustine, Psalmus Contra Pertem Donati.
St. Cyril of Alexandria (424 A.D.):

“He suffers no longer to be called Simon, exercising authoriy to rule over him already as having become His own. But by a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word petra (rock); for on him he was afterwards to found His Church.” (Cyril T. iv. Comm. in Joan.).

" ‘Blessed art thou …,’ calling, I imagine, nothing else the Rock, in allusion to his name (Peter), but the immovable and stable faith of the disciple upon whom the Church of Christ is founded and fixed without danger of falling." (Cyril, On the Holy Trinity).

“He promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as Shepherd.” (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad. loc.)
Sechnall of Ireland (A.D. 444)

“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [St. Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).
Pope Leo I (C. 445)

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.)

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

When we look at this passage grammatically, linguistically, historically and Biblically, it is quite clear that Jesus intended Peter to be the Rock.

 

[willi8]

Peter being a the “Rock” is not really relevant as to why people should or should not be Catholic. The Catholic church as we know it today did not come on the scene till centuries later. Other religions believe that there was an Apostasy or “falling away” after the death of Peter and the other Apostles. That is another discussion in itself, but I believe that this is sufficient to answer the question of how people can believe that Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.

 

[SCALCO]

The Catholic church as we know it today did not come on the scene till centuries later.

No, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[tqualey]

Dear Willi8

Thank you for your post. Would you kindly provide a reference for this statement:

The Catholic church as we know it today did not come on the scene till centuries later.

Not to sound too inquisitive on this matter, but your next statement could stand a reference or two also:

Other religions believe that there was an Apostasy or “falling away” after the death of Peter and the other Apostles.

To my way of thinking, a couple of mechanical/logistical questions immediately rise to the surface:
1- Just what or who do you think was holding christianity together after 100 A.D. (the estimated year when St. John died?
2- Between 100 and 325 (1st Council of Nicaea) how did the group come up with a creed that today’s Catholic still follow today (given this “falling away” that is claimed)?
3- Where were these “…other religions…” when all of this was gong on?
4- Which written ‘reports’ of contemporary eye witnesses (e.g., Early Chruch Fathers) support this ‘falling away’ ?
5- What was the nature of this ‘Apostasy’ e.g.,
Christ was not both God and Man?
He did not give us His Flesh and Blood?
He did not build His Chruch on Peter?
He did not rise from the dead?
He did not empower the Apostles to forgive sins?
6- Given a “falling away”, how did the Catholic Chruch manage to get back together (surely such a massive re-organization from a dis-organized state would have caught someone’s eye and it would have been reported)?

Actually, I disagree:

That is another discussion in itself, but I believe that this is sufficient to answer the question of how people can believe that Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.

Look at your own work: you have simply made unsupported statements and then claim this answers a question.

While, ultimately, people are free to believe what they will, if you step forward to present an argument for a particular belief, then I think the argument should withstand logical scrutiny.

May I suggest you give it another try?

Best wishes,

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter being a the “Rock” is not really relevant as to why people should or should not be Catholic.

Peter as kepha is not the only reason, but it is an important part of the total argument in favor of Catholicism.

The Catholic church as we know it today did not come on the scene till centuries later.

The Randy Carson of today did not come on the scene until several decades after my birth; but, I am the same person, nonetheless.

Other religions believe that there was an Apostasy or “falling away” after the death of Peter and the other Apostles. That is another discussion in itself, but I believe that this is sufficient to answer the question of how people can believe that Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.

Then the burden of proof is on those who make this argument. Personally, I think the arguments are weak. However, IF an apostasy occurred, then would that not be evidence of the gates of Hell prevailing against the Church? And would this not suggest that Christ either could not or did not protect her? And would this not make Christ a liar since He said that the gates of Hell would NEVER prevail against His Church?

 

[willi8]

Dear Willi8

Thank you for your post. Would you kindly provide a reference for this statement:

Not to sound too inquisitive on this matter, but your next statement could stand a reference or two also:

To my way of thinking, a couple of mechanical/logistical questions immediately rise to the surface:
1- Just what or who do you think was holding christianity together after 100 A.D. (the estimated year when St. John died?
2- Between 100 and 325 (1st Council of Nicaea) how did the group come up with a creed that today’s Catholic still follow today (given this “falling away” that is claimed)?
3- Where were these “…other religions…” when all of this was gong on?
4- Which written ‘reports’ of contemporary eye witnesses (e.g., Early Chruch Fathers) support this ‘falling away’ ?
5- What was the nature of this ‘Apostasy’ e.g.,
Christ was not both God and Man?
He did not give us His Flesh and Blood?
He did not build His Chruch on Peter?
He did not rise from the dead?
He did not empower the Apostles to forgive sins?
6- Given a “falling away”, how did the Catholic Chruch manage to get back together (surely such a massive re-organization from a dis-organized state would have caught someone’s eye and it would have been reported)?

Actually, I disagree:

Look at your own work: you have simply made unsupported statements and then claim this answers a question.

While, ultimately, people are free to believe what they will, if you step forward to present an argument for a particular belief, then I think the argument should withstand logical scrutiny.

May I suggest you give it another try?

Best wishes,

Sorry if my post caused some confusion. I was just trying to answer the specific question of How people can believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.
First, about me saying that the Catholic church did not come on to lthe scene till centuries later. My point, is that Jesus nor his apostles ever named the church the “Catholic Church”. That name was applicated much later. Sure if you believe in the succession of authority with in the Catholic church it doesn’t matter when the name was applied. Not everyone, however, believes in that succession therefore the Catholic church would be a seperate entity from the Church the Lord established.

Next, as for references of religions that believe in an Apostasy or falling away, I don’t believe it is needed. The Mormons believe this and so do Protestants hence the division. Their interpretation of Apostasy may be different but the effect is the same.

Once again, I’m not arguing about where the Authority can be found, I’m just answering how a person can believe that Peter is the rock and still not be Catholic…

 

[willi8]

.

Then the burden of proof is on those who make this argument. Personally, I think the arguments are weak. However, IF an apostasy occurred, then would that not be evidence of the gates of Hell prevailing against the Church? And would this not suggest that Christ either could not or did not protect her? And would this not make Christ a liar since He said that the gates of Hell would NEVER prevail against His Church?

Carson,
The Gates of Hell not prevailing against the church doesn’t necessarily mean that the Church and it’s authority could not fall away for a time. It could simply mean that Hell will not ultimately prevail against Christ’s church.

The Jew believed that the Messiah was to come and wipe away their enemies and set up His kingdom forever. They believed this because this is what their scriptures indicated. The Lord surely will accomplish this, but it was not in the time in which they expected. The death of the Lord does not change the ultimate prophecy of the Lords kingdom being established. Likewise, the apostasy does not change the fact that the gates of hell will not ultimately prevail against the Lords church…

All of this is a matter of interpretation. I’m not trying to defame anyone, only showing how others could believe otherwise…

 

[mercygate]

Sorry if my post caused some confusion. I was just trying to answer the specific question of How people can believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.
First, about me saying that the Catholic church did not come on to lthe scene till centuries later. My point, is that Jesus nor his apostles ever named the church the “Catholic Church”. That name was applicated much later. Sure if you believe in the succession of authority with in the Catholic church it doesn’t matter when the name was applied. Not everyone, however, believes in that succession therefore the Catholic church would be a seperate entity from the Church the Lord established.

Next, as for references of religions that believe in an Apostasy or falling away, I don’t believe it is needed. The Mormons believe this and so do Protestants hence the division. Their interpretation of Apostasy may be different but the effect is the same.

Once again, I’m not arguing about where the Authority can be found, I’m just answering how a person can believe that Peter is the rock and still not be Catholic…

I got it! – what you said about how a person can believe Peter is the rock and not be Catholic.

But I quibble at your assertion that “Protestants” believe in an apostasy. Sure: some do. Notably Stone-Campbell types, certain Baptists, SDAs and JWs. But I am, at this very moment reading an excellent book BY a Protestant, quoting MANY Protestant scripture scholars and theologians, ALL of whom assert the authority of the early Fathers, and the creeds of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan councils. These are deep-dyed evangelical scholars. Ain’t one of ‘em thinkin’ about an early Apostasy. All of them scoff at the idea that the Church came into existence “late” in time. None of them is saying that the Church of the councils is anything other than THE Church – known today as the Catholic Church.

AND some of these guys believe Peter is “the rock”.

So these really smart guys, clearly, believe Peter is “the rock” and that the Church “got it right” about the Christology and about the canon of scripture.

I can’t wait to find out why they accept the Fathers and the Councils on the canon and on the Christology but not on the sacraments. Stay tuned. I’ll get back to you.

 

[willi8]

At some point in time the protestant reformers believed that the Catholic church had lost or changed some essential part of Christ’s teachings. This is the reason that they seperated from the Catholic church. I agree with you that many Protestants scholar still value what was said in those early councils. There is still a gap between the Early Fathers and Peter. The debate is whether or not the authority was truly passed on or not. From Peter to whom and how?

I got it! – what you said about how a person can believe Peter is the rock and not be Catholic.

But I quibble at your assertion that “Protestants” believe in an apostasy. Sure: some do. Notably Stone-Campbell types, certain Baptists, SDAs and JWs. But I am, at this very moment reading an excellent book BY a Protestant, quoting MANY Protestant scripture scholars and theologians, ALL of whom assert the authority of the early Fathers, and the creeds of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan councils. These are deep-dyed evangelical scholars. Ain’t one of ‘em thinkin’ about an early Apostasy. All of them scoff at the idea that the Church came into existence “late” in time. None of them is saying that the Church of the councils is anything other than THE Church – known today as the Catholic Church.

AND some of these guys believe Peter is “the rock”.

So these really smart guys, clearly, believe Peter is “the rock” and that the Church “got it right” about the Christology and about the canon of scripture.

I can’t wait to find out why they accept the Fathers and the Councils on the canon and on the Christology but not on the sacraments. Stay tuned. I’ll get back to you.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Next, as for references of religions that believe in an Apostasy or falling away, I don’t believe it is needed. The Mormons believe this and so do Protestants hence the division. Their interpretation of Apostasy may be different but the effect is the same.

Willi8,
It is OK to believe what you believe, but you cannot just put your opinions out there as if they are Truth, with no facts to back them up. The Mormon’s are by no means any authority on Jesus’ Deposit of Faith that he left with Peter and the Apostles. Catholic means universal and is in the Bible. The Early Church is the Catholic Church.

You didn’t address tqualey’s well stated post. Who did safeguard and shape Christianity until the Mormon’s, LDS, or Protestants were founded in the 1500’s and 1800’s? The Early Church - the Catholic Church, as it came to be known in the first century, did. They taught and safeguarded Jesus’ teachings through Oral and Sacred Tradition. Through the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, they determined the inspired books of the Bible and wrote the Bible for ALL Christians. So, you think the Catholics don’t know the Truth? We safeguarded and continued Christ’s Deposit of Faith for all generations and for all Christians with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit because that is what Jesus said he would do. The Catholic Church penned the Bible and continue to this day, to teach Jesus’ Word. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Church around that could carry on Jesus’ mission. He left it with us.

Your statement that the Gates of Hell didn’t ultimately prevail against the Chruch is just plain rediculous. It is a weak attempt by splitting hairs to try to put it in a way so you can believe what your Church teaches. The Jesus didn’t say (and the Bible doesn’t explain that) the Gates of Hell would prevail for a little bit and then the Church would take back control. (So, you are referring to the Catholic Church here.) Jesus said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against HIS Church. The Church he founded - the Catholic Church and they haven’t.

You are not giving any facts to support anything you are saying, or what the Mormon’s, the Protestants or LDS beliefs on what you are stating. Do you know the real, actual reasons for the Reformation or just what you have been taught? There is a big difference. There apostasy was by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Reformers. They were in error in their teachings and broke away from Christ’s Church to found their own. They weren’t questioning Catholic teachings, Catholic doctrine, the Church’s interpretation, etc. They were protesting the sale of indulgences and other eroneous acts that were being committed. These problems were being corrected long before Trent and were corrected before the Reformantion ever happened. Altering Bibles, adding alone, changing interpretation to use one’s own personal interpretation, dropping books from the Bible because you don’t like them, doesn’t speak well for founding a new Church. All subsequent denominations that have done the same thing are just as guilty of apostasy. Every single one of them has had to deny the authority and teachings of the Catholic Church to justify founding their own.

 

[mercygate]

At some point in time the protestant reformers believed that the Catholic church had lost or changed some essential part of Christ’s teachings. This is the reason that they seperated from the Catholic church. I agree with you that many Protestants scholar still value what was said in those early councils. There is still a gap between the Early Fathers and Peter. The debate is whether or not the authority was truly passed on or not. From Peter to whom and how?

There is no debate about “to whom” or “how” the Petrine authority was passed from Peter. The “whom” and “how” are matters of history. As for the “whether”, there is only dissent.

 

[packermann]

Or that Christ is keeping His promise in a way other than as defined by the Catholic Church, and that the Holy Spirit is active in a way beyond its definition, and that the mixture of human elements and the divine in the Catholic Church now requires beliefs and allegiences beyond what Christ demands of His people.

That is one way.

Or that Peter was the rock but his foundational work stopped with him, with his sermon in Acts 2 to the Jews and initial outreach to the Gentiles later on. They point to Paul’s prominence and eclipsing him in the later part of Acts and in the volume of epistles, and argue Paul had a larger role in the church than Peter.

That is another way.

Or that Peter was the rock but as a type of every believer, so that each of us is a rock, confessing as he did that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is another way.

Or Peter is the rock, but the rock is much less than Catholics make it out to be, and has nothing to do with hierarchial structure.

That is another way.

This is exactly the problem I had with Protestantism, and why I left it. On ANY passage in scripture, Protestants have multiple interpretations for that passage. I notice that you did not make a comitment on which interpretation is the correct interpretation. This opens the door to relativism. You stated three entrirely different interpretations that contradict each other. If one is true then the other two are false. And yet you treat you treat them as all being true. It is like saying “It may be A. It may be B. It may be neither A nor B”.

If you read the arguments for these three positions carefully, you would see that they cancel each other. The one who presented the first interpretation would argue the other two are false. The same for the second and third ones.

So make a commitment as to exactly what this passage is saying. If you cannot take any of these interpretations seriously enough to commit to one, then why should we take any of these interpretations seriously?

All you have proven is that sola scriptura does not work. Apart from from the Tradition and the Magisterium, any passage of scripture can be interpreted in many different ways.

How come Catholics seize on Peter being the rock when in the same passage Jesus calls him Satan?

Actually, Jesus never said that Peter was Satan. Satan tempted Peter to reject the Cross. But nowhere does the Bible ever say Satan went into Peter, like he did to Judas, or that Peter is actually Satan. If Peter was actually Satan, then both Catholics AND Protestants would have a serious problem, since Peter wrote some of the Bible. That would then mean that Satan wrote parts of the Bible!

How come Paul wrote to Rome (not Peter) and never mentioned any future prominence of Rome, or Peter, or Peter’s place in Rome, or any idea of a papacy?

This is an argument from silence - very weak argument. Paul never used the word “Trinity”, neither. Does that mean that Paul would deny the doctrine of the Trinity?

How come 1 Clement is from the leaders of Rome, and the bishop of Rome is not mentioned? Clement’s name is not in it.

Please read Protestant scholar, Phillip Scaf’s introduction on Clement’s first letter to the Corinthians. He clearly believed that this letter was written by Clement, the bishop of Rome.

How come, if the papal line is so important, we have contradictory lists of popes from the early church?

In the Resurrection narratives, one gospel recorded that the women saw two angels, and in another gospel it recorded only one angel. Does that mean that the Resurrection of Christ is unimportant?

If the infallible Word of God can have apparent contradictions, why should we not expect mere humans to record the papal line wrong? Any historian can be fallible.

How come the early church never clearly spelled out papal authority in the manner that today’s Catholics seem to claim for it?

The early church did not clearly spell out the Trinity as it did in the Nicene Council, neither. Does this mean that the Trinity is merely a human invention.

Jesus said that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, a very small seed, would eventually become one of the largest trees. It shows that as the Church grows, it becomes bigger and its doctrine becomes fuller, all this being led by the Holy Spirit.

Even Protestants believe in this, it is called “progessive revelation”. God made a promise to Abraham that in him all nations will be blessed. It was not revealed to Abraham everything about Christ. Slowly but surely God revealed more of His plan. This is called progressive revelation.

You are using the same argument that Jews have used against the deity of Christ. They would argue that if the deity of Christ was so important, why was it not clearly spelled out in the Jewish scriptures (the Old Testament).

 

[willi8]

Willi8,
It is OK to believe what you believe, but you cannot just put your opinions out there as if they are Truth, with no facts to back them up. The Mormon’s are by no means any authority on Jesus’ Deposit of Faith that he left with Peter and the Apostles. Catholic means universal and is in the Bible. The Early Church is the Catholic Church.

You didn’t address tqualey’s well stated post. Who did safeguard and shape Christianity until the Mormon’s, LDS, or Protestants were founded in the 1500’s and 1800’s? The Early Church - the Catholic Church, as it came to be known in the first century, did. They taught and safeguarded Jesus’ teachings through Oral and Sacred Tradition. Through the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, they determined the inspired books of the Bible and wrote the Bible for ALL Christians. So, you think the Catholics don’t know the Truth? We safeguarded and continued Christ’s Deposit of Faith for all generations and for all Christians with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit because that is what Jesus said he would do. The Catholic Church penned the Bible and continue to this day, to teach Jesus’ Word. The Catholic Church was the ONLY Church around that could carry on Jesus’ mission. He left it with us.

Your statement that the Gates of Hell didn’t ultimately prevail against the Chruch is just plain rediculous. It is a weak attempt by splitting hairs to try to put it in a way so you can believe what your Church teaches. The Jesus didn’t say (and the Bible doesn’t explain that) the Gates of Hell would prevail for a little bit and then the Church would take back control. (So, you are referring to the Catholic Church here.) Jesus said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against HIS Church. The Church he founded - the Catholic Church and they haven’t.

You are not giving any facts to support anything you are saying, or what the Mormon’s, the Protestants or LDS beliefs on what you are stating. Do you know the real, actual reasons for the Reformation or just what you have been taught? There is a big difference. There apostasy was by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Reformers. They were in error in their teachings and broke away from Christ’s Church to found their own. They weren’t questioning Catholic teachings, Catholic doctrine, the Church’s interpretation, etc. They were protesting the sale of indulgences and other eroneous acts that were being committed. These problems were being corrected long before Trent and were corrected before the Reformantion ever happened. Altering Bibles, adding alone, changing interpretation to use one’s own personal interpretation, dropping books from the Bible because you don’t like them, doesn’t speak well for founding a new Church. All subsequent denominations that have done the same thing are just as guilty of apostasy. Every single one of them has had to deny the authority and teachings of the Catholic Church to justify founding their own.

You seem bothered because I haven’t given facts, but what facts do you have? Its all a matter of interpretation. How is it that your interpretation is the factual one. The scripture simply states that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The scripture doesn’t give a when or where so can you give me facts that it was talking about only that specific time? Can you give me facts that that scripture meant to indicate that the church would never suffer total apostasy? I wasn’t trying to split hairs, I was only pointing out another perspective. Analyze your own post. You claim that the Catholic church safegaurded the Lord’s church. Says who??? Is that not an opinion/belief? Has the Lord ever said that His church would some day be called the Catholic Church and that HIs teachings would be preserved through it. No, that is a matter of your belief and faith. In like manner, I have given you a portion of my belief and faith which correlates with my interpretation of the scripture. What kind of facts do you want?

Did the Catholic church safegaurd Christianity? Sure it did, it safegaurded the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. For that I am grateful, but that in no way indicates that the Catholic church was the same church which Jesus set up. Did it shape Christianity? Of course, but was that shaping done by the authority of the Lord? Once again your personal beliefs would apply, but can you show me facts??? I will always respect your beliefs but don’t try to discredit mine on basis of your own opinions…

 

[JRKH]

You seem bothered because I haven’t given facts, but what facts do you have? Its all a matter of interpretation. How is it that your interpretation is the factual one. The scripture simply states that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The scripture doesn’t give a when or where so can you give me facts that it was talking about only that specific time? Can you give me facts that that scripture meant to indicate that the church would never suffer total apostasy? I wasn’t trying to split hairs, I was only pointing out another perspective. Analyze your own post. You claim that the Catholic church safegaurded the Lord’s church. Says who??? Is that not an opinion/belief? Has the Lord ever said that His church would some day be called the Catholic Church and that HIs teachings would be preserved through it. No, that is a matter of your belief and faith. In like manner, I have given you a portion of my belief and faith which correlates with my interpretation of the scripture. What kind of facts do you want?

Did the Catholic church safegaurd Christianity? Sure it did, it safegaurded the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. For that I am grateful, but that in no way indicates that the Catholic church was the same church which Jesus set up. Did it shape Christianity? Of course, but was that shaping done by the authority of the Lord? Once again your personal beliefs would apply, but can you show me facts??? I will always respect your beliefs but don’t try to discredit mine on basis of your own opinions…

I’ll give you a fact if you’d like.
Thousands of generations have lived and died between the time of Christ and now. The idea that the Christ’s Church was EVER (name removed by moderator)rotected by the Holy Spirit would mean that there were people left with no means of sure salvation. They would have been left without the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”.
The promise of salvation would have been unavailable during these times and, for these people, who looked to the Church for teaching, sacraments, etc. the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. This is an impossiblity for Christ Promised to be Always with His Church, built on Peter (Kepha), until the end of time.

Peace
James

 

[willi8]

I’ll give you a fact if you’d like.
Thousands of generations have lived and died between the time of Christ and now. The idea that the Christ’s Church was EVER (name removed by moderator)rotected by the Holy Spirit would mean that there were people left with no means of sure salvation. They would have been left without the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”.
The promise of salvation would have been unavailable during these times and, for these people, who looked to the Church for teaching, sacraments, etc. the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. This is an impossiblity for Christ Promised to be Always with His Church, built on Peter (Kepha), until the end of time.

Thousands of GENERATIONS have lived and died b/w the time of Christ and now??? I don’t think that is a fact, but I understand what your getting at. I wasn’t saying that Christ’s church was unprotected by the Holy Spirit, my belief was that it wasn’t to be found on the earth. Does this leave those people who lived during those times without a means of salvation? No, the Lord has a way of getting the message to them. If this isn’t the case then what about the millions of people who lived before Christ, and even the millions of people who have never had the opportunity to recieve the message of Jesus the Christ even during and after his time? His message was only spread so far and millions lived and died with out hearing it…
Peace
James

 

[joe370]

Sorry if my post caused some confusion. I was just trying to answer the specific question of How people can believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic.
First, about me saying that the Catholic church did not come on to the scene till centuries later. My point, is that Jesus nor his apostles ever named the church the “Catholic Church”.

Neither Jesus or His Apostles made mention of the doctrine of the Trinity, but you believe it because the the C.C. defined it in the 4th century. WHY?

That name was applicated much later. Sure if you believe in the succession of authority with in the Catholic church it doesn’t matter when the name was applied. Not everyone, however, believes in that succession therefore the Catholic church would be a seperate entity from the Church the Lord established.

If the C.C. is a separate entity from the Church the Lord established, which church today continues to be the church established by Jesus circa 33 A.D.??? According to Sacred Scripture, Jesus said He would never leave His established church, that He would be with them forever.

"*Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” *

Matthew 28;20

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." John 14:16-18 K.J.V.

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come,* he will guide you into all truth**: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."* John 16:13-14

**Did Jesus lie when He said H would not leave His Church orphans? Anyway you look at it, if there isn’t a church in the world today that continues to be the Church established by Jesus, then Jesus lied! Which of course is absurd. **

If the Holy Spirit was to guide Jesus’ Church into all truth, “forever” “until the end of the world,” logically speaking, shouldn’t that church still exist, and continue to exist until Jesus’ second coming?

Next, as for references of religions that believe in an Apostasy or falling away, I don’t believe it is needed. The Mormons believe this and so do Protestants hence the division. Their interpretation of Apostasy may be different but the effect is the same.

**I agree! A key difficulty for non-Catholics is that they can’t say exactly when the apostasy took place nor can they point to any definitive historical event, other than there is only an interior feeling or testimony on which non-Catholics can base their beliefs, but such subjective proof proves nothing. They charge that the Catholic Church apostatized soon after it was formed and therefore the Church of today is not the same Church as the original Church. As a former Lutheran this always troubled me. **

Once again, I’m not arguing about where the Authority can be found, I’m just answering how a person can believe that Peter is the rock and still not be Catholic…

As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the “Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp “remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of “the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.

The term “catholic” simply means “universal,” and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already “everywhere,” as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

Again, it was already understood that the Church was “catholic” because – to adopt a modern expression – she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be “universal” in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that “the powers of death shall not prevail” against her (Mt 16:18).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: “The Church is catholic,” the Catechism teaches, “[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is ‘missionary of her very nature’” (no. 868).

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea’s official documents “the Catholic Church.” As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term “catholic” was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, “Inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Catecheses, xviii, 26).

The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.

 

[Always_For_Him]

willi8,
It is common for non-C’s to state their opinion as if it is Truth. It is very difficult to teach our beliefs to non-C’s because of the blinders they wear only seeing their own Church’s teachings. You are here on a Catholic forum and are wanting us to prove our beliefs to you. It should be the other way around. Your Church came hundreds of years (1800 or so years?) after Catholicism. Maybe your beliefs are just a matter of interpretation. Mine are not self/personal interpretations. My beliefs come from a Church that got it’s teachings from Christ Himself. The Catholic Church teaches and interprets Scripture the same way today as it did then. It hasn’t changed, and I shouldn’t have to prove anything to you. You are the one making statements that just plain aren’t true. Where are you getting your information?

Does it say in Scripture that the Church would suffer any apostasy, or that the gates of hell would prevail for any amount of time? Where does it say that? Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and he said that he would be with and guide His Church until the end of time. Are you saying that Jesus went back on His promise? Was Jesus unable to protect His Church? My “perspective” came from the Catholic Church who has always had that perspective. Yours is a different perspective taught by someone other than Jesus, or the Apostles or their successors, or their successors, etc…

Jesus gave his Deposit of Faith to the Apostles, established His Church and saw to it that his teachings would be preserved through her and that he would protect and guide her. That is what He said, and that is what we believe. It is not a matter of my own interpretation of what I think Scripture says. It is not just my faith or just my belief. It is a matter of Jesus’ One Truth that He taught, and that is what the Catholic Church has believed and taught for 2,000 years.

What makes you think that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church that Jesus established? It is historical proof that the early Church is the Catholic Church. I am amazed how over the last 500 years or so all the different denominations have taught so may untruths about the Catholic Church and the history of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church did safeguard Christianity. It teaches the same teachings today. The Holy Spirit did shape and guide the Church. That is why there has been no change to any doctrine whatsoever in matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit won’t allow His teachings to be changed by His Church. The Church did not fall away or apostosize. That is just what non-C Churches teach to justify their changes. Please prove when and where the Catholic Church fell away? What did it become then? Did the Catholic Church fall away before of after they penned the Bible? Did they believe the Truth and then just decide it wasn’t true and fall away? You won’t be able to prove your statements because there is not one bit of truth to those beliefs.

I believe the burden of proof lies with you and any non-C to prove the Truth of your beliefs, not with me to prove mine. The Catholic Church is the original Church and doesn’t need to prove anything. I am in no way, trying trying to discredit your beliefs on the basis of my own opinions. I share the beliefs of the Catholic Church and do not make up my own beliefs or share beliefs of those created by man 1500-1800 years after Christ.

 

[willi8]

As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name–and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the “Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,” bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp “remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of “the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.

The term “catholic” simply means “universal,” and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already “everywhere,” as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

Again, it was already understood that the Church was “catholic” because – to adopt a modern expression – she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be “universal” in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that “the powers of death shall not prevail” against her (Mt 16:18).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: “The Church is catholic,” the Catechism teaches, “[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is ‘missionary of her very nature’” (no. 868).

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea’s official documents “the Catholic Church.” As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term “catholic” was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, “Inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Catecheses, xviii, 26).

The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.

Dear Joe:

You said…Neither Jesus or His Apostles made mention of the doctrine of the Trinity, but you believe it because the the C.C. defined it in the 4th century. WHY?

First off, you are assuming that I believe in the CC’s doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t. I am LDS and our doctrine of the Trinity is different…That is another matter altogether.

Next, you said: If the C.C. is a separate entity from the Church the Lord established, which church today continues to be the church established by Jesus circa 33 A.D.???

Well, as a Member of the LDS church, I believe it to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which did not continue but was restored to the earth after it fell away. Another issue again, but you asked.

Next:
According to Sacred Scripture, Jesus said He would never leave His established church, that He would be with them forever.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28;20

I think that it is clear by the context that he was talking directly to his 11 apostles. Note that he never mentioned His church, but says "I am with YOU (11 apostles). The Lord knew of the difficult mission ahead for his disciples…

And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." John 14:16-18 K.J.V.

Once again, this was an intimate moment b/w Jesus and the Twelve when Jesus washed the feet of the Twelve (John 13). The “you” in John 14:16-18 is specifically referencing the Twelve and not his church as a whole. They are the ones who will recieve that Comforter or Helper. The Lord truly did not leave his Apostles alone as evidenced in instances like the Pentacost or 2 Tim 4:17.

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” John 16:13-14

The same applys here.

Did Jesus lie when He said H would not leave His Church orphans? Anyway you look at it, if there isn’t a church in the world today that continues to be the Church established by Jesus, then Jesus lied! Which of course is absurd.

No, the Lord did not lie because he never made that statement. He said that he would not leave his Apostles. So there is a different way of looking at it…

Lastly you said:
A key difficulty for non-Catholics is that they can’t say exactly when the apostasy took place nor can they point to any definitive historical event, other than there is only an interior feeling or testimony on which non-Catholics can base their beliefs, but such subjective proof proves nothing. They charge that the Catholic Church apostatized soon after it was formed and therefore the Church of today is not the same Church as the original Church. As a former Lutheran this always troubled me.

**I agree with you completely Joe. As a non-Catholic I can’t point to an exact time of when the Apostasy took place and yes my beliefs are mainly centered in the personal testimony I’ve received. However, is it any different for Catholics? Can you say when, how, and by whom the Authority of the Lord was passed on. We know He had it and gave it to Peter and the Apostles,but when was it ever given to anyone else??? Your history summary was helpful in placing the Catholic church into close relative proximity of the church which the Lord established, but it in no way answers the essential questions of who, how, and when the Lords Authority was Passed (that historical event you mentioned). This is just a matter of your own beliefs and testimony which is not a bad thing, only different from my own. **

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by willi8 View Post

Can you give me facts that that scripture meant to indicate that the church would never suffer total apostasy?

I]"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock* I will build my church**; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."* Matthew 16

Are you saying that the fact that Satan, the anti-Christ (the ultimate enemy of Christ’s Body, which is the Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” --**“the church of the living God”) **–“shall not prevail” against Jesus’ Church built on Peter, the apostles and the prophets is not proof that the church would never suffer total apostasy?

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Ephesians 1:20-23

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…” Ephesians 2:19-20

You claim that the Catholic church safegaurded the Lord’s church. Says who??? Is that not an opinion/belief?

**Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “safegaurd the Lord’s church?” Is it the church Jesus built? Can your church trace its origin all the way back to the apostles? If not, I respectably ask, why are you a member?
**

Has the Lord ever said that His church would some day be called the Catholic Church and that HIs teachings would be preserved through it. No, that is a matter of your belief and faith.

Has the Lord ever said that His church would some day be called the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that His teachings would be preserved through it. L.D.S. was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1830 --approximately 1800 years after Jesus established His Church.

In like manner, I have given you a portion of my belief and faith which correlates with my interpretation of the scripture. What kind of facts do you want?

**The key word is “my interpretation.” Should I believe your interpretation?; should you believe my interpretation? NO!!! We should believe the interpretation of the apostolic church? The key is to figure out which church today continues to BE the church established by Jesus Christ! **

Jesus said to His apostolic church: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20

Jesus’ apostolic church was given the Divine authority to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,” which means that church is the only church that has the right, the obligation to interpret Sacred Scripture. Do you really believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church established by Jesus (GOD) circa 33 A.D.?

Did the Catholic church safegaurd Christianity? Sure it did, it safegaurded the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. For that I am grateful, but that in no way indicates that the Catholic church was the same church which Jesus set up.

Why would Jesus (GOD) start a church, guarantee --nothing would overcome His church, promise --to be with His church “forever” --and then leave His church and set up shop in a church established by a mere man like Joseph Smith? I promise, no sarcasm intended.

Did it shape Christianity? Of course, but was that shaping done by the authority of the Lord?

If it wasn’t done by the authority of the Lord then how could the C.C. shape Christianity?

I will always respect your beliefs but don’t try to discredit mine on basis of your own opinions…

I don’t think it was based on his opinion, I think it is based on a historical fact that your church (L.D.S.) was founded by a man, not the apostles which form the foundation of Jesus’ church

Jesus solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time, to the consummation of the world. But Jesus Christ cannot remain with the Church that teaches error, or falsehood, or corruption. If, therefore, the Catholic Church has fallen into error and corruption, as most Protestants seem to think, then Jesus Christ must have abandoned her. If so, He has broken His oath. If He has broken His oath He is a perjurer, and there is no Christianity at all. Again, our Divine Savior [St. John, 14th chapter] has promised that He would send to His Church the Spirit of Truth, to abide with her forever. If, then, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, teaches the Church all truth and teaches her all truth forever, then there never has been, and never can be, one single error in the Church of God. For where there is all truth, there is no error whatsoever.

Jesus commands us to hear and believe the teachings of His Church in all things, at all times and in all places. He does not say hear the Church for a thousand years or for fifteen hundred years, but hear the Church, without any limitation, without any reservation, or any restriction of time whatever. That is, at all times, in all things until the end of time. And he that does not hear the Church let him be unto thee, says Christ, as a heathen and as a publican. Therefore, Christ says that those who refuse to hear His Church must be looked upon as heathens, and what is a heathen? One that does not worship the true God. And a publican is a public sinner. This is strong language. Could Jesus Christ command me to believe the Church if the Church could have led me astray, or could lead me into error? If the teaching of the Church be corrupt, could He, the God of truth, command me without any restriction or limitation to hear and believe the teachings of the Church which He has established?

Again, Our Divine Savior commands me to hear and believe the teaching of the Church in the same manner as if He Himself were to speak to us. “He that heareth you, heareth Me,” says He to the Apostles, “And he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” So when I believe what the Church teaches, I believe what God teaches. If I refuse what the Church teaches, I refuse what God teaches.

St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothysays, “The Church is the ground”, that is, the strong foundation, “and the pillar of the truth.” Take the ground or foundation of this edifice away, and it crumbles down. So with regard to these pillars, upon which the roof rests, take them away and the roof will fall in. So St. Paul says, “The Church is the ground and the pillar of truth,” and the moment you take away the authority of the Church of God you induce all kinds of errors and blasphemous doctrines. Do we not see this today?

In the sixteenth century Protestantism did away with the authority of the Church and constituted every man his own judge of the Bible, and what was the consequence? Religion upon religion, church upon church, sprang into existence, and has never stopped springing up new churches, to this day.