The Catholic Church known today is NOT the same Catholic Church in the time of the apostles?

[Cavaradossi]

With all due respect,but I am not being defensive at all, I am simply putting a legit argument on the table. Alternative interpretations? I do not have an alternative interpretation,only what has been put forth centuries ago. Now if that is a source of tension for you,then so be it. Now the ALTERNATIVE interpretation you stated that Jesus was referring to himself is exactly that: modern and quite weak.

Peace.

If by modern, you mean as old as 400 AD, sure. Then again, perhaps things which are that old are of no interest to you, and you are only referencing what the Church said several centuries ago, in which case, I could see why hearing that St. Augustine interpreted the rock to be Christ would be such a source of cognitive dissonance that you must dismiss the arguments of great Church Fathers in order to hold to your belief (that there is only one valid interpretation) which is contrary to the tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

If by modern, you mean as old as 400 AD, sure. Then again, perhaps things which are that old are of no interest to you, and you are only referencing what the Church said several centuries ago, in which case, I could see why hearing that St. Augustine interpreted the rock to be Christ would be such a source of cognitive dissonance that you must dismiss the arguments of great Church Fathers in order to hold to your belief (that there is only one valid interpretation) which is contrary to the tradition.

And Christianity was not founded in 400 A.D. LOL! Dismiss St.Augustine’s quote of Jesus being the Rock? When and where have I denied it or dimissed it? You use the same arguments as Protestants. Takes a lot more than one passage to prove your poistion.More important,I am curious to know why you DENY all other references from Augustine about Peter? Third, St.Augustine never REJECTS Peter’s pimacy either-does he? Contrary to tradition? So all the ECF’s viewed Jesus as the Rock and not Peter? Sorry,revisionism is not my forte.

Peace

 

[Nicea325]

Jim Dandy at least was headed in the right direction with requiring “university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians.” …and I provided just that. If there wasn’t evidence for my position (as you claim) then the historians that I listed wouldn’t weather the storm of a peer-review. Not only do they weather the storm, but they are held in high regard. If there was no evidence for my position and if Jim Dandy was right in claiming that it “is documented secular history that the Catholic Church has existed from A.D. 33” then US Catholic bishops wouldn’t be so troubled by what is being taught in Catholic universities…forget about the secular historians, not even all Catholic professors would claim “that the Catholic Church has existed from A.D. 33”. Between you and me, I am the one that would happily resort to peer-reviewed historians. In contrast, you simply label modern scholars as “revisionists” and resort to those scholars that you can still find to endorse your desired history.
When I did my Masters in history, we were required to read and familiarize ourselves with what the best historians had to say on a matter. If we wanted to disagree with a position advocated by a reputable scholar, then we had to justify it with proper analysis and evidence…simply charging them as “revisionists” didn’t fly in the department…and rightly so. History is about proper investigation and not name-calling. Wasn’t it like that where you did your Masters?
Can you see how you are being inconsistent? You don’t like modern scholarship which is improving our understanding of historical events (in part b/c we are uncovering more and more evidence)…yet you say that I will “never change history as we have it today.” The history as we have it today has already changed from the out-dated and slanted version that you cling to. I don’t have to do anything. Thanks to “university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians” my case is being built for me (and quite often the builders are Catholic themselves). .

Please! Save it! I too have a Masters in History and my MBA-and? It is very clear what your whole intenstions are here Radical,you are not fooling anyone here. You want to revise history to cater to your beliefs,by all means go for it. If I did not buy into it in the past,what makes you think I will believe you now?

 

[T_More]

I enjoyed reading Cardinal Gibbons retort to the OP’s question. Something about possession being 9/10th’s of the law in regards to the name “Catholic”.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And Christianity was not founded in 400 A.D. LOL! Dismiss St.Augustine’s quote of Jesus being the Rock? When and where have I denied it or dimissed it? You use the same arguments as Protestants. Takes a lot more than one passage to prove your poistion.More important,I am curious to know why you DENY all other references from Augustine about Peter? Third, St.Augustine never REJECTS Peter’s pimacy either-does he? Contrary to tradition? So all the ECF’s viewed Jesus as the Rock and not Peter? Sorry,revisionism is not my forte.

Peace

Where did I deny primacy? It is only in your mind that Matthew 16:18 is linked to primacy because your Church says so. The only point which I was making was that St. Augustine believed the rock from Matthew 16:18 to be Christ in response to a post saying that the interpretation that the rock could be Christ was weak (when in truth, there is no consensus from the Church fathers, so it’s likely that the identity of the rock was a rather unimportant detail); several uncharitable posters, like you, were the ones who decided that I had some sinister ulterior motivation to attack papal primacy and so kept trying to turn the subject matter into one of papal primacy, despite the fact that I originally had no intention of going there. Now if you’ll stop with your childish deflections of the topic which I was debating (which you likely will not, because it seems that all you can talk about is papal primacy instead of Matthew 16:18), it would remove a lot of the nasty, “he’s attacking our pope,” sensationalism that some of you are wont to give in to.

 

[TrueLight]

Someone debated me on this today. In fact, they are staunchly anti-Catholic.

It is not fun debating a bible verse spouting Protestant when you’re but a fetus in the Catholic faith and are not yet experienced refuting from a Catholic perspective.

 

[T_More]

Someone debated me on this today. In fact, they are staunchly anti-Catholic.

It is not fun debating a bible verse spouting Protestant when you’re but a fetus in the Catholic faith and are not yet experienced refuting from a Catholic perspective.

I’m not even in the Church yet, and was debating an evangelical fundamentalist last week. I heard all the typical objections from him and answered every one of them quoting scripture, when he was not, and asked him questions that he himself could not defend. That seemed to really make him mad, which was not my intent. He threw his hands up and walked away. I love the Catholic faith and find it to be unassailable, but as you know, many do not.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m not even in the Church yet, and was debating an evangelical fundamentalist last week. I heard all the typical objections from him and answered every one of them quoting scripture, when he was not, and asked him questions that he himself could not defend. That seemed to really make him mad, which was not my intent. He threw his hands up and walked away. I love the Catholic faith and find it to be unassailable, but as you know, many do not.

Congrats!

This one was REALLY good. He not only quoted scripture but even went to the Church fathers. I suspect his denomination really focuses on memorizing specific verses. We were even debating the Council of Nicea, ha ha.

I was familiar with all the verses he brought up, and I did throw some his way to refute what he was saying, but I need work. Better spend some time reading the articles on CAF.

I’m used to spouting verses from a Protestant viewpoint. In any case, I am happy that we had this debate because it fueled in me a desire to hone my apologetics skills.

 

[Revert_43]

T-More and True Light,

Not sure if you’ve run into this site yet but it’s Catholic, excellent and has some free stuff to get you jump started.

biblechristiansociety.com/home.php

Enjoy!

 

[Nicea325]

Where did I deny primacy? It is only in your mind that Matthew 16:18 is linked to primacy because your Church says so.

It is all in my mind about Matthew 16:18? Are you truly serious? Because my church says? So the doctrines of the church (Incarnation,Trinity,etc) are to be believed merely because the church says so? Do you have an issue with those sayings from the church? I didn’t think so.

The only point which I was making was that St. Augustine believed the rock from Matthew 16:18 to be Christ in response to a post saying that the interpretation that the rock could be Christ was weak (when in truth, there is no consensus from the Church fathers, so it’s likely that the identity of the rock was a rather unimportant detail);

And your point was noted. And I too made the point that where is the overwhelming evidence of Peter NOT being the Rock or his primacy being rejected?

several uncharitable posters, like you, were the ones who decided that I had some sinister ulterior motivation to attack papal primacy and so kept trying to turn the subject matter into one of papal primacy, despite the fact that I originally had no intention of going there.

I beg your pardon? Uncharitable? I see it is all fine and dandy for you to give your points and positions,yet one offers his or her points,it equates into uncharitable? Go back and read my first response to you? It is not uncharitable at all, it was merely a point or valid argument.

Now if you’ll stop with your childish deflections of the topic which I was debating (which you likely will not, because it seems that all you can talk about is papal primacy instead of Matthew 16:18), it would remove a lot of the nasty, “he’s attacking our pope,” sensationalism that several of you are wont to give in to.

Childish deflections? I in no way shape or form made a statement or declaration that you were atttacking our pope. That is your conjecture,not mine.

Just like you feel compelled to express your beliefs and points,then allow others the same liberty.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Just like you feel compelled to express your beliefs and points,then allow others the same liberty.

Very well. I don’t think there’s really anything further to debate anyway. The dead horse has been ground to dust.

 

[Radical]

Please! Save it! I too have a Masters in History and my MBA-and?

I know you have a Masters, you mention it with some frequency…it surprises me that someone with a Masters is so quick to dismiss reputable modern scholars as revisionists. Have you even read any of the works that I have listed…or is it merely a knee-jerk reaction of yours to label them revisionists?

It is very clear what your whole intenstions are here Radical,you are not fooling anyone here. You want to revise history to cater to your beliefs,…

If I revised history to cater to my beliefs, then it wouldn’t be history. It would be propaganda. On the other hand, it isn’t at all wise to hold onto a view that has been discredited (and not discredited merely b/c it involves a belief in supernatural intervention into human history, but b/c it just doesn’t pass the smell test).

…by all means go for it. If I did not buy into it in the past,what makes you think I will believe you now?

I don’t…I expect that you will continue to apply the revisionist label with wild abandon.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Please! Save it! I too have a Masters in History and my MBA-and?

I know you have a Masters, you mention it with some frequency…it surprises me that someone with a Masters is so quick to dismiss reputable modern scholars as revisionists. Have you even read any of the works that I have listed…or is it merely a knee-jerk reaction of yours to label them revisionists?

No offense,but don’t you think that if I have a Masters, I evidently had to study modern scholars? I have read enough,reading one more modern scholar is not going to put a dent in my beliefs.

Quote:
It is very clear what your whole intenstions are here Radical,you are not fooling anyone here. You want to revise history to cater to your beliefs,…

If I revised history to cater to my beliefs, then it wouldn’t be history. It would be propaganda. On the other hand, it isn’t at all wise to hold onto a view that has been discredited (and not discredited merely b/c it involves a belief in supernatural intervention into human history, but b/c it just doesn’t pass the smell test).

Exactly! Thank you for finally acknowledging the fact one cannot change history,regardless what one wants to inject due to his or her perversions or misunderstandings.

Quote:
…by all means go for it. If I did not buy into it in the past,what makes you think I will believe you now?

I don’t…I expect that you will continue to apply the revisionist label with wild abandon.

I call it as I see it.

 

[guanophore]

Plaintruth…

You are not.

LOL.

plaintruth is obviously a very poorly catechized cradle Catholic who have embraced the heresies of “bible christians”. I am glad she is here, though so she might be able to learn why these beliefs are errors, and learn more about the faith into which she was baptized. With all generosity, though, I do think she sincerely believes these divergent theologies are really indeed “the plain truth”.

Her lack of apprehension that the Fathers are writing about the Church of the Apostles makes it clear that she has little understanding of history, as well as the power of God.

 

[guanophore]

#3 is a blatant lie! The Catholic Church has always taught Faith in God through Jesus Christ. Please at least get the facts right!

I don’t think it is a lie, but it is a misunderstanding. In fact, both things are true. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Christ. Christ only founded One Church, and all who are saved become members of His One Body the Church. Therefore, there is no salvation outside the Church.