G
- Status
T
Tomyris
Guest
He is, but I don’t know how many times now, I have seen this, even after posting refutations to it. He ignores the refutations and keeps saying the same thing.
That’s not dialog. That’s not conversation. That’s not interesting.
I think he is making the Catholic case to those already convinced by it.
On the Protestant side, there are two basic arguments about the papacy. One is that it was never Christ’s intent, which I am currently arguing
on other threads, and the other is that it WAS legitimate, but is now lost. I suppose a third argument is that it is still legitimate, but other than the Roman Catholic claim. Jon, is one of these descriptive of how LCMS approaches the papacy?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
-
- Peter is the rock. Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic scholars all agree on this.
- All Christians agree that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.
- Jesus promised the keys of the office of Royal Steward to Peter alone. No other apostle got a spare set. This is accepted by numerous Protestant scholars and Bible commentaries.
- Whatever you bind… This is recorded first to Peter and later (to a lesser degree) to the Eleven in Mt. 18.
- Strengthen your brothers…
31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”- Feed my sheep…
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
You have refuted the idea that Jesus spoke these passages to Peter alone?
:nope:
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
All!? Hot Dog, you mean there’s not many Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic scholars that disagree? I mean Hot Dog!
Do all Christians agree on the definition of Church?
How the succession of the keys work is contested.
A lesser degree? I beg to differ.
Whatever has no lesser meaning in Matt 18 than it does in Matt 16.
He better. He didn’t say weaken them, right?
What happens when Peter claims absolute, immediate, universal jurisdiction over the entire Church without any impediment or any Church Council being able to depose him?
T
Tomyris
Guest
Here we go, quickly. I can’t stay on. First, there is a large and strong school f thought that the confession Peter made was the Rock. Or Jesus was the foundation. Or Peter was a type of all the apostles and prophets (echoing 'founded upon the apostles and prophets" in one of Paul’s letters. You cannot honestly say everyone agrees on this.
Gates are a DEFENSIVE fortification, for crying out loud. How many times have I said that?
No true Scotsman…
- Whatever you bind… This is recorded first to Peter and later (to a lesser degree) to the Eleven in Mt. 18.[A lesser degree? Come on.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Jon you have spoken more on the topic of Unam Sanctam than anything else lately and I know you understand the implications perfectly. Odd to me, but it’s your call.
When this thread reaches it’s impending end, maybe you could start a thread on that topic.
Mary.
T
Topper17
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Apologies. I did not mean in his proximate post, but seriatum. here and there, now and then. In this thread, twice, in this forum 3 other times, on this site multiple times. Of course, it is most often the same citations, from the same three books, but still…it’s Sir Arnold Lunn.Where?
For years I thought I was the only one who remembered him.
GKC
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Right? Okay, we both know that I wasn’t trying to imply that every single scholar…etc. I was trying to say that some scholars from all three major categories agree on this one issue.
But you knew that.
Nope. But regardless of their definitions, they do agree that hell will not prevail.
So there.
Of course. If your gang didn’t have them, wouldn’t YOU contest it? :yup:
Think of it this way…Peter has the keys to the city gates. He controls who goes in and who goes out. His whatever is over the whole realm.
The other apostles have “whatever” over smaller matters…buildings within the city so to speak.
Right. And the weaker brothers are strengthened by the stronger, right?
Nothing for the first thousand years or so. Then along comes Cerularius who wants to be emperor and pope…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Your concern over Peter’s name change is baffling. Before he met Jesus, Simon was Simon. Jesus gave him a new nickname, and it stuck, though people continued to call him Simon Peter or Cephas or simply Simon. This is a stretch, and you’re not establishing much credibility with this silly argument.
Now, regarding John 21, I’ll “refute” your position now.
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Jesus has just told Peter that He would be martyred, so when Peter turned and saw John following them, Peter was naturally curious as to John’s fate, also. Jesus said, “If I want him to remain alive (instead of dying as a martyr), that is none of your concern.”
The death of a man is not within the realm of shepherding; it is up to God and God alone to decide when and how a man will die. Why would you think otherwise?
Big whoop. The Church felt that the need required Peter’s presence because of his stature as the head of the Church, so it was agreed that Peter would go.
Are you suggesting that if a group of Cardinals today implored the Pope to make a trip to a specific country, he wouldn’t go because it wasn’t his idea?
And if he did go, would that be a case of “the Church” sending him on an important diplomatic or missionary mission?
T
Tomyris
Guest
M
Magdalena59
Guest
I don’t get the play on words here but:
Mark 3:16 Simon whom he surnamed Peter;
Surname definition: a name added to a person’s name as one indicating a circumstance of birth, or some characteristic or achievement.
Characteristic definition: a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it.
Simon means - hearing
Peter - stone or rock.
T
Tomyris
Guest
What about all the claims Catholics make that the name change is a big whoop? I could say the same thing about all your concern about the “name change”.
Tell you what: If you stop making a big deal about Peter/Petros/Petra, I will.
Jesus did NOT tell him, “well, done, my good and faithful shepherd” - instead he told him to mind his own business.
There is no case for Petrine authority in John 21. This demonstrates the lack of it emphatically.
You are missing the point.
T
Tomyris
Guest
I am not convinced doctrinal unity is what is needed for reconciliation as much as forgiveness is. The quotes from three popes I posted earlier seem to support that contention as something that is eminently Catholic.
We need to hear good news from each other, not cannon fire.
We need to see Christ in each other, not the devil.
We need to forgive as we have been forgiven, not accuse as we have been accused.
Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.
Rejoice when? When they insult you and …
May the peace of Christ envelop you this night and forever.
We need to hear good news from each other, not cannon fire.
We need to see Christ in each other, not the devil.
We need to forgive as we have been forgiven, not accuse as we have been accused.
Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.
Rejoice when? When they insult you and …
May the peace of Christ envelop you this night and forever.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I said “big whoop” about the Church sending Peter. Not about his name change which IS a big deal.
I’m sure you would love for me to agree to that since the argument is devastating to the non-Catholic position.
Big whoop.
No, actually, Jesus has already told us that He is the Good Shepherd and that there is one flock. Therefore, when Jesus tells Peter to tend and feed His sheep, He is telling Peter to do the things that He would do and to act in His absence. This ties into Peter’s role as Royal Steward who has command in the absence of the king.
So, the tie-in IS emphatic, and it works against you.
I haven’t missed your point. I just don’t agree with it.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
As a matter of fact, you still are misrepresenting this article. Luther did not believe “defenders of the papacy” and “Catholic” were equivocal terms. You are equivocating.
My view is a mixture of Luther’s and Karl Barth’s. Like Luther, I make the same sharp distinction between “papacy” and “Catholic.” Like Barth, I don’t claim the ability to be able to look into anyone’s heart- especially people on the other side of a computer that I’ll probably never meet in person. Now, when I come across people telling me that Luther’s view of sola fide is heretical, or wrong and that my works have a salvific role, my conscience will not allow me to extend the right hand of fellowship. Also there have a been a number of people I’ve come across in cyberspace that not only think sola fide is heretical or wrong, but go out of their way to attack me personally- sometimes with cursing, or trolling. While I can’t look into their hearts either, my conscience will not allow me to extend the right hand of fellowship to them either.
Considering the amount of and length of your posts, I’m not sure you and I would use the word “limited” in the same way.
These folks here on Catholic Answers don’t realize that my interaction with you goes back a number of years- probably to 2007, and I can understand why you would rather not interact with my comments. If you’ve got someone like me that actually believes a good solid chunk of Luther’s views on sola fide and sola scriptura and can articulate a counter response to your caricature of Luther’s views and your misuse of biographical and historical information, I think it makes perfect sense why you would avoid interaction.
My blog, which I don’t link to here (at least anymore) or advertise, is like my journal of my interactions in cyberspace. I don’t advertise it, nor do I make any money from it. If your posts are presented, they are always linked back to their source- so if you really think your view is so compelling, consider it free advertising for your view.
And remember Topper, Catholic Answers sent me an e-mail this week referring to me as, “a valuable friend of Catholic Answers.” I do my best to abide by their rules. I’ve been here since 2004, and unless they boot me, I will continue to demonstrate your interpretation of Luther and the Reformation is inaccurate at worst, and not the view of current trends within Catholic scholarship and the magisterium at best.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Well done. I don’t typically pat people on the back (“Hooray for our Side!” mentality), but the papal comments mixed in with anti-Luther rhetoric presents an interesting and compelling ostensive demonstration that cuts to the heart of the dissonance in conversations like these.
I’m not so sure. Some time back I came across a Catholic person asking, “Why do we have a hymn of heretic Martin Luther (‘A Mighty Fortress’) in our Catholic hymnal?”- The answer given by a fairly well-known apologist was:
“We have the hymn presumably because the people who compiled the hymnal think it’s a good hymn–which it is. The Church has always had the habit of taking the best of whatever we humans come up with and pressing it into the worship of God. It has never been afraid to borrow from Protestants…”
The thing about “A Mighty Fortress” though is that if one interprets it according to Luther’s paradigms, well, he did not hold, (cough, cough) a high view of the papacy, and I would argue the hymn, in its original social context, isn’t really an ecumenical* kumbaya*.
I think the Lutheran view falls somewhere between two and three. We are willing to accept the historic primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but we believe the claim of supremacy to be opposed to scripture and the early Church.He is, but I don’t know how many times now, I have seen this, even after posting refutations to it. He ignores the refutations and keeps saying the same thing.
That’s not dialog. That’s not conversation. That’s not interesting.
I think he is making the Catholic case to those already convinced by it.
On the Protestant side, there are two basic arguments about the papacy. One is that it was never Christ’s intent, which I am currently arguing
More importantly, however, is our view that the orders regarding bishops, etc. are of human design, good and needed, but not divine. The office of public ministry, however, is divine, and distinct from the priesthood of all believers.
Jon
Hi Mary,
I suspect you know my reasons and intentions for mentioning Unam sanctam. I don’t agree with it, and while the positive reformulation is noted, I still find the implications in opposition to scripture and the early church.
Beyond that, however, the topic is only of mild interest to me. But if a small few continue to essentially question the sincerity of my synod’s explanation of our confession’s charges against the office of the Papacy, it seems appropriate to make the link.
Jon
- Status