Sola Scriptura...

[MariaG]

Hi Maria, I wrote this just for you. Maybe this will clear up the traditions mentioned in 2 Thessalonians.

Who was Paul? He was the apostle to the gentiles. He was previously Saul of Tarsus until he was converted on the Road to Damascus. He helped hunt down the believers in Christ until the Lord intervened and spoke to him. He then became a follower and received revelations direct from the Lord. Because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, he went to the gentiles instead.

According to the book of Acts (Acts 17:1-4), Paul established the church at Thessalonica on his second missionary journey.

In 1 Thessalonians, the first half of the letter (ch 1-3) deals with Paul’s relationship with the Thessalonians and the nature of his ministry while among them. **The second half (ch 4-5) provides the instruction on godly living and on the return of Christ. **

After about a month of ministry in Thessalonica, Paul was forced to leave to Berea. When Paul’s jewish opponents pursued him there, he went on to Athens.

Act 17:10
And the brethren (at Thessalonica) immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Now, notice here how the believers at Berea were MORE NOBLE than the ones in Thessalonica because “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily.”

Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

In 2 Thessalonians, the Thessalonians believed they had missed the coming of the Lord (which we Bible only believers call the rapture). He wrote this letter to calm the church and to correct the false teaching they received. He also deals with the idleness of those who refused to work and the busybodies who were causing problems.

Finally in 2 Thessalonians… Paul writes

2Th 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The traditions referred to in this verse refers to the traditions taught in 1 Thessalonians in Chapters 4-5. NOT THE RCC TRADITIONS.

Hi Believers,

I sincerely thank you for taking the time to write to me.

It may surprise you to know that in fact I am quite aware of who Paul is and what his ministry was about, how it started. I went to many, many bible studies before I was ever Catholic. Sadly, many of my Catholic brothers and sisters do tell me I know “so much”. I say sadly because I feel all should know at least as much. But I do thank you for taking the time to give some background about Paul

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You say when Paul says “hold fast to the traditions” he is referring only to what he wrote about in 1 thess 4-5?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[believers]

Hi Believers,

I sincerely thank you for taking the time to write to me.

It may surprise you to know that in fact I am quite aware of who Paul is and what his ministry was about, how it started. I went to many, many bible studies before I was ever Catholic. Sadly, many of my Catholic brothers and sisters do tell me I know “so much”. I say sadly because I feel all should know at least as much. But I do thank you for taking the time to give some background about Paul

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You say when Paul says “hold fast to the traditions” he is referring only to what he wrote about in 1 thess 4-5?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Hi, Yes, he taught them how to be Christians and he also taught them about the “coming of the Lord”. Paul reminds them to hold fast because they did not miss this day. He told them to remember what they’ve been taught. 1 Thessalonians chapters 4-5 tells us what Paul taught them. Reading both 1 & 2 Thessalonians gives you the full context and meaning of that verse.

 

[MariaG]

Hi, Yes, he taught them how to be Christians and he also taught them about the “coming of the Lord”. Paul reminds them to hold fast because they did not miss this day. He told them to remember what they’ve been taught. 1 Thessalonians chapters 4-5 tells us what Paul taught them. Reading both 1 & 2 Thessalonians gives you the full context and meaning of that verse.

Yes, he told them to remember what he had taught them orally or written. He specifically mentions the oral words which tells us there are some things that he taught them that he did not write down.

Much of scripture was written to correct the misunderstandings that new churches had. But what about what they had right? Where in scripture does Paul tell the Thesselonians (or anyone else) that he got all of his oral preaching written down now?

How can one insist that Paul was ONLY referring to the written words of 1 thess?
Why would have Paul specifically mentioned the ORAL tradtions if he had already written ALL of those down?

Therefore, the question remains. Where are the oral traditions that Paul is referring to? Can’t be what he wrote about in 1 thesselonians since that was written. We say it is Sacred Tradition and have always said thus.

God bless,
Maria

 

[believers]

Yes, he told them to remember what he had taught them orally or written. He specifically mentions the oral words which tells us there are some things that he taught them that he did not write down.

Much of scripture was written to correct the misunderstandings that new churches had. But what about what they had right? Where in scripture does Paul tell the Thesselonians (or anyone else) that he got all of his oral preaching written down now?

How can one insist that Paul was ONLY referring to the written words of 1 thess?
Why would have Paul specifically mentioned the ORAL tradtions if he had already written ALL of those down?

Therefore, the question remains. Where are the oral traditions that Paul is referring to? Can’t be what he wrote about in 1 thesselonians since that was written. We say it is Sacred Tradition and have always said thus.

God bless,
Maria

Hi Maria,

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, WHETHER by word, OR OUR EPISTLE.

He did not say AND our epistle. Remember, the believers in Berea were MORE NOBLE because they received the word with all readiness of mind, searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I’d rather be more noble and take after the the believers in Berea. I’ll just stick with the Word and received it with all readiness of mind, I will continue to search the scriptures to see whether those things are so.

If you want to believe that the RCC traditions were practiced in Thessalonica that’s your choice.

What really matters is the belief and faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross ONLY. His blood alone washes away our sins. Water never has and never will wash away sins. It certainly will not get you into heaven. I guess we’ll all find out on the other side.

Anyway, if you want to learn the word, I highly recommend lesfeldick.org. He will take you through the Bible starting in Genesis 1:1. If you like the stories in the Bible, you’ll enjoy his teaching. He’s very thorough. I’ve personally listened to him up to Exodus which took about 35 hours. He’s got over 1000 hours and you can listen for free. He doesn’t try to convert anyone. Just follow along with your Bible and judge for yourself.

God bless you all.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Maria,

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, WHETHER by word, OR OUR EPISTLE.

He did not say AND our epistle. Remember, the believers in Berea were MORE NOBLE because they received the word with all readiness of mind, searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Whether by word OR epistle.

or1 
*–conjunction *1.(used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): *books or magazines; to be or not to be. *2.(used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): *the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands. *3.(used in correlation): *either … or; or … or; whether … or. *4.(used to correct or rephrase what was previously said): *His autobiography, or rather memoirs, will soon be ready for publication. *5.otherwise; or else: *Be here on time, or we’ll leave without you. *6.Logic. the connective used in disjunction.

:bible1: 2Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Are you saying that or means only follow one or the other?

Longhand?

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us by word.

OR

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us by letter.

It is not a suggestion to only follow one or the other.

Do you really believe that Paul was telling them to only follow
the written word OR only the oral? They had to choose to follow only one because by your interpretation Paul did not use AND so it is one or the other?

And lets look at the believers in Berea who were more noble because they searched the scriptures. Why did they search the Scriptures? To see if anything Paul said Contradicted scripture. What Paul told them was not in scripture. God had not yet revealed it in the OT.

I understand that you do not believe that the Oral words written about in scripture refer to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. That is okay.

But Paul tells us to follow the oral words as well as the written.

I’d rather be more noble and take after the the believers in Berea. I’ll just stick with the Word and received it with all readiness of mind, I will continue to search the scriptures to see whether those things are so.

The Believers in berea did not JUST stick with the written word of God. They embraced the oral preaching of Paul because it did not *contradict *scripture of the OT.

The people of Berea did search the scriptures. They made sure that the preaching of Paul did not contradict that which they had that was written. And you should search the scriptures to see whether those things are so. I encourage it. So does the Catholic Church.

But there is absolutely not one teaching of the Catholic Church that contradicts scripture. But there are many faulty interpretations of Scripture that contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church and the proper interpretation of Scripture.

For example:

Where does scripture say that one should ONLY to follow the written and ignore the oral teachings does in fact? Nowhere.

But scripture does tell us to “entrust what you have learned” with faithful men. How was this done? By oral and by letter. Both.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Maybe it’s for the better MariaG. And thank you for the kind words by the way.

I guess if I could sum up all the words above in few short paragraphs, the idea that only the Scriptures are uniquely God-breathed is either a flat-out lie or else a serious misunderstanding.

No one can say “Jesus is Lord,” and really honestly believe this except by the Holy Spirit. All true Christians believe this.

Yet if Christians of all types are indeed trusting the later generations to have faithfully carried the Scriptural record/understanding by this same Holy Spirit, then **they are **claiming nothing different from what Catholicism does.

In fact, the only difference between their trusting the Scriptures and our trusting the Scriptures is that they claim to have the proper understanding all the while they claim that we don’t-- which is exactly what we’re saying to them too.

I think these questions deserve answers from those who would argue against what Catholicism teaches. But I don’t think I’m going to get any straight answers though.

Bearing the glaring silence of this thread in mind, I think it’s safe to conclude that they don’t have the answers to these questions.

Catholicism does. She always did.

I have a hard time finding error with this. But then again, I am only a mere Catholic novice and have much more experience on the “catholic” side of Christianity.

I believe there is a need to seek council continuously with other denominations until the big C and little c become reconciled to each other. Even Vatican II acknowledges reunification will require further steps (call it reform, call it charity, call it grace, etc) by all members of the Christian church for this to be realized. Putting aside “my church is better than your church”, how do you change the heart of every denomination? I don’t have an answer

 

[MariaG]

I have a hard time finding error with this. But then again, I am only a mere Catholic novice and have much more experience on the “catholic” side of Christianity.

I believe there is a need to seek council continuously with other denominations until the big C and little c become reconciled to each other. Even Vatican II acknowledges reunification will require further steps (call it reform, call it charity, call it grace, etc) by all members of the Christian church for this to be realized. Putting aside “my church is better than your church”, how do you change the heart of every denomination? I don’t have an answer

Although I had to count it out I actually have more years as an adult as a practicing Protestant than I have as a Catholic. (8years Protestant, 7 Catholic).

And I came from a non-sacramental, bible believing, faith alone kind of Protestants.

I find it endlessly ironic that I actually came to the Catholic Church through Scripture alone and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Well there was a Catechism also, but I would simply look up a certain topic, read what the Catholic Church taught and where that belief “they” said it was in scripture. Ignored any argument that was not scriptural. And here I am today

The 2 biggest surprises I had were first, what People said about the teachings of the Catholic Church were always wrong: Like, oh, Catholic believe water will save you Lo and behold the Catholic Church actually teaches that we are saved by Grace alone. How about that. Now how do we believe we recieve that Grace? Through baptism.

**1997 **Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

The second surprise was how scriptural the beliefs actually were.

IF anyone actually looks into the beliefs of the CAtholic Church and not the caricature of lies they were taught to believe, they will find that the Catholic church cites scripture everywhere.

And at the end of the day, they can say, “I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture” but to those who say we do not use scripture, are still ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches and the scripture cited in those beliefs.

In fact, in my early Catholic days, I would have said how much the teachings are BASED on the Bible, and in fact still think like that , but I now realize that the Bible is a compilation of the written word that was written to correct and reinforce what was first preached, spoken.

The great commission “Go and Preach” not go and write. Preaching came first. The ORAL word came first, then came the written. So our beliefs are NOT in fact “based” on the bible because the written New Testatment came after the Oral.

 

[Mystic]

Well, I have a question. I see how our personal interpretation can bring confusion as one can see it one way and the other sees it different. So I thought I should give more credit to the church fathers as they can shed a lot of light on the meaning of different Scriptures as those living closer to Christ timewise and then witnessing the church in its early times. Then, isn’t it what the Church does when trying to prove its point - refers to the church fathers saying that they did believe it to be that way, and we can therefore trust that it has been understood that way from the beginning in the church history. Then recently I was looking at their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (Peter being called the rock). And to my surprise I discovered just the opposite of what I was expecting to see, and in fact, the opposite of the CC teaching on it! Origen, Augustine (!!!), Cyprian, Eusebius, Ambrose, John Chrysostom and many others DID NOT believe that Peter was the rock in the sense that the CC teaches it today, If you are surprised to see Augustine in this list and have seen quotes of his writings that prove that Peter WAS the rock - the fact is, he only taught it early in his life, but later changed his view and held it for the remainder of his life and ministry. He talks a lot about it in his book called Retractations where he corrects many of his own teachings that he later found errouneous. Also, if you are interested in the exact quotations from those mentioned above, I can provide it, it’s just they are not a sentence or two but rather extended passages to see that we are not just mistakenly taking it out of the context, so I did not put any of them here, but I can. Anyways, my big question is how come this large body of church fathers did not believe this core teaching of the CC which, it seems to me, must have been obvious to them in the way the church was organized and functioning in their time? Then the other question, is why the church believes something contrary to the church fathers? Well, in anticiaption of your answer that it is the church that has to authority to determine the truth, not a particular church father, then why in other instances they refer to the same fathers when their teachings fit those of the CC? Then if honor the opinion of the church fathers, we DO HONOR it whenever, and if in this particular case it does not matter, then IT DOES NOT MATTER whenever. Plus this seems to me such a crucial point since it has to do with the CC authority today. But if I use the same method the CC uses today to prove its teachings (go to the church fathers to verify its teaching on its own authority), then I get the opposite! So it seems like the CC uses some self-ascribed authority and then refers to that authority when teaching on other issues. I am confused…

 

[Mystic]

Well, I have a question. I see how our personal interpretation can bring confusion as one can see it one way and the other sees it different. So I thought I should give more credit to the church fathers as they can shed a lot of light on the meaning of different Scriptures as those living closer to Christ timewise and then witnessing the church in its early times. Then, isn’t it what the Church does when trying to prove its point - refers to the church fathers saying that they did believe it to be that way, and we can therefore trust that it has been understood that way from the beginning in the church history. Then recently I was looking at their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (Peter being called the rock). And to my surprise I discovered just the opposite of what I was expecting to see, and in fact, the opposite of the CC teaching on it! Origen, Augustine (!!!), Cyprian, Eusebius, Ambrose, John Chrysostom and many others DID NOT believe that Peter was the rock in the sense that the CC teaches it today, If you are surprised to see Augustine in this list and have seen quotes of his writings that prove that Peter WAS the rock - the fact is, he only taught it early in his life, but later changed his view and held it for the remainder of his life and ministry. He talks a lot about it in his book called Retractations where he corrects many of his own teachings that he later found errouneous. Also, if you are interested in the exact quotations from those mentioned above, I can provide it, it’s just they are not a sentence or two but rather extended passages to see that we are not just mistakenly taking it out of the context, so I did not put any of them here, but I can. Anyways, my big question is how come this large body of church fathers did not believe this core teaching of the CC which, it seems to me, must have been obvious to them in the way the church was organized and functioning in their time? Then the other question, is why the church believes something contrary to the church fathers? Well, in anticiaption of your answer that it is the church that has to authority to determine the truth, not a particular church father, then why in other instances they refer to the same fathers when their teachings fit those of the CC? Then if honor the opinion of the church fathers, we DO HONOR it whenever, and if in this particular case it does not matter, then IT DOES NOT MATTER whenever. Plus this seems to me such a crucial point since it has to do with the CC authority today. But if I use the same method the CC uses today to prove its teachings (go to the church fathers to verify its teaching on its own authority), then I get the opposite! So it seems like the CC uses some self-ascribed authority and then refers to that authority when teaching on other issues. I am confused…

 

[Mystic]

As I later thought about it, I thought I should provide some quotations otherwise it is claiming things based on nothing, and no one will give it a serious consideration:

ORIGEN (A.D. 185—253/254)

Look at the great foundation of that Church and at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: ‘Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?’ And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

 

[Mystic]

I thought I should provide some quotes otherwise it is claiming things based on nothing, and no one will give it a serious consideration:

Look at the great foundation of that Church and at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: ‘Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?’ And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

 

[Mystic]

AUGUSTINE

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ 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 (Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? **In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. **(Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (St. Augustine, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

 

[Mystic]

AMBROSE (ca. A.D. 333—397)

It is to Peter himself that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church (St. Ambrose, On Twelve Psalms 440, 30, p. 150). (the CC likes to stop here)

He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, **that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies **(Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’…Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’…Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)…Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you…He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).

 

[Mystic]

There are more quotations from each one I first mentioned and those not mentioned… This is just a little to show that I am not getting it out of the air…

So let the CC prove to me first that their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is correct!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

There are more quotations from each one I first mentioned and those not mentioned… This is just a little to show that I am not getting it out of the air…

So let the CC prove to me first that their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is correct!

I’m not sure what this has to do with Sola Scriptura?

What exactly are you arguing for or against?

 

[Mystic]

I’m not sure what this has to do with Sola Scriptura?

What exactly are you arguing for or against?

Even if not Sola Scriptura, but Tradition which includes church fathers, then this tradition indicates that the CC is wrong… If argue for tradition, this tradition should go in agreement to the church teaching, but not prove it wrong…Or then it should be Sola Scriptura…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Even if not Sola Scriptura, but Tradition which includes church fathers, then this tradition indicates that the CC is wrong… If argue for tradition, this tradition should go in agreement to the church teaching, but not prove it wrong…Or then it should be Sola Scriptura…

How on earth can you argue for Sola Scriptura using the extra-biblical writings of the church fathers?

Doesn’t this contradict the very point you’re trying to make?

Besides that, we’ve already covered the fact that the early fathers were not in unanamous agreement as to what authentically constituted as valid Scriptures anyway.

Take a look around post 68 and following. There’s also a few posts before that one which addresses the early fathers contributions to the verification of the Scriptural record.

This all falls in line with what Church Tradition has been claming all along. It doesn’t lend itself easilly to Sola Scriptura in my opinion.

 

[MariaG]

Even if not Sola Scriptura, but Tradition which includes church fathers, then this tradition indicates that the CC is wrong… If argue for tradition, this tradition should go in agreement to the church teaching, but not prove it wrong…Or then it should be Sola Scriptura…

Your quotes do not in fact prove that the Catholic Church is wrong.

But they are off target to this thread and it would be inappropriate to discuss them here. I would encourage you to start a new thread to discuss your belief that these quotes prove that the Catholic teaching about Peter being the Rock are incorrect.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I would simply submit a few questions that I submited before but were never adequately answered in my opinion.

Ultimately, if Christians can believe that God used erring humans as penmen, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error…

then…

Why can’t these same Christians believe as Catholicism does that God also used erring humans as church leaders, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they taught, keeping them from all error too?

 

[Mystic]

Maybe you are right and this discussion belongs to a different thread. It’s just every other issue I have tried to discuss that has nothing to do with Peter, EVERY TIME we came down to this. I try to prove my point and give all the supporting evidence, and then I get the reply, “Well, all you say does not matter anyways since it is the CC that has the authority to teach the truth, just check Mtt 16:18 and tell us how you can go around this, and then we can talk about the rest”.

I did check other threads here that discuss this, there is plenty of material there indeed. What I see is as the Protestants who use Sola Scriptura can’t agree on whose interpretation is correct, the same way the Catholics and the Orthodox who use extra-biblical writing can’t agree on whose interpretation of those extra-biblical writings is correct. So either way does not seem to solve the problem, just all the same confusion.