Peter as the Rock

[pritchard85]

What is asserted without reason may be rejected without reason.

This has gotten to be so ridiculous. You’re grabbing at straws. You can’t prove what you claim about the papacy. It has been contested non-stop for centuries.

First, it must be noted that in scripture, every time the Apostles are listed, Peter is at the top of the list(Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13). To ancient minds this is not accidental, and certainly not “ambiguous”.

 

[guanophore]

And this is becoming behavior of a Catholic, to be this uncharitable and child-like?
I don’t think so.

The observation that a person is reacting in an emotional and bigoted manner is not uncharitable. I will concede, however, that such a degree of hostility and prejudice does evidence a very immature condition in a person. Inability or unwillingness to see issues from another point of view is a sign of narrowmindedness. One does not have to agree with another point of view in order to apprehend it.

Curiously, it seems that you have not come to CAF to receive “Catholic Answers”. In fact, you seem unreceptive to the most basic dialogue.

 

[JustaServant]

Curiously, it seems that you have not come to CAF to receive “Catholic Answers”. In fact, you seem unreceptive to the most basic dialogue.

And when he leaves or is banned he will say its us mean Catholics who who couldn’t prove a thing and just wanted rid of him.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=371020

 

[guanophore]

And when he leaves or is banned he will say its us mean Catholics who who couldn’t prove a thing and just wanted rid of him.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=371020

I am starting to see some victim mentality. “Poor me, the hated Protestant”. Difficulty taking responsiblity for one’s behavior can also be considered spiritual immaturity. We need to exercise works of Mercy.

 

[Hesychios]

… interestingly enough the western Church did not fall into heresy.

So we keep going back to my earlier statement. The fact of having fallen into heresy has stamped fear into the heart so faith stopped seeking understanding.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

This has gotten to be so ridiculous. You’re grabbing at straws. You can’t prove what you claim about the papacy.

You mean I can’t prove to you. Just like you or I can’t “prove” God’s existence to an atheist. Sometimes, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, people would rather side with their prejudices than conform their minds to the truth.

It’s not that the proof doesn’t exist, you just don’t like the proof because it doesn’t fit what your pastor has told you or your idealized opinion of what you think the church ought to be rather than what it really was.

pritchard85:

It has been contested non-stop for centuries.

1. Christianity has also been contested for centuries, so am I to believe that because it has been contested that it is also false?
2. “Non-stop” for centuries, by who? Revolutionaries like Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, Hus? Men who wanted to make the Church in their image with their traditions?
   And so what?

pritchard85:

In my opinionIt doesn’t prove ANYTHING you claim about the papacy though. This IS the whole point.

1. There, I corrected that for you.
2. Secondly, when your listing your family members who do you name first? Your wife? Or your third cousin twice removed who you haven’t spoken to since the reunion seven years ago? Peter is named first because he is first.

If he is first, he has primacy, he has authority.

pritchard85:

Ok, but where does Supremacy come from in that?

I’ll ask you a question, why did the the rest of the twelve choose Peter as their mediator between them and Christ? What does that suggest?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

pritchard85:

You gave me verses that don’t prove what you claim to be so about the papacy though. Where is the Primacy shown? Where is Peter shown to be Infallible?? He isn’t shown that by Scripture. Not once.

What do you intend to mean by “infallible”. Does what you mean by it line up with what the Church’s teaching is? Because may protestants confuse papal infallibiuity with impeccability. We do not say that Peter, or his successors were impeccable, we say that they were infallible in teaching faith and morals. Do you understand the distinction?

As far as primacy I proved it in the above scriptures as well as in Matt 16:15-19. If “proved” means “proved in my opinion” then your criteria for “proof” is beyond that which is reasonable.

pritchard85:

Maybe you can show me then because of my comprehension problem and all of your insults. Show me papal infallibility, show me Mary’s assumption into heaven.

My response would be to show me from the Bible where it says that EVERYTHING that must be believed must be found directly in the BIble?

Papal infallibility is implicitly found in the Bible(Matt 16:15-19 among other), so is Mary’s assumption(Rev 12). Nowhere is the Trinity mentioned in the BIble, but you believe in it. You choose to believe what you want to believe despite its implicit-ness in the BIble and reject what you don’t on the same criteria?

That’s just not consistent hermenuetics.

pritchard85:

Just reading Scripture for what it is. I don’t see Catholicism anywhere.

1)Oh, I know, that’s what all protetsants say, its what I said as a protestant. It’s what happens when you read scripture without context.

pritchard85:

I see Peter as a poor fisherman who was wrong just as often as he was correct.

None of which negates his role as the first pope nor disproves papal infallibility.

pritchard85:

I don’t see him lavished in jewels and carried around by chariot like the popes.

Red herring. This is not why you remain a protestant. You’re a protestant because of doctrine, not because of what the Pope is wearing. If the Pope tomorrow sold all that he was given(which is how he gets his robes-they are hand made by vowed religious and given as gifts), then you would still be protestant. So spare me.

pritchard85:

I see Mary as an obedient servant, not as queen of heaven or assumed into heaven body and spirit.

You should, her current state is the fulfillment of God’s promise to us. Her destiny is potentially ours. Shed was assumed because of her obedience. She is Queen of Heaven because her Son is King; just as every Davidic king had as his queen his mother(see the books of 1 & 2 Kings-every king of Judah lists who that kings mother was). The Queen Mother was an office in the royal court. So she is the Queen mother of the new Israel-the Church.

pritchard85:

Maybe someone as intelligent as you can show an ingrate Protestant like myself where all those things are in Scripture because i missed them somewhere. Just Saying…

I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say you were an “ingrate”. I believe that you, just as I was and most protestants, are just badly misinformed not only in the Bible but about the Church as well.

Secondly your emotional response betrays your prejudice as well as your argument. If you’re not willing to have you prejudices, your opinions, your beliefs, and your interpretations challenged then maybe you should go somewhere else. If, instead, you’re willing to be guided to the truth no matter where it may lead you, then please stay. But if you’re going to continue to resort to emotional arguments because you know your positions are weak but would rather love what you believe than to be true rather than truth itself, then continuing this discussion will be fruitless.

I read the Bible as a protestant and unsderstood it as much as I did when reading it as an atheist. Protestants use the Bible (badly) to support THEIR beliefs and call it “objective”. Atheists use the Bible (badly) to disprove the Faith and call it “objective”.

All I was suggesting is that you change your approach to Scripture. That you find such a change so offensive says more about you than it does about me.

 

[pritchard85]

You mean I can’t prove to you

. Just like you or I can’t “prove” God’s existence to an atheist. Sometimes, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, people would rather side with their prejudices than conform their minds to the truth.

No… You can’t prove it period… Everytime I ask for the proof from Scripture I get a different excuse and a different beat around the bush answer but never any proof.

It’s not that the proof doesn’t exist, you just don’t like the proof because it doesn’t fit what your pastor has told you or your idealized opinion of what you think the church ought to be rather than what it really was.

It suggests just what Jesus said to Peter. Nothing more and nothing less. Read the Scripture if you are unfamiliar.

 

[pritchard85]

What do you intend to mean by “infallible”. Does what you mean by it line up with what the Church’s teaching is? Because may protestants confuse papal infallibiuity with impeccability. We do not say that Peter, or his successors were impeccable, we say that they were infallible in teaching faith and morals. Do you understand the distinction?

At some point here, can we stop pretending that all Protestants are stupid and that they make statements which they do not know the meaning of? I’m growing really tired of your exclusive behavior.

As far as primacy I proved it in the above scriptures as well as in Matt 16:15-19. If “proved” means “proved in my opinion” then your criteria for “proof” is beyond that which is reasonable.

Ultimately you will say that I could not believe anything about Scripture that wasn’t previously proclaimed as so by the magisterium. That’s not an equal authority in the RCC. Your three legged stool is short on one leg, that being Scripture. That is one of the biggest problems with Catholicism.

 

[ron77nyc]

We do not say that Peter, or his successors were impeccable, we say that they were infallible in teaching faith and morals.

From the beginning of the Church until the 20th century it was infallibly declared that everyone not subject to the Roman Pontiff could not have salvation. How could all popes be infallible when they do not all agree with this long held teaching?

 

[jam070406]

From the beginning of the Church until the 20th century it was infallibly declared that everyone not subject to the Roman Pontiff could not have salvation. How could all popes be infallible when they do not all agree with this long held teaching?

That is, if the person knew the Truth of the Church and rejected it. It has also been taught that those through no fault of their own follow the law written on their hearts, to the best of their ability, may obtain salvation.

 

[ron77nyc]

That is, if the person knew the Truth of the Church and rejected it. It has also been taught that those through no fault of their own follow the law written on their hearts, to the best of their ability, may obtain salvation.

Thanks for making my point. You would not be saying that if you were a Catholic in 1215, 1302, 1441 or 1928. This is what the popes were teaching back then:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

“Whoever, therefore, is not united with it is not a member of it, nor does he communicate with its Head Who is Christ. No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos 1928)

 

[guanophore]

At some point here, can we stop pretending that all Protestants are stupid

I don’t know who “we” are in this reference, but I do think it would be a good idea if you stopped generalizing and playing the victim. The purpose of the forum is to discuss the issues. You seem to have a lack of skills or interest in this area, and are prone to make statements then do not support them. I do admit that it makes you look like you don’t know what you are talking about. You come across as just spewing anti-Catholic rhetoric.

…and that they make statements which they do not know the meaning of?

There is no “they” involved here, Pritch. You are the only one who is making statemetns you have not supported. What other “Protestants” are you talking about? Do you have a sense that you have many peoplel living in your head?

I’m growing really tired of your exclusive behavior.

There is no “exclusive behavior” here Pritch. Everyone is expected to support their assertions, Catholic, and non-Catholic. Perhaps your problem is that you wish to be excluded from the forum rules?

If “proved” means “proved in my opinion” then your criteria for “proof” is beyond that which is reasonable.

I agree. I don’t think it is a proper use of the scripture to use it in this manner. Besides, you have made it clear that talking about what the scriptures say is not an area of interest to you.

That Scripture doesn’t prove Supremacy which all of the RCC titles of pope add up to.

What does “supremacy” mean to you, Pritchard? What is it about the role of the successor of Peter that bothers you so much?

Now you are redirecting the argument. Nobody ever said that every waking thing that happened was included in Scripture.

No, no one did, but it is not a redirection. You want something “proved from Scripture” that was in place before Scripture was penned, and by which authority the New Testament exists.

All Protestant?? Anglicans, Lutherans, Quakers, 7th Day Adventists? Everybody??

All of these groups are defined by how much of the One Faith they have rejected. Yes, they all read Scripture out of context. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. It cannot be properly understood apart from the faith that produced it.

Nothing in Scripture proves papal infallibility. Peter was not infallible.

What do you mean by that? What does infallibility mean to you?

I personally don’t care what you think. It’s irrelavent.

A good example of your hostility leaking out again. And, one has to wonder, why are you here posting, if you don’t care what people think? If the respnses to your assertions are “irrelevant”, why did you come here to make them?

You can’t prove a lick of it.

I think you are right. We recieve Jesus as our King by faith,and we receive that salvation is “of the Jews” by faith. By that faith, we know and understand the role of the King’s Mother in the Kingdom of David. It certainly cannot be understood by those who refuse the One Faith.

I would watch what you say about Protestants. Some of us were Catholic for many years and were devout practicing Catholics who adhered to holy days of obligation, adoration, confession and didn’t miss a single Sunday mass for years on end. Watch who you proclaim to be ignorant.

Unfortunately, persons such as those you describe here can have a form of godliness without the power thereof. Such person can be very “dutiful” and still lack faith. And they can lack education, and though dutiful practitioners of outward religion, still be ignorant. I can speak from personal experience on that one.

Ultimately you will say that I could not believe anything about Scripture that wasn’t previously proclaimed as so by the magisterium. That’s not an equal authority in the RCC.

This is simply an error, Pritch. I am sorry that you have been misinformed on this point, but this is not what the CC believes and teaches.

Your three legged stool is short on one leg, that being Scripture. That is one of the biggest problems with Catholicism.

It may have been a problem in your personal expereince, Pritch, but it is not a problem within Catholicism. I was not taught to read the Scriptures either, in my youth, and wanting to know them better is what got me into a Baptist Bible Fellowship in high school. I was subjected to much of the same anti-Catholic polemic that you are spewing on CAF now.

Have you ever considered forming your hostility toward Catholicism on the facts? What the CC actually believes and teaches, rather than all the erroneous ideas you have collected?

 

[ThePharmacist]

I’m sorry, but this is too amusing:

There is no “they” involved here, Pritch. You are the only one who is making statemetns you have not supported. What other “Protestants” are you talking about? ** Do you have a sense that you have many peoplel living in your head?**

and in the same post:

Perhaps your problem is that you wish to be excluded from the forum rules?

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing in Scripture proves papal infallibility. Peter was not infallible…

Firstly, pritchard, if you could please not nest your responses as it make responding to your quotes inconvenient. Click here to learn how to quote in the correct fashion. Thanks.

Now, as far as Peter not being infallible, it seems that you are actually making a statement that St. Peter was not impeccable, and on that Catholics will give you a hearty AMEN! For you seem not to understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility.

However, if you are insistent that he was not infallible, as Catholics understand infallibility, then perhaps you could start by listing the error our first pope made in his first and second encyclicals.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for making my point. You would not be saying that if you were a Catholic in 1215, 1302, 1441 or 1928. This is what the popes were teaching back then:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

“Whoever, therefore, is not united with it is not a member of it, nor does he communicate with its Head Who is Christ. No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos 1928)

Ron, good to see you back on the forums. But you really are a johnny-one-note on the CAFs, aren’t you? The last time you posted, last year, weren’t you still discussing “no salvation outside the Church”?

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, good to see you back on the forums. But you really are a johnny-one-note on the CAFs, aren’t you? The last time you posted, last year, weren’t you still discussing “no salvation outside the Church”?

It’s not about me. It’s about “Peter as the Rock.” If Peter’s successors were “johnny-one-notes” then I would change my tune.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not about me. It’s about “Peter as the Rock.” If Peter’s successors were “johnny-one-notes” then I would change my tune.

Well, of course they were johnny-one-notes! The One Note being, naturally, the Gospel of Christ.

The deposit of faith which the successors of Peter preserve, promulgate and defend is the One Note of the Word of God.

 

[ron77nyc]

Well, of course they were johnny-one-notes! The One Note being, naturally, the Gospel of Christ.

The deposit of faith which the successors of Peter preserve, promulgate and defend is the One Note of the Word of God.

Many non-Catholics preserve the gospel message and some do a better job of it. Are they also successors of Peter?

 

[benedictus2]

From the beginning of the Church until the 20th century it was infallibly declared that everyone not subject to the Roman Pontiff could not have salvation. How could all popes be infallible when they do not all agree with this long held teaching?

I think you are misrepresenting the teaching here. Can you please give the exact doctrine as it was exactly stated?