Interesting claim by a protestant

[dronald]

How would you respond from these citations;

Augustine

“*If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). *

In this letter regarding the Donatist heresy, Saint Augustine makes it very clear that there is one visible church and that the Church was built upon Peter the rock. Then he goes on to name all his successors from Peter to Augustine’s time. Moreover he was making it clear that the Donatist “denomination” was outside the church and their teachings were in error.

Pax Cristi,

David Lamb

If you read closely at what I posted you’ll see he basically says he used to believe Peter is the rock but believes it no longer; and the reader can decide.

 

[NormalBeliever]

The Protestant is also claiming something I have never encountered before:

''Peter gave up his authority to Paul in Acts 15.

Here he states that all that Paul says is right and that the church is to follow Pauls gospel, which he recieved from the heavenly Lord. At that point, the Kingdom gospel was put on hold until the tribulation.

In essence, Paul was the foundation of Christianity, not Peter.’’

Any thoughts?

 

[Trekker47]

Found a good post on the subject from a few years back - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=469922&postcount=3
which links to this article - cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm
One point was that St. Augustine, when explaining things to various groups and heresies, stresses different aspects of the scripture to counter certain ideas. So an example given is that while he preferred a literal interpretation of the Fall, he also used an alegorical one as an argument against the manicheans; and while here he says he used to stress the literal reading where Peter is the rock, when talking to others he would stress Christ’s being the foundation of the Church, the stone which the builders rejected. I highly doubt he ever rejected either interpretation, but rather lets the reader decide which they value more highly.

 

[dronald]

Found a good post on the subject from a few years back - forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=469922&postcount=3
which links to this article - cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm
One point was that St. Augustine, when explaining things to various groups and heresies, stresses different aspects of the scripture to counter certain ideas. So an example given is that while he preferred a literal interpretation of the Fall, he also used an alegorical one as an argument against the manicheans; and while here he says he used to stress the literal reading where Peter is the rock, when talking to others he would stress Christ’s being the foundation of the Church, the stone which the builders rejected. I highly doubt he ever rejected either interpretation, but rather lets the reader decide which they value more highly.

I don’t think he rejected it outright; it simply seems to me that he came to believe his interpretation that Peter was not the rock as the correct one. Again, my argument isn’t whether or not Peter was the rock; my argument is that people could believe either way in the year 400. Why can’t we believe either way now? Or more importantly, why are Protestants criticized for such a ‘silly’ belief if even Augustine was quite alright with said belief?

 

[Trekker47]

I don’t think he rejected it outright; it simply seems to me that he came to believe his interpretation that Peter was not the rock as the correct one. Again, my argument isn’t whether or not Peter was the rock; my argument is that people could believe either way in the year 400. Why can’t we believe either way now? Or more importantly, why are Protestants criticized for such a ‘silly’ belief if even Augustine was quite alright with said belief?

Because it’s not ‘believing either way’, it’s stressing one interpretation over the other, while accepting both. The problem isn’t when you suggest that Peter’s faith in Christ is the rock, but when you suggest that Peter himself (through that faith), can’t be the rock.
I don’t even think he thinks the second interpretation was correct over the other, he just said he was using it more at that time, when you quoted you left out the bit where he refers to St Ambrose holding the former interpretation as well, and he seems to support that.

 

[dronald]

Because it’s not ‘believing either way’, it’s stressing one interpretation over the other, while accepting both. The problem isn’t when you suggest that Peter’s faith in Christ is the rock, but when you suggest that Peter himself (through that faith), can’t be the rock.
I don’t even think he thinks the second interpretation was correct over the other, he just said he was using it more at that time, when you quoted you left out the bit where he refers to St Ambrose holding the former interpretation as well, and he seems to support that.

**For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said **to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."

If Augustine didn’t see it as either/or then why did he make the argument in bold? And why would he say ‘‘let the reader decide’’ if it was already obviously defined by the Church?

 

[Trekker47]

Going to reply to this backwards since that’s how my brain is working at this late hour (which might also mean my reply won’t make much sense, if that’s the case I apologise )

If Augustine didn’t see it as either/or then why …would he say ‘‘let the reader decide’’ if it was already obviously defined by the Church?

I’ll tell you this much, Augustine wasn’t someone who would ever deny Church teachings. (If you want a couple of quotes for that here’s a link but I doubt they’re needed forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7215230&postcount=33)
Had the Church said “this is what the passage means and nothing else” then I very much doubt Augustine would encourage anyone to consider it otherwise. In that point you’re arguing against yourself, this more indicates that the Church hadn’t defined a single sole meaning for the passage, hence Augustine could leave it open to the reader which meaning they thought more essential.

**For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said **to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."

If Augustine didn’t see it as either/or then why did he make the argument in bold?

Ok, first of all, he said ‘‘I frequently’ explain it thus’, not ‘I always…’, so I do think he stressed the Christocentric aspect for the particular audience he was most often talking to at the time. In not rejecting his earlier claim, it seems to me he must have thought both were possible, otherwise he, being a doctor of the Church, would surely have picked the interpretation he thought correct.
What’s more, I suspect the two can be reconciled (this is my own musing though, I’m open to correction). If Christ was indeed referring to Himself as ‘the rock’, then changing Simon’s name to Peter clearly had something to do with that rock. Since Catholics would say that the Pope is Christ’s representative on earth, then it would make sense for Him to give Peter a name so closely resembling His own title, as a sign that Peter would be His representative. So it’s just a round-about way of getting back to Peter being the rock.

 

[RollTide1987]

If St. Augustine had died in opposition to Catholic teaching, I highly doubt the Catholic Church would have made him a saint and proclaimed him a doctor of the church. Tertullian is an example of a Church Father who went against the teachings of the Catholic Church toward the end of his life. He is not a doctor of the church or a saint.

Catholic Answers explains it thusly:

Augustine never authored a work entitled Retractions. He did write Retractationes (also known as Retractationum) between 426-427. His purpose was not to recant of any Catholic doctrines he held but, rather, to clarify and enhance his previous efforts to explain and defend them.

English-speaking authors usually avoid the problem of what the title means by the simple expedient of referring to it by its Latin title, Retractationes. When it is mentioned in English and in the English translations now available it is invariably referred to as Retractations or Retractions. The first is an affront to English and the second is incorrect. Actually, Augustine had very little to retract, and the meaning of Retractationes is Reconsiderations, Revisions, Second Thoughts, or, as I have called it, Corrections. With the Corrections, Augustine again invented a new literary genre: a summation and criticism of his own writings. He had originally intended to include in his review his books, letters, and sermons. But when he had completed the review of his books in 426 or 427, he was persuaded to publish the whole work as it then stood. (The Faith of the Early Fathers [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979] 3:163)

He was persuaded by the Church to publish Retractationes. With that in mind, I highly doubt he ever questioned his beliefs when it came to the Catholic Church.

 

[Gorgias]

And also has not been proclaimed officially as a false teaching either. The difference is that Augustine clearly left something up for interpretation that is believed to be truth in the Catholic Church now.

Precisely! That’s exactly how it works! Prior to the point that the Church makes a statement “on faith and morals”, people are busy trying to work it out. They try on various interpretations for size, trying to determine what the Word of God is speaking to them. There might even be a ‘commonly held’ interpretation that doesn’t rise to the level of doctrine (e.g., ‘limbo of the infants’). At this point in the game, it’s possible to disagree and still hold to Catholic faith. But – and this is the salient point – when the Church says, definitively, “this is what we believe as Catholics,” then we as Catholics adopt that belief as protected by the Holy Spirit (‘loosing and binding’, as it were). If, in the days of Augustine, there were unsettled issues, we would expect to see varieties of opinion! But, once the issues are settled, it’s no longer a matter of opinion!

So, going back in time – prior to any official interpretation or doctrinal statement – and pointing to divergent views makes no sense … nor does it provide any relevent points in a debate! What you’re doing here is like going back to a statement (made before the 13th amendment was passed) arguing for slavery and saying, “see! your guy supported this view! therefore, it’s ok that I support this view!”

Can you see how that’s what you’re doing here, in the name of allowing people to interpret as they see fit?

The CC still allows people to have their own opinions on Limbo however.

Have you read the recent document on limbo? Yes, it’s “allowed”, per se – but has never been doctrine and is no longer taught.

My only point is that there was diversity in the old days. Even among the most learned.

Agreed: but it’s not “old days” diversity that is no longer present. It’s a “pre-definitive teaching” scenario… which still exists today on a variety of issues!

I don’t ignore it. Let’s not go too far away from my original point that ECF’s left certain things up to interpretation without getting so Anathema on everyone.

That’s not what their take on it was, though, as if things have changed. As I’ve mentioned, Augustine, too, deferred to the authority of the Church.

The reason I mentioned (jokingly) that Augustine was Protestant

It was the third time this week I’d heard that asserted, and I think I was getting a little frustrated with the notion. It’s all good…

is that Catholics act like Protestants are ignorant of Scripture in regards to ‘the rock’ and our interpretation of it. I mean; look at the OP. It makes it seem like we’re nuts for our interpretation and yet Augustine agrees!

You keep making the point that “Augustine changed his mind.” I don’t think that the quote you provided supports this interpretation. Augustine is merely pointing to the fact that he’d interpreted the text differently at different points – in an earlier book, one way, and in later sermons, another way. If you can show that he “changed his mind,” I’d like to see it. (Other than saying, “well, chronologically speaking…”, there’s nothing there to demonstrate your claim, is there? And, the “let the reader decide” really seems to be the final nail in the coffin: if there were a set-in-stone () interpretation, we would expect to see Augustine saying, “Rome has spoken; the cause is finished”… wouldn’t we? )

There comes a point where Catholics must say, “they do have a point.”

You have a point: before doctrine was settled, it was reasonable to argue the point as you have. Nowadays… not so much.

(In other words, this really isn’t a debate on doctrine, but on authority: you don’t recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to declare doctrine, and we do.)

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think he rejected it outright; it simply seems to me that he came to believe his interpretation that Peter was not the rock as the correct one.

He doesn’t say that, though, does he? You seem to be placing that interpretation in his mouth, although it’s not in his text…

Again, my argument isn’t whether or not Peter was the rock; my argument is that people could believe either way in the year 400. Why can’t we believe either way now?

Settled teaching of the Church, maybe?

Maybe even the consideration that, prior to the Reformation, no one had a problem with Petrine ministry – but, once the Reformation had a head of steam, it was (as a practical consideration) necessary to rationalize against Petrine authority, since without that break from the teaching, the break from the Church would be unconscionable. So, the notion that someone would argue for it, without recognizing the intellectual context from which the argument arose (but rather, as if it were the most reasonable conclusion), strikes one in certain ways…

Or more importantly, why are Protestants criticized for such a ‘silly’ belief if even Augustine was quite alright with said belief?

If you argued for a flat earth – which was something that folks also tended to believe in, way back when – would you expect us to not think you silly?

This is your best question here, though, I think… and I think the answer is simple: the things that we (as Catholics, but the dynamic works for everyone in every context) hold to as fundamental are things that are just taken for granted. Therefore, when someone comes along, holding to a different fundamental stance, they’re perceived as being completely out of touch. (“You believe in a flat earth? Really? How silly…”) So, perhaps in the context of ecumenical discussion, when Catholics talk to Christians of various denominations, it’s important for us to make our points without burdening them with various emotional tones (i.e., “that’s just silly”)…

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Protestant is also claiming something I have never encountered before:

''Peter gave up his authority to Paul in Acts 15.

Here he states that all that Paul says is right and that the church is to follow Pauls gospel, which he recieved from the heavenly Lord. At that point, the Kingdom gospel was put on hold until the tribulation.

In essence, Paul was the foundation of Christianity, not Peter.’’

Any thoughts?

Yes, share the following analysis of scripture with your Bible Christian friend:

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.”

Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said **to him.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

He said, “Your are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.”

In the context of the verse, Jesus identifies Himself as the Builder not as the rock. That leaves Simon Peter, whom Jesus re-named Cephas (kepha) as the rock upon which He would do so.

 

[davidmlamb]

The Protestant is also claiming something I have never encountered before:

''Peter gave up his authority to Paul in Acts 15.

Here he states that all that Paul says is right and that the church is to follow Pauls gospel, which he recieved from the heavenly Lord. At that point, the Kingdom gospel was put on hold until the tribulation.

In essence, Paul was the foundation of Christianity, not Peter.’’

Any thoughts?

My thoughts is that you’re trying to convince yourself and not us. Like the rest of the arguments I have read on this thread against the the Catholic Church and apostolic succession you’re trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Peace,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

If you read closely at what I posted you’ll see he basically says he used to believe Peter is the rock but believes it no longer; and the reader can decide.

More nonsense! Yes let the readers decide because no one of sound reasoning would come up with such an interpretation. Again you’re trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Peace,

David

 

[Seraphim73]

“A much quoted survey compiled by Roman Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy (3) finds that 17 Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, 44 thought it referred to Peter’s confession, 16 thought Christ was the rock and 8 thought the rock was all the apostles. i.e. 80% of te Fathers did not recognize Peter as the rock! Even the Council of Trent refers to Mt 16 referring to the faith that Peter expressed!” (2)

And

"Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis, who was one of America’s extraordinary bishops, wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings. In his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, he declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18. Archbishop Kendrick summarises, “If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

So there you go.

I’m not familiar with this particular website but Archbishop Kenrick and these findings are published and well know.
americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/open/

 

[davidmlamb]

“For an Evangelical Christian to become a Catholic is not to deny all that is good within his non-Catholic faith, but to embrace more.” Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“The same holds true for Orthodox Christians.” Randy Carson

Randy, I have to say that your citation and added comment are so true and beautiful. My 18 year journey as an evangelical has well equipped me to be a better Catholic and a wiser Christian to be fully able to accomplish the will of God in my life. Not just my life but for His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which indeed includes all the Orthodox Churches.

Evangelicalism has brought a lot to the table, two most important elements; first, to know the scriptures for they are the mind of God (and in my opinion an 8th sacrament). And secondly to evangelize. I have been a revert now for 15 years and I am watching God guiding his church and calling evangelicals home to the Church Christ started. In the very words of Saint Paul to the Ephesians,

Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. Ephesians 3:20-21.

Peace,

David

 

[Church_Militant]

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

He said, “Your are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.”

In the context of the verse, Jesus identifies Himself as the Builder not as the rock. That leaves Simon Peter, whom Jesus re-named Cephas (kepha) as the rock upon which He would do so.

Exactly! As is very clear from the teaching of the church and well articulated in the article linked below.

1. Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
   Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: "[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).
   The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic *Kepha, *which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
   Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
   [T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

Peter the Rock

 

[Church_Militant]

And then from another CA tract of the same name.

“The Aramaic,” I said. “As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.”
“I thought Greek was.”
“No,” I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.
“I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.”

Peter the Rock

Oh, and as for the various early church fathers who seem to have disagreed with the church…guess which one is the infallible authority as to what they all believed? None of them are infallible, so based on the actual scriptures (which most of you n-Cs claim as your authority) and the authentic historical facts, the dilemma for you guys is pretty clear.

 

[Seraphim73]

I will say the idea that we should try and look at what was said in Aramaic instead of using the received Greek text seems extremely suspect to me. The New Testament was received in Greek. That should be treated as the source text.

 

[Church_Militant]

Except that it was also received in Aramaic, even when translated into Greek…