Protestant Idolatry

[crazzeto]

Out of context? Who exactly do you think you are talking to? Jack Chick? I KNOW the history and I know that the way people were elected changed from the 1st century. From the Catholic Encyclopedia

You see, your view of history is a sanitized one I can guess. You bought the infomercial about how neat and tightly early Christian history is Catholic. You ignore congregational polity. You ignore bishops reacting to the first use of images in a church, not on cave walls to tell stories you understand, but in churches by ripping them down. You ignore early Christian bishops who say they have no idea what happened to Mary. She could have been martyred, died, assumed etc no one knows. You ignore that the early church did not differintiate between Peter and Paul in regards to their authority.
You did not read the history. You accepted a sanitized internet version of the truth found on pro Catholic sites. You did reject it seems like a fundamentalist background that does not examine history. You aint talking to that kind of fundie brother.

I have some early church writings, written before the division of the church which I would like your comments on:

Ignatius of Antioch

“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Dionysius of Corinth

“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Irenaeus C 189 AD

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Gaius

“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ignatius of Antioch

Yes. Of course. The first passage indicates that Peter and Paul commanded people at Rome. Paul does so in his letter where he also indicates he has not been to Rome. Peter and Paul are shown together and there is nothing to indicate that the first or second century church view one as more important than the other. This is a good example of that.

Dionysius of Corinth

Beautiful. Once again Peter and Paul, the most prominent of all of the apostles are mentioned together. Nothing about Peterine primacy over Paul in any, way, shape, or form.

Irenaeus C 189 AD

The nail in the coffin for Peterine primacy. The succession of bishops, which are not historical, Sixtus is the sixth one…thats a good one (note: while the vast majority of scholars do not find the list historical it is not actually relevent for my argument so I will assume the historicity to not belabor the point) the bishops come from Peter? No. Not at all. Peter and Paul. There is nothing to indicate that Irenaeus thought of the succession of bishops coming from Peter as Christ’s successors. Instead you have the bishop of Rome as coming from Peter and Paul who founded (although Irenaeus is a bad historian because Paul directly states he did not found the church at Rome) the church.

Gaius

Yes, once again. Peter and Paul. Nothing absolutely nothing to indicate Peter was viewed superior over Paul or that he exercised authority Paul did not also have.

 

[CWBetts]

Out of context? Who exactly do you think you are talking to? Jack Chick? I KNOW the history and I know that the way people were elected changed from the 1st century. From the Catholic Encyclopedia

You see, your view of history is a sanitized one I can guess. You bought the infomercial about how neat and tightly early Christian history is Catholic. You ignore congregational polity. You ignore bishops reacting to the first use of images in a church, not on cave walls to tell stories you understand, but in churches by ripping them down. You ignore early Christian bishops who say they have no idea what happened to Mary. She could have been martyred, died, assumed etc no one knows. You ignore that the early church did not differintiate between Peter and Paul in regards to their authority.
You did not read the history. You accepted a sanitized internet version of the truth found on pro Catholic sites. You did reject it seems like a fundamentalist background that does not examine history. You aint talking to that kind of fundie brother.

I guess that settles it. You are the final arbiter of truth.

 

[po18guy]

You see, your view of history is a sanitized one I can guess. You bought the infomercial about how neat and tightly early Christian history is Catholic. You ignore congregational polity. You ignore bishops reacting to the first use of images in a church, not on cave walls to tell stories you understand, but in churches by ripping them down. You ignore early Christian bishops who say they have no idea what happened to Mary. She could have been martyred, died, assumed etc no one knows. You ignore that the early church did not differintiate between Peter and Paul in regards to their authority.
You did not read the history. You accepted a sanitized internet version of the truth found on pro Catholic sites. You did reject it seems like a fundamentalist background that does not examine history. You aint talking to that kind of fundie brother.

This all is drifting WAAAAAAY off topic here. So what if “some” Bishops in Gaul and Portugal might have been incorrectly chosen. How does this destroy the perpetuation of the faith?

Start yet another thread challenging Petrine primacy if you think your argument is better than the hundreds that have all been shot down. Bring it.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes. Of course. The first passage indicates that Peter and Paul commanded people at Rome. Paul does so in his letter where he also indicates he has not been to Rome. Peter and Paul are shown together and there is nothing to indicate that the first or second century church view one as more important than the other. This is a good example of that.

Beautiful. Once again Peter and Paul, the most prominent of all of the apostles are mentioned together. Nothing about Peterine primacy over Paul in any, way, shape, or form.

The nail in the coffin for Peterine primacy. The succession of bishops, which are not historical, Sixtus is the sixth one…thats a good one (note: while the vast majority of scholars do not find the list historical it is not actually relevent for my argument so I will assume the historicity to not belabor the point) the bishops come from Peter? No. Not at all. Peter and Paul. There is nothing to indicate that Irenaeus thought of the succession of bishops coming from Peter as Christ’s successors. Instead you have the bishop of Rome as coming from Peter and Paul who founded (although Irenaeus is a bad historian because Paul directly states he did not found the church at Rome) the church.

Yes, once again. Peter and Paul. Nothing absolutely nothing to indicate Peter was viewed superior over Paul or that he exercised authority Paul did not also have.

Cool, now that we’ve established Peter was definietly in Rome,

Now lets start with

18

And so I say to you, you are Peter [Cephas], and upon this rock [Cephas] I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I add Cephas, because it is the (greek) version of the Aramaic (Cepha) which is what Jesus called Simon Peter. What’s interesting to note is that Peter (Cepha or Cephas) was actually an atypical name at this point in time, our Lord basically made it up for Simon Peter. Also of note, is that Cehpa or Cephas doesn’t refer to just any rock, it’s not some small pebble on a beach but rather a large outcroping of rock, something which would appropriately serve as a foundation.

Further Jesus goes on not just to say you are the rock (naming Simon “rock” in Aramaic, which is now Peter in english), but he also says that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church he established on this rock (Peter).

Further lets examin the order in which St. Matthew puts the names of the Apostles in his gosple

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVJ.HTM

2

The names of the twelve apostles 3 are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

Not only is Peter listed first, but it’s noted “first, Simon called Peter” which gives Peter speacial emphisis in the ordering.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The congregation choose the bishops and elders until much later on. It was not a practice of the early church.

Bottom line. The Didache teaches that. Clement teaches that. The Catholic encyclopedia confirms it.
I guess what the apostles set up was not good enough…shame.

 

[crazzeto]

No comment regarding scripture?

 

[CWBetts]

The congregation choose the bishops and elders until much later on. It was not a practice of the early church.

Bottom line. The Didache teaches that. Clement teaches that. The Catholic encyclopedia confirms it.
I guess what the apostles set up was not good enough…shame.

If the switch was in error it would not have happened. Unless you think Jesus was lying when He said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. And I thought you believed the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I guess that settles it. You are the final arbiter of truth.

CW I am not saying anything different than a lot of people. Have you ever read a text from a Catholic seminary that discusses this? My impression is that Protestant and Catholic scholars would agree in this but what they disagree about is whether this development was acceptable. That is my impression. Listen, you start a thread calling Protestants; expect some challenges to that. .

 

[crazzeto]

So now we’re ingorning the bible?

 

[CWBetts]

CW I am not saying anything different than a lot of people. Have you ever read a text from a Catholic seminary that discusses this? My impression is that Protestant and Catholic scholars would agree in this but what they disagree about is whether this development was acceptable. That is my impression. Listen, you start a thread calling Protestants; expect some challenges to that. .

Unfortunately you have not addressed my pints in the OP. You started railing about elections of Bishops and Petrine Primacy. Address the FACT that Fundamentalists attribute the Bible with sentient qualities, even, at times, equating the Bible with Jesus! This is idolatry, and a clear violation of the 2nd commandment. This is the worship of something made by human hands. Now that we are back on topic…

 

[Rightlydivide]

No comment regarding scripture?

None really needed. The verse does not establish anything outside that either Peter or his statement (or both) is the rock on which the church will be established. My understanding from the patristic writings is both interpretations are acceptable. The statement is understood by reading the rest of the Bible to understand it. What did it mean to the people best qualifed to understand it? What did it mean to the early church?
I have no idea why people even spend so much time debating that verse and ignore the rest of the Bible. Either interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with how the early church view Paul and Peter the same. Quotes are provided from the ante-nicene fathers supporting MY view then ignored.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Unfortunately you have not addressed my pints in the OP. You started railing about elections of Bishops and Petrine Primacy. Address the FACT that Fundamentalists attribute the Bible with sentient qualities, even, at times, equating the Bible with Jesus! This is idolatry, and a clear violation of the 2nd commandment. This is the worship of something made by human hands. Now that we are back on topic…

You do not have any points in the OP. You have a sentence from an unknown book from your brothers house. Use your phone and call him for goodness sakes and find out what it is. When he asks you why tell him that you are using it on a discussion forum to challenge Protestants. That should make for interesting conversation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So now we’re ingorning the bible?

Patience. I do not ignore the Bible. You are not the only one. By the way, why did you post support of my view and then ignore them? The early church did not differentiate between the role of Peter and Paul. Thats a fact it appears. Now hundreds of years later people start thinking they are smarter than the original apostles I guess…

 

[crazzeto]

None really needed. The verse does not establish anything outside that either Peter or his statement (or both) is the rock on which the church will be established. My understanding from the patristic writings is both interpretations are acceptable. The statement is understood by reading the rest of the Bible to understand it. What did it mean to the people best qualifed to understand it? What did it mean to the early church?
I have no idea why people even spend so much time debating that verse and ignore the rest of the Bible. Either interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with how the early church view Paul and Peter the same. Quotes are provided from the ante-nicene fathers supporting MY view then ignored.

It has direct baring on this subject, and no bible verses can’t simutaiously mean two opposing idea’s at the same time. Either our Lord was giving Peter Primacy, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, I’m very curious how you come to that conclusion. Particularly in light of

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXT.HTM

15

8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

16

He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

17

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

18

11 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

19

He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

 

[Rightlydivide]

If the switch was in error it would not have happened. Unless you think Jesus was lying when He said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. And I thought you believed the Bible.

Oh I love this. Jesus was lying!! How about your interpretation is incorrect? Have you considered that? That is an option everyone should always consider.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It has direct baring on this subject, and no bible verses can’t simutaiously mean two opposing idea’s at the same time. Either our Lord was giving Peter Primacy, or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, I’m very curious how you come to that conclusion. Particularly in light of

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXT.HTM

Are you suggesting that the rock is the statement of faith and Peter being the rock is not acceptable? I am trying to understand because that has been stated on here before as being acceptbale?

 

[crazzeto]

Are you suggesting that the rock is the statement of faith and Peter being the rock is not acceptable? I am trying to understand because that has been stated on here before as being acceptbale?

I’m suggesting it is insufficinet to explain the entire passage. Sure that message is in there… But by stoping there you’re minimizing the fact that Jesus gave Peter (Rock) a highly atypical name, “Rock”. Further he says “You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church”.

Further, what I haven’t included is the proceeding vs from the bible

17

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

Peter (rock) is the Rock upon which the Church will be built, because he has been given speacial insite into who Jesus is. Something that as far as I can see, the rest of the Apostles did not get, particularly given Christ’s response.

 

[po18guy]

The congregation choose the bishops and elders until much later on. It was not a practice of the early church.

Bottom line. The Didache teaches that. Clement teaches that. The Catholic encyclopedia confirms it.
I guess what the apostles set up was not good enough…shame.

Apparently, you have not heard of, or reject the “power to bind and loose”? Do you suppose that the method of choosing Bishops might have needed to change between the time of forming a church out of nothing and today, when it is well formed and needs only perpetuation?

Please explain how your faith community does it just like the Apostles. I would love to hear.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I’m suggesting it is insufficinet to explain the entire passage. Sure that message is in there… But by stoping there you’re minimizing the fact that Jesus gave Peter (Rock) a highly atypical name, “Rock”. Further he says “You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church”.

Further, what I haven’t included is the proceeding vs from the bible

Peter (rock) is the Rock upon which the Church will be built, because he has been given speacial insite into who Jesus is. Something that as far as I can see, the rest of the Apostles did not get, particularly given Christ’s response.

That is fine. Yes he did give him another name. This an important verse and passage. Now is it what you claim it is? Well…Mark and Luke do not even include the passage! I am not denying the claim but context is important. What exactly are you saying about Peter that I would disagree with?? Got any specifics?