Unstructured Thread...

[wisdomseeker]

Fallacy. Stacking the deck. You do not quote the entirety of what Cyprian has wrote concerning the Rock of Peter.

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so **that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers **(emphasis added).

This doesn’t prove that Rome is the catholic church. You’re reading your bias into it

That’s right. The CHURCH not the bishop of Rome.

Fallacy. Begging the question. You have yet to establish that it was not Rome who left the church.

Fallacy. False analogy
Things do go so quickly in the 11th century. Rome changed the Creed in 1014. Forty years isn’t a bad turnaround for the 1000s.

Come on, you left us because you didn’t want to submit to the Latin Pope then after denouncing the Papacy, you guys went and created your own Papacy!

Fallacy. Begging the question…again

Gotta go for now. We’ll pick this up later…

How about this one.

Martin Luther Quote:

“I never approve of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity…that the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St Peter and St Paul, forty-six popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the RCC with special favor. though now and days everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church that we can make it better. we must not separate from God on account fo any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account the multitude of the ungodly. there is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body for love can do all things and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Are you talking to me?
Uh, no. I’m Catholic.
I was being sarcastic because that is a line many Orthodox have pulled on here.

OH SORRY!

 

[jam070406]

OH SORRY!

No problem.

 

[2ndGen]

Fallacy. Stacking the deck. You do not quote the entirety of what Cyprian has wrote concerning the Rock of Peter.

 

[2ndGen]

"none of them; none of them is truly Catholic and being Catholic is the chief family trait by which I’m identified. “the Church of the Christian religion is called Catholic, not only by her own members but even by our enemies; for when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, they willy-nilly call her nothing else but Catholic for they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” St. Augustine.

do i need to say more?

I’m sorry, but I have to steal your quote!

"none of them; none of them is truly Catholic
and being Catholic is the chief family trait by which I’m identified.

"the Church of the Christian religion is called Catholic,

not only by her own members but even by our enemies;
for when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her,

not among themselves but with strangers,
they willy-nilly call her nothing else but Catholic for they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name
which the whole world employs in her regard."
St. Augustine.
:bowdown:

 

[2ndGen]

"If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built,
has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”

Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text),4
A.D. 251

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s usually on the cover though.

That’s on the cover usually too.

Yes but all three persons are mentioned aren’t they?

Yes but that is because the rapture isn’t going to happen.

The word ‘unbiblical’ isn’t in there either.

110 AD?

Christ was crucified circa 30 AD, this means that either peter was about 110 years old when he died or had been dead for at least 20years. Why don’t the Eastern Orthodox believe this?

The word ‘England’ does not appear in The Bible, but make no mistake England exists. I know , because I’m in it.

The word 'Purgatory is not in The Bible but that’s because Purgatory does not exist. When Jesus said “It is finished” it meant we didn’t need to burn anymore at all.

I must apologize. I meant to comment on your excellent post. The epitomy of terse, pithy, witty and dry English style.

You have to find a better place to cast your pearls, though.

Question: is the word ‘unbiblical’ in the OED? Webster’s? The English Language? (capitalized to make our friend happy).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

OH SORRY!

I’ll leave it to you Ultramontanists to show that great unity that flows from Rome. LOL

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello

Gekki

Nope (again) no mention of The Keys at all in that verse.
Plus, I posted about a hundred scriptures where The Apostles (which I think Orthodox Christians believe in as we do) used the word “father”.

How are you going to tell me what the original question was when I was the one who posted it?

Oh I forgot, the Orthodox are famous for telling people how their wrong about their own words.

Hmm…let’s reveiw where Jesus told Peter where He’d give him the Keys:

Matthew 16:18-20
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

thou
–pronoun

1. Archaic (except in some elevated or ecclesiastical prose). the personal pronoun of the second person singular in the nominative case (used to denote the person or thing addressed): Thou shalt not kill. 2. a familiar form of address of the second person singular.
2. to address as “thou.”
3. to use “thou” in discourse.

“thou” is NOT a group of people, but a “second person singular”. Jesus didn’t stop when talking to Peter and turn to another Apostle and say “And to you [John, Matthew, etc…]”…He said simply “And…”.

Therefore, Jesus told Peter that He would give him (and him only) The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.

No, I said that if you wanted to be grammatically perfect that we should speak in Aramaic or Greek (Koine).

It is when someone is distinguishing the word English and how it’s being used…for example, to write “the Catholic church” is completely different than writing “The Catholic Church.”

I guess you’re still not going to answer it then.

I proved it. When he called Mark his son, he was saying that he was his “papas”. And the word “papas” exists hundreds of times in The Bible. I even provided the scriptures. And as I’ve shown you, “papas” meas “pope”:

Pope
“The Pope (from Latin: papa, tutor;[1] from Greek πάπας (pápas);
father…”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

pope
–noun

1. (often initial capital letter) the bishop of Rome as head of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. (in the early Christian church) a bishop.
3. a person considered as having or assuming authority or a position similar to that of the Roman Catholic pope.
4. the title of the Coptic patriarch of Alexandria.
5. Eastern Church. a. the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria.
   b. (in certain churches) a parish priest.

Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE pāpa < LL: bishop, pope < LGk pápas bishop, priest, var. of páppas father; see papa]

Hey! Look at that! Even The Orthodox Church has a “pope”! :bigyikes:

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Nope (again) no mention of The Keys at all in that verse.

No, just the power of the keys.
newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
In that article you will find some interesting admissions:

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc…

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349)…

Plus, I posted about a hundred scriptures where The Apostles (which I think Orthodox Christians believe in as we do) used the word “father”.

And not a single one where they used the word “pope,” which was the point.

How are you going to tell me what the original question was when I was the one who posted it?

Cut and paste. You are obviously familiar with the procedure.

Though not it seems with the quote feature. I understand. It took me some time to get the hang of it, though it took me a few days, not nearly a year, and less than a hundred posts, not over 2,000. But your garbbled quote lines at the beginning of your posts make it difficult to trace the argument back, but perhaps that’s the idea. Covering our tracks, are we?

Oh I forgot, the Orthodox are famous for telling people how their wrong about their own words.

you’re right. You posted:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but again the question was to whom did Peter say that He “would” give The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven to “first”?

I added the underline to help you. Do grasp the concept that when you are making statements about written statements, they can be checked quite easily.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hmm…let’s reveiw where Jesus told Peter where He’d give him the Keys:

Matthew 16:18-20
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Yes, let’s.
18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης 19 και δωσω σοι τας κλεις της βασιλειας των ουρανων και ο εαν δησης επι της γης εσται δεδεμενον εν τοις ουρανοις και ο εαν λυσης επι της γης εσται λελυμενον εν τοις ουρανοις 20 τοτε διεστειλατο τοις μαθηταις αυτου ινα μηδενι ειπωσιν οτι αυτος εστιν ιησους ο χριστος
18 ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ ܀ 19 ܠܟ ܐܬܠ ܩܠܝܕܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܬܐܤܘܪ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܤܝܪ ܒܫܡܝܐ ܘܡܕܡ ܕܬܫܪܐ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܫܪܐ ܒܫܡܝܐ ܀ 20 ܗܝܕܝܢ ܦܩܕ ܠܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܕܠܐܢܫ ܠܐ ܢܐܡܪܘܢ ܕܗܘܝܘ ܡܫܝܚܐ

thou
–pronoun

1. Archaic (except in some elevated or ecclesiastical prose).

I didn’t know Christ spoke English to the Disciples, or that St. Matthew wrote in it.

σύ

The person pronoun of the second person singular; thou – thou. See also se, soi, sou; and for the plural humas, humeis, humin, humon.

That’s better.

“thou” is NOT a group of people, but a “second person singular”. Jesus didn’t stop when talking to Peter and turn to another Apostle and say “And to you [John, Matthew, etc…]”…He said simply “And…”.

your point?

Therefore, Jesus told Peter that He would give him (and him only) The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.

You still haven’t dealt with the future tense, and you have added a restrictive “only,” which not only isn’t there, but the Fathers explicitely reject it. Like St. Augustine, quoted above. From your signature I gather you like St. Augustine.

No, I said that if you wanted to be grammatically perfect that we should speak in Aramaic or Greek (Koine).

Actually “grammatically perfect” is not semantically correct in your sentence, as it assumes you know Aramaic or Greek grammar, but as it seems obvious you have no knowledge of Aramaic nor Greek, there is no point belaboring it.

It is when someone is distinguishing the word English and how it’s being used…for example, to write “the Catholic church” is completely different than writing “The Catholic Church.”

We can quibble about the “l” in “language” (but we won’t, at least I won’t), but the “T” in “The” has got to go.

I guess you’re still not going to answer it then.

No question to answer.

I proved it.

I’d suggest some reality testing.

When he called Mark his son, he was saying that he was his “papas”.

More likely his “abba.”

You said:

I take what is written and base my beliefs on that not wondering “what it” or “He could’ve been…”.

Yet pope, father, daddy, abba, papas,…none of them are written there. You are putting words in St. Peter’s mouth. But then again, that is what Ultramontanists do.

And the word “papas” exists hundreds of times in The Bible.

Put a rush on that reality testing. The word papas doesn’t appear once in the (note spelling) Bible.

Heck, I’ll give you points if, outside of the prefaces, if you can find “papa” in the Vulgate (btw, that’s the standard Latin translation of the Bible).

I even provided the scriptures.

You provided scriptures, which you obviously cut and pasted from a cite gueared towards Protestants on the issue of calling clerics “father” (on which we two are not in disagreement).

Yet you haven’t provided any pope in the scriptures, at the very least not literally, as you boasted.

And as I’ve shown you, “papas” meas “pope”:

As unlike you, I know Greek, you did not have to show me what I already knew.

Pope
“The Pope (from Latin: papa, tutor;[1] from Greek πάπας (pápas);
father…”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

A word of advice: don’t cite Wikipedia as a source on your term paper.

Dictionary.com
pope

1. the title of the Coptic patriarch of Alexandria.
2. Eastern Church. a. the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria.

Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE pāpa < LL: bishop, pope < LGk pápas bishop, priest, var. of páppas father; see papa]

Hey! Look at that! Even The Orthodox Church has a “pope”! :bigyikes:



The Orthodox Church has the original Pope (the title originated in Alexandria, not Rome).

Are you just noticing my signature?

 

[2ndGen]

You still haven’t dealt with the future tense, and you have added a restrictive “only,” which not only isn’t there, but the Fathers explicitely reject it. Like St. Augustine, quoted above. From your signature I gather you like St. Augustine.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m sure you’ll probably get the ole “the chair of Peter is in Antioch since he went there first” line. That’s been tossed about a few times on these threads.

Yes, along with your “Feast of the Chair of St.; Peter at Antioch,” which also celebrates the founding of the See of Antioch, and the anniversary of the day St. Peter said “Thou are the Christ…”
newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm

My, my, why it’s coming up now, on February 22. I’m looking at my copy of the “St. Joseph Daily Missal,” the one with the Latin, 1961, before you all proved what a danger it can be to put all your eggs in one basket. On said Feast, changed to “The Chair of St. Peter,” the explanation, complete with De Permissu Superiorum Imprematur (but no + nihil obstat), states:

The Feast of the Chair of St. Peter was originally celebratred on February 22. However in Gaul it came to be celebrated on January 18. Pope Paul IV believd that there were two different feasts; therefore in 1558 he doubled the original Feast: on January 18 he placed St. Peter’s Pontificate at Rome and at February 22 his Pontificate at Antioch. As of 1961, the duplicate Feast of January 18 was abolished and the original Feast remains in honor of St. Peter’s Pontifical Authority.

Interesing how the Antioch date is original, more important, more scriptural and the only one now remaining on Rome’s calendar.

 

[VARC]

Hmmm…let’s see “where” The Church Fathers said Peter taught from…

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.’” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

You accually have a hat trick of fallacies here:

1. Arguing off the point; You quoted Ignatius to demonstrate that Rome is the Church. I pointed out that Ignatius is referring to all bishops.
2. Straw man argument. I have not argued that Peter was never in Rome.
3. Non-sequitor. Just because Peter was in Rome it does not follow that Rome=Catholic Church. Remember he also founded the church of Antioch.

So, you only accept the authority from canonized Saints?

Anybody who was not canonized because their orthodoxy was suspect I take with a grain of salt.

 

[2ndGen]

But why don’t we just go to The Authority if we’re going to talk about “what” The Catholic Church teaches…

The Catechism of The Catholic Church

567
The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ.

“This kingdom shone out before men in the word,
in the works and in the presence of Christ”.

The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom.

Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

“Rome has Spoken; the Case is Closed”
St. Augustine

 

[2ndGen]

You accually have a hat trick of fallacies here:

1. Arguing off the point; You quoted Ignatius to demonstrate that Rome is the Church. I pointed out that Ignatius is referring to all bishops.

 

[VARC]

Don’t you guys brag and boast about “not” changing?

And what does that say about those “successors” of Peter? That all Bishops succeed Peter because Peter is the first Bishop!

“the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards;”

You’ve missed the point of what Cyprian was saying. He believed that the rock of St. Peter is the episcopy. In other words, the chair of Peter is held by the bishop in his own diocese. You can disagree with him all you like but it is card stacking to selectively quote him to support your view when he held the contrary view in another citation.

Hmmm…and what “ordering of bishops is he speaking of” from the line of Peter? This one:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)…

Well, you get the picture.

Fallacy. Non-sequitor. All Apostolic churches traces their bishop back to the Apostles and Antioch can also trace her bishops to St. Peter

No, it proves that Peter is the head of The Apostles.

No, it says foremost and cheif herald not head.

Whoever said that The Pope created The Creed?

Why mention that?

I didn’t say that the pope created the creed. I said the pope changed the creed and that is how he seperated himself form the Church.

No, the accuser has the burden of proof. You accuse, you prove.

First of all, there are mutual accusations of schism. You say that Orthodox broke away from the Catholic Church and I say that Rome broke away from the Catholic Church.Secondly, I already did prove my case. I cited the Council of Ephesus’ condemnation of any bishop that professes a diffrent creed than that which the Nicene Father composed. You responded with two fallcious answers so my allegation held water. Care to try answer Ephesus again?

Where historically is The Orthodox Church noted “before” 1054 AD and why (if “it” is The True Catholic Church) is it called something else?

Your catholic encyclopedia admits that the term was used long before the schism:

newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

"How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East. "

Uh, no…the Creed was changed by the Church several times before 1014.

Really, when was the creed changed between Ephesus and 1014.

What a coincidence that 1054 was chosen as the straw that broke the camel’s back (700 years after the first change to The Creed).

The creed was changed by the Goths and the Franks but the Orthodox popes of Rome condemned the change. It was until 1014 that the Roman Patriarchate capitulated to Frankish and German influence.

 

[VARC]

I posted that to show that Peter taught (who had the authority even over Paul) from Rome.

Fallacy. Begging the question. You can’t use as proof what isn’t established as fact.

Anyway, you only mentioned that he was in Antioch as if to say that Antioch was where The Church was headquartered …

Fallacy. Another straw man. I am not sayiing that there was a “HQ” of the catholic church. I am saying that it is a nonsequitor to assume that Rome is the Mother Church based on the fact that St. Peter was built it when he also built the church at Antioch

… but it was where ever Peter was that The Church was located because he was the rock that The Church was built upon.

Begging the question. You have to prove that the “HQ” is “where ever Peter was” before you can use that as proof that Rome is the Catholic Church

Augustine

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Fallacy. Stacking the deck. Augustine posted this in his retractions:

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

Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Fallacy. Non-sequitor. St Ambrose is speaking of St. Peter not the bishop of Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Besides…“Rome has spoken; the case is closed.”

Yes, just keeeep repeeating. It will make it come true.

I thought mantras were only in Hinduism. Oh, well. Live and learn.

 

[VARC]

But why don’t we just go to The Authority if we’re going to talk about “what” The Catholic Church teaches…

The Catechism of The Catholic Church

567
The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ.

“This kingdom shone out before men in the word,
in the works and in the presence of Christ”.

The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom.

Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

“Rome has Spoken; the Case is Closed”
St. Augustine

Cmon, you know better than that.
Fallacy. Circular argument. Rome is right because Rome says so.

And BTW, your misquoting Augustine…

". . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise. "