R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m familiar with the quote. And I will one day, God willing.
- Status
D
dronald
Guest
Doesn’t matter. If Rome said [X] is interpretation, then what the Father’s thought is just opinion.
Right. That’s been my point that has been missed over and over. For a Protestant to say “My interpretation is [X]” and a Catholic to think that’s utter ridiculousness, then to see that great Church Father’s supported said interpretation makes it seem like the Catholics are too rash in their judgements. Or Augustine himself saying to let the reader decide; it’s unfair to the Protestant/Orthodox person when we do and are criticized.
I don’t believe (and I don’t think you do either) that the Early Church was the same in its doctrines as the Roman Catholic Church now.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
It always makes me laugh when n-Cs try to use St. Augustine to try to support their positions but tend to ignore him when he says things like the following.
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own.”
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
“All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own.”
D
dronald
Guest
Likewise when he disagrees (or anyone else) it was only just his opinion and it’s no big deal.
All laughing at me aside though, you as well miss my point. Not that Augustine and I agreed on everything, rather that there was diversity without the Church getting all anathema.
I’ll repeat myself in the next post where my position is misrepresented.
R
RollTide1987
Guest
What you (and Augustine) are leaving out is what Jesus says next. He tells Peter that he will give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and that whatever he binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Again…I find it funny that you think St. Augustine went against the teachings of the Church in his final days due to the fact that the CATHOLIC CHURCH made him a saint and proclaimed him a doctor of the Church. That does’t happen to a man who takes a heterodox position on Church teaching toward the end of his life (see Tertullian and Origen). This so-called Retractions that St. Augustine wrote was only published after the urging of those within the Catholic Church. I doubt they would do that if the whole book contained a recanting of his Catholic theology.
S
steve_b
Guest
If it hasn’t already been said,
Irenaeus writes that Matthew also wrote his gospel in the dialect of the Hebrews. Aramaic is a dialect of hebrew. Given the timing Irenaeus uses, “while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome” that could suggest to me, that version was the original and Greek was the later translation. Just thinking outloud
“Against Heresies” Bk 3 Chapter 1 -1
- We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
G
guanophore
Guest
True.
Your point has not been missed by all.
Same in doctrines, yes. These cannot be changed, since they are part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. But dogmas, yes, much has been developed beyond the NT.
S
steve_b
Guest
Using that “scholars” interpretation, assuming he’s correct, and without evidence, I’m not so easy to give him any slack there, then let’s look at what he’s said
If we look at #'s 2-4
- #'s 2 and 3, of his interpretation, if “petra” a feminine noun, is “THE ISSUE” against Peter being the rock, because Petros (masculine) and Petra (feminine) is used in the same sentence supposedly confusing the issue, then there too, if it’s a problem for Peter then it’s the same problem using rock in that case for Jesus, … if one uses that particular style of argument.
- If we look at #4, When Jesus was renaming Simon, He was speaking to Simon singularly. In that Mt 16 narrative, Jesus switched from plural (speaking to all of them) to singular speech (speaking to Simon directly in the singular). i.e. Everybody’s name wasn’t changed. Everybody didn’t get the keys. That occured for one man alone
As far as who made the decision to give Peter a new name, the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the power to bind and loose, it was the Father.
as Jesus said
Jn 5:19 the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
**Jn 12:50 **whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
Jn 14:10 The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
**Jn 14:31 **I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Then the burden of proof is on you to show how these doctrines have changed.
The fact is that Catholicism CAN demonstrate that its doctrines, unlike those of Protestantism, btw, have NOT changed over the course of 2,000 years.
It was this realization, after much study and reflection, that led the Anglican John Newman to convert to Catholicism. He actually wrote a book on this very topic, and in it he traced the development of several Catholic doctrines to demonstrate the continuity of the Catholic faith…
In this passage below, Newman considers the development of the modern papacy and explains why an explicit understanding of Papal Supremacy by the early Church Fathers is not necessary and the lack thereof not fatal to the Catholic claims defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope’s supremacy.
As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.
. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .
. . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .
When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .
Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him: so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .
On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.
It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-Nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .
Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.
(Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.)
S
steve_b
Guest
James White, and William Webster used that same argument for their polemic against Peter as the Rock. Here is one response.
Upon This Rock - Defenders of the Catholic Faith
If you don’t want to save the article and just want to read it, then select “open”
scroll down to Retractations and you’ll find that specific issue
E
ezeekl
Guest
However, Matthew 16:18,19 does not stand alone. If it did then you might have a debatable position (But not really, see below). There is John 1:42 to consider. John 1:42 nails the lid on the coffin of your position;
John 1:42 - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).”
No doubt there as to who was rock. Cephas was the transliterated (not translated but transliterated) Aramaic word for rock. A transliterated word is a word brought from one language into another with no loss of meaning. Thus we have in English Latin words such as *ipso facto *or French words such as rendevous, Hispanic words like adobe. In Aramaic Cephas would be Kepha. So the Aramaic word becomes a Greek word and because it is the name of a man it gets the masculine gender ending (-s) added on to the root word Kepha. So Kepha in Aramaic becomes Kephas (or Cephas) in Greek. Thus Peter is the rock and you got Jesus own words on it.
By the way the same gender ending change occurs in Mt 16:18. The Greek word for rock is petra. By its ending (-a) we know that it is a feminine word. To apply that word to a man as a name would require changing the feminine gender ending to the masculine. So petr(a) becomes petr(as). That Greek grammatical rule would not apply if Jesus intended anything else to be the rock other than Simon Peter.
S
steve_b
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Except that I have yet to encounter even one n-C in person who knows that St. Augustine is anything other than a really old city in Florida.
Oh? Did you miss the term heretics in his quote? It seems that he took it more seriously than you seem to have noticed.
Have you actually read all of Augustine’s writings?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Has anyone?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dr. Taylor Marshall lays out an interesting argument here: taylormarshall.com/2014/07/ro…html#more-5324
I’d like to present the essence of his case and to expand upon it a bit.
Prophecy Concerning the Catholic Church in Daniel 2
Daniel 2:31-49
31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.
35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.
39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”
46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. 47 The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”
48 Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. 49 Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.
+++
This chapter describes a dream of Nebuchadnezzar about an enormous statue composed of four different materials. First, the head was of gold. Second, the chest and arms were of silver. Third, the belly and thighs were of bronze. Fourth, the legs and feet were of iron and clay. According to the vision, a stone will be hewn from a mountain without human hands and cast into the statue. This small rock smashes against the statue’s iron and clay feet, which causes the entire statue to crumble. Then the small rock becomes a great mountain and fills the entire earth.
Looking in back in time, we understand the prophecy as corresponding to the following historical chronology when heathen kingdoms ruled over the Jews:
Now, the small rock, “not made by human hands”, destroyed the last kingdom, the Roman Empire, and filled the earth. But Jesus Himself is no small rock, is He? So, what other reference do we have in scripture for a rock?
Matthew 16:18
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
The Catholic Church, built upon Peter, the rock, formed by revelation from God and not from “flesh and blood” (i.e., “human hands”) is the lasting kingdom set up by God “that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another (i.e., Protestant) people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.”
We have the sure word of God on that.
I’d like to present the essence of his case and to expand upon it a bit.
Prophecy Concerning the Catholic Church in Daniel 2
Daniel 2:31-49
31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.
35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.
39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”
46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. 47 The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”
48 Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. 49 Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.
+++
This chapter describes a dream of Nebuchadnezzar about an enormous statue composed of four different materials. First, the head was of gold. Second, the chest and arms were of silver. Third, the belly and thighs were of bronze. Fourth, the legs and feet were of iron and clay. According to the vision, a stone will be hewn from a mountain without human hands and cast into the statue. This small rock smashes against the statue’s iron and clay feet, which causes the entire statue to crumble. Then the small rock becomes a great mountain and fills the entire earth.
Looking in back in time, we understand the prophecy as corresponding to the following historical chronology when heathen kingdoms ruled over the Jews:
- Babylonian Empire (ca. 587-539 B.C.)
- Medo-Persian Empire (ca. 539-331 B.C.)
- Greek Empire (ca. 331-168 B.C.)
- Roman Empire (ca. 63 B.C.-A.D. 70)
Now, the small rock, “not made by human hands”, destroyed the last kingdom, the Roman Empire, and filled the earth. But Jesus Himself is no small rock, is He? So, what other reference do we have in scripture for a rock?
Matthew 16:18
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
The Catholic Church, built upon Peter, the rock, formed by revelation from God and not from “flesh and blood” (i.e., “human hands”) is the lasting kingdom set up by God “that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another (i.e., Protestant) people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.”
We have the sure word of God on that.
G
Gorgias
Guest
:doh2: sigh
And I’m the one who has missed your point? I’m not gonna take a tantrum and complain that you haven’t read my post… but you haven’t read my post, dude.
To point back to Augustine – or any ECF – as an example that it’s ok to discuss varying interpretations, without realizing that the doctrine wasn’t as settled then as it is now, is the reason your complaint doesn’t hold water. If we were having a discussion about whether the universe is created or eternal, and I claimed ‘eternal’ (despite the fact that science now says ‘created’), then I couldn’t really point back to Aristotle and say, “see! Even Aristotle thought the universe was eternal! You’re so close-minded! There used to be a time when rational people could discuss these things civilly! It’s so unfair when you call me out for trying to debate this topic!!!”
But hey… clearly, I don’t understand your point. Well, more to the point, I don’t understand why you think it’s a valid one, I guess…
Doctrines are developed over time. Of course the doctrines we hold to today are a result of the process of deciding upon them!
T
Trekker47
Guest
Right! And of course if Augustine held two (not necessarily conflicting) views, and even if he preferred the less standard one himself, I doubt he’d be happy that people agreed with him on that one while denying the other interpretation, especially after it had been developed as a doctrine.
It’s really not the same, imagine if Augustine was thinking about the symbolism of Gehenna, and he said “I used to explain it as a place of torment, but I more frequently find myself explaining it in terms of the aspect of never-ending destruction, but let the reader decide for himself which he prefers.” Both are valid interpretations, but if someone came along and denied the torment while keeping the destruction, they’d just be advocating Annihilationism, which is of course far different, and I can only imagine what poor Augustine would say if that person said “I’m only agreeing with Augustine here”.
J
jameswalter
Guest
Normal,
You have to consider the verse that says that “Not all who call me Lord, Lord will be saved” with Romans 10:10 which connects says confessing Jesus as Lord with your mouth will save you Don’t grab a single line from scripture and expect to reduce to any single meaning.
By the reasoning your friend provided its just as credible to state that calling Jesus Lord will both save and condemn you. It doesn’t work.
Peace
S
steve_b
Guest
Well said
G
Goya
Guest
- Status