Peter as the Rock

[benedictus2]

You are using verses singular to try and come up with your beliefs. It doesn’t work that way. read Scripture as a whole and it’s simply not there.

Actually it is when you read scripture as a whole that one comes up with the truth of the Church.

When you cut and exise bits and pieces from the Bible that you come up with mangled versions that make up protestant teaching.

 

[benedictus2]

Where do you get Peter as Supreme and Infallible then? Don’t say tradition either, because something of this magnitude surely would have solid footing in the Scriptures especially from Paul but yet it doesn’t.

Where did scripture come from if not from tradition? Before we had scripture we had only tradition and the books that made it to the canon were measured against their fidelity to tradition.

 

[pritchard85]

Bluegoat, I respect your opinion on this matter, and I understand how you could come to this view. The biblical evidence for the Papacy is incredibly deep, so it is often difficult to really unravel easily by ourselves. I think that Scott Hahn has done a great job in this article

. Check it out, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

Why is it that you believe someone like Scott Hann can get something out of Scripture that Protestants can’t? You seem to think that there is no such thing as an intelligent Protestant and that Protestants can’t possibly be well versed in the Catholic faith. For centuries there have been many very sharp Protestant scholars that would all agree that the papacy is absent from Scripture. Scott Hann is an extremely zealous ex-Presbyterian convert who I believe looks very hard to make huge jumps to come up with things in Scripture that really aren’t there.

 

[pritchard85]

Where did scripture come from if not from tradition? Before we had scripture we had only tradition and the books that made it to the canon were measured against their fidelity to tradition.

The books you refer to have no corelation with some of the tradition you are referring to. How can that be if the unwritten tradition you speak of merged with those books of Scripture that you claim come from tradition?

 

[benedictus2]

Ya know, it makes me laugh when I hear another explanation why the Scriptures don’t mean what they say or how we absolutely have no correct way or any idea of what Scripture says outside of your magisterium. Of all the Catholics I have ever spoken with on this subject over many many years, this is the first time I have ever heard anything remotely close to this. I don’t accept it. Sorry. If Peter was everything your church claims, then he would have been spoken of in Scripture in these ways and he simply was not.

But he was. Only a fair amount of convolutions in exegesis can make it say otherwisel

You cannot fill the void there that clearly exists. Paul never eluded to Peter being supreme in any of his Epistles. Not once. At some point here you have to admit that this isn’t an argument that can be supported by Scripture.

Then maybe you should read the Gospels. There seems to be this is bias among protestants towards Paul over the gospels.

The Bible is also not a Catholic book. It was compiled by the Early Church, East and West together.

And the early Church was Catholic. And if you argue in this manner, considering that you are not part of the Eastern Church either, then you are already arguing against your own denomination.

In fact look at where those councils ended up. Carthage and Hippo both became part of the Orthodox church.

So what?

So, if we wanted to be technical here, we could say that the Bible is an Orthodox book, but then we have another problem. Your canon isn’t the same as the Orthodox canon. Why?? There’s just too many voids to cover to make the Catholic argument to work.

Considering that the canon needed to be ratified by the Pope, hardly.

As for the void, it is the protestant argument that fell into the void. Fifteen hundred years late is fifteen hundred years late.

 

[benedictus2]

The books you refer to have no corelation with some of the tradition you are referring to. How can that be if the unwritten tradition you speak of merged with those books of Scripture that you claim come from tradition?

 

[pritchard85]

Actually it is when you read scripture as a whole that one comes up with the truth of the Church.

When you cut and exise bits and pieces from the Bible that you come up with mangled versions that make up protestant teaching.

When you read Scripture as a whole, you see the authority given to all the Apostles. You also see Christ as the head of the Church. You don’t see Peter being infallible, you don’t see Mary as the queen of heaven, immaculately conceived, assumed in heaven, perpetually virgin nor perpetually sinless. Hmm. The more we read the ENTIRE Scripture, the less evidence we see to support much of Catholic theology.

 

[benedictus2]

Why is it that you believe someone like Scott Hann can get something out of Scripture that Protestants can’t?

 

[pritchard85]

You obviously have no conception of the formation of the canon. I suggest you read up on it first.

/QUOTE

It’s very clear my friend. You show me where the things you claim as truth that cannot be found in Scripture are. Just show us all here what evidence you have for these things. I’ve been asking for them and still cannot get an answer.

Spend more time backing up what you say and less time trying to come up with condescending statements.

 

[pritchard85]

How about because he was very learned and die hard protestant before so he knows where you are coming from.

Is Scott Hann infallible??

SIZE=3]There are many intelligent protestants. But the protestant doctrines just don’t stack up to reason.

They all come from Scripture whereas yours and Scott Hann’s don’t.

And for 2 milenia there have been brilliant and holy people who have been able to make mincement of these arguments and some of them were even protestants and atheists who have seen the truth of the Church.

/QUOTE

Why aren’t they Catholic then?? Why is the papcy still opposed greatly by so many still today?

 

[benedictus2]

When you read Scripture as a whole, you see the authority given to all the Apostles. You also see Christ as the head of the Church.

And if you read the Bible properly, you will see that Christ gave that authority to Peter, that He consistently singled out Peter.

If you have a problem with Peter’s primacy, it is not Peter you have an issued with but Christ who chose to give Peter this primacy.

You don’t see Peter being infallible, you don’t see Mary as the queen of heaven, immaculately conceived, assumed in heaven, perpetually virgin nor perpetually sinless. Hmm. The more we read the ENTIRE Scripture, the less evidence we see to support much of Catholic theology.

You obviously have no concept of the development of doctrine.

You won’t find salvation by faith alone in the Bible and you will not find the Bible alone in the Bible.

So yes, please start reading the ENTIRE scripture because Protestants are notorious for this pastime of chopping up the word of God to suit their theology.

 

[benedictus2]

It’s very clear my friend. You show me where the things you claim as truth that cannot be found in Scripture are. Just show us all here what evidence you have for these things. I’ve been asking for them and still cannot get an answer.

Very easily, but first tell me where in Scripture one can find that ALL truth is to be found in Scripture.

Show me where you can find Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide then we can discuss the Biblical basis for Catholic belief.

Spend more time backing up what you say and less time trying to come up with condescending statements.

Oh but I can but you can’t. And they are not condescening statements just mere statements of fact.

 

[benedictus2]

Is Scott Hann infallible??

Did we say he is? I think you need to re-read your statement to which I replied with “How about because he was very learned and die hard protestant before so he knows where you are coming from.”

They all come from Scripture whereas yours and Scott Hann’s don’t.

Actually yours don’t. And that is a proven fact. Scott Hahn used to think like you do until he started studying and going after the truth. That is a fact that a lot of protestants have found. If you pursue Truth, it kinda leads you to the Church and then you are faced with a choice of following the truth or clinging stubbornly to the half truths that you have always believed. So he decided to follow the Truth.
‘

Why aren’t they Catholic then??

But they are and were.

Why is the papcy still opposed greatly by so many still today?

You mean why is it opposed by the ill-informed many? Because they are ill-informed. Once they start studying and start trying to learn the truth, they cease to oppose and instead embrace it.

 

[benedictus2]

Can someone who advocates that the Papacy is unbiblical show me a time in the Bible where God didn’t appoint one man to be the representative for His people? I only ask this because from the beginning of the Old Testament with Adam all the way to the New Testament with Peter, I see God constantly appointing one person to represent all of His chosen people. Maybe someone could explain how the Chair of Peter isn’t the New Testaments continuation of the Chair of Moses in the Old Testament?

Seriously IMHO the Papacy is so Biblical it’s beyond belief that someone would have a problem with it.

You make far too much sense

 

[benedictus2]

Does anyone here happen to know Greek so that I can directly address his comments on the gender issue of Petros/petra (which seems obviously bunk from the context alone) and then also the Greek of “soi” so that I can prove that the keys were given to Peter alone?

As of now, I’m planning on adding in that the Early Church Fathers spoke Greek and understood the culture and context of the verse better than we can hope to today, and that is a strong testimony to the true meaning.

Also, as a side question: Since Matthew was likely written in Aramaic, does that mean that only the Aramaic original copy can be said to be inerrant? Or would the Greek copy that was used in the New Testament also definitely be inerrant? My point isn’t that the Greek version has errors, but simply that it’s ideal to look at the original language to understand the meaning best.

Thanks,
Chris**
I have earlier posted (post 79) links to some of my posts in earlier discussion regarding this question but I want to add two more from the same thread

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7366503&postcount=170

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7350375&postcount=30

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, I respect your opinion on this matter, and I understand how you could come to this view. The biblical evidence for the Papacy is incredibly deep, so it is often difficult to really unravel easily by ourselves. I think that Scott Hahn has done a great job in this article. Check it out, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

I’m afraid I read two-thirds and couldn’t finish the rest. He really isn’t saying anything different or new or more compelling. He still makes a ton of assumptions, and seems to want to read the modern papacy into the text in a pretty over the top way. And he keeps implying that the fact that modern Protestant scholars agree with some aspects of the way Catholics understand the relevant Biblical quotes proves a lot more than it should.

He says very little and then seems to think it leads inevitably to the modern papacy. He doesn’t address history (unless he did so at the very end) and he doesn’t give much room for defending the idea that it is a natural development of doctrine.

Something which I find a lot more thorough in its treatment of the question, and honest, is this book, Papal Primacy. It actually really addresses what is necessary to come to the conclusion the modern papacy is justified theologically, Scripturally, and historically.

I haven’t read any Scott Hahn before, but I can’t say I’m impressed. People are so enthusiastic about him, I expected a little more meat.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m afraid I read two-thirds and couldn’t finish the rest. He really isn’t saying anything different or new or more compelling. He still makes a ton of assumptions, and seems to want to read the modern papacy into the text in a pretty over the top way. And he keeps implying that the fact that modern Protestant scholars agree with some aspects of the way Catholics understand the relevant Biblical quotes proves a lot more than it should.

1. What are the ton of assumptions you think he made?
2. What are the conclusions that you think prove more than they should?

He says very little and then seems to think it leads inevitably to the modern papacy.

I don’t think he claimed that at all. What he did was show the Biblical background and how the early church saw the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

He doesn’t address history (unless he did so at the very end) and he doesn’t give much room for defending the idea that it is a natural development of doctrine.

He did when he talked about the early Church.

Something which I find a lot more thorough in its treatment of the question, and honest, is this book, Papal Primacy. It actually really addresses what is necessary to come to the conclusion the modern papacy is justified theologically, Scripturally, and historically

I haven’t read any Scott Hahn before, but I can’t say I’m impressed. People are so enthusiastic about him, I expected a little more meat.

Are you serious? You are comparing a short article to a book and concluding that the book is better because it is a book?

 

[pablope]

The books you refer to have no corelation with some of the tradition you are referring to. How can that be if the unwritten tradition you speak of merged with those books of Scripture that you claim come from tradition?

 

[pablope]

Is Scott Hann infallible??

And your pastor is? And the information you have been fed is? How do you know?

They all come from Scripture whereas yours and Scott Hann’s don’t.

How do you know? How do you know that ours is not?

Are so infalllible that you can make such judgement?

Why aren’t they Catholic then?? Why is the papcy still opposed greatly by so many still today?

Actually, from what I have seen, it is either out of ignorance, believing everything they have been told about the papacy or it is out of sheer hatred for anything Catholic, that no reasoning or explanation or reasonable dialogue is not possible.

So which category are you?

 

[justtryin]

Where do you get Peter as Supreme and Infallible then? Don’t say tradition either, because something of this magnitude surely would have solid footing in the Scriptures especially from Paul but yet it doesn’t.

Perhaps it isn’t explicit in Scripture because it was IN PRACTICE and could be seen by all.