Upon This Rock

[MrS]

This is genuinely generous of you but I live in New Zealand and don’t want to put you to any expense with postage.

I have sent items to France, to Germany, to Canada, and to Japan. And some things were delivered to Bora Bora and Australia. Can’t take it with me, afterall

I have been looking for the opportunity to “test” the US Post Office with New Zealand. So, the postage would be nominal, the offer is, as you say, genuine, and at the very least, we could continue discussion of our differences.

Interestingly enough, I happened across an article on “Salvation outside…”. It was extremely clear on the Church’s position down thru the ages. It was not too long… I could scan and email to you in lieu of the book if you wish.

.

 

[Xenogeek]

Although the Popes have softened and changed their teaching since Vatican II, they have still not used the power of the Keys to liberate all the Orthodox whom they sent to Hell over the last 9 centuries.

(Edited for blatant contempt) The Pope does not have the power to send people to Hell. Excommunication means only that a person may not receive the Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. He may still receive them in the Orthodox churches, the Anglican church, the Old Catholic church, the Coptic church and others. Any church which has maintained apostolic succession and the sanctity of the Sacraments is the Ark of Salvation.

 

[NotWorthy]

(Edited for blatant contempt)The Pope does not have the power to send people to Hell. Excommunication means only that a person may not receive the Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. He may still receive them in the Orthodox churches, the Anglican church, the Old Catholic church, the Coptic church and others. Any church which has maintained apostolic succession and the sanctity of the Sacraments is the Ark of Salvation.

Xeno, you’ll find that the only person on this thread that makes the claim that the Pope (a little respect, there, Xeno?) sends people to hell is the good Orthodox Fr. Ambrose.

 

[Xenogeek]

Jesus told Peter, “To you shall be given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.” He didn’t say, “To you and your successors in the Papacy.” The New Testament mentions priests, deacons and bishops but it doesn’t mention cardinals and popes.

The keys to the kingdom are not the power to save and excommunicate. The power to save belongs to Christ alone and that is why the inidividual Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or whatever) is beholden only to Christ . . . not to the Pope and not to the Church.

When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I shall found my Church,” He was referring to Peter’s declaration, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The Apostles (with Peter at their head) and the Apostles alone had the power to decide which doctrines are central to the Church. They are the doctrines one must believe in order to be saved, and they are shared by all Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church is more circumspect nowadays but it still exercises rigid control over its clergy. Catholic professors who want to keep their chairs know that they must toe the Vatican party line, aka the doctrine of the Church.

Any unbiased church historian (such as my late father, who had a doctoral degree in the subject) will tell you that for the first 3 centuries of its existence the Church was predominantly Greek and the Papacy didn’t come into its own until Gregory I. The Orthodox churches could make a case that they have a better claim to being the genuine Church of Christ.

The posts to this column illustrate one of the reasons I decided not to become a Roman Catholic. The Roman Church is becoming more and more polarized, with the conservatives becoming Ultramontanists and the liberals becoming libertarians, while the vast majority of Catholics in the middle have become indifferent to Church doctrine and simply go through the motions of the Mass.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus told Peter, “To you shall be given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.” He didn’t say, “To you and your successors in the Papacy.” The New Testament mentions priests, deacons and bishops but it doesn’t mention cardinals and popes.

If you think this, then you are ignoring the link to Isaiah 22, where the holder of the keys held an office. Once the holder lost his position (through ill health or deceit), the keys were placed on another’s shoulders. We also see that Peter views this as an office, when he talks in Acts of replacing Judas. What does he say? "’**May another take his office.’ Other translations refer to “bishopric”, which is also an office.

The keys to the kingdom are not the power to save and excommunicate. The power to save belongs to Christ alone and that is why the inidividual Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or whatever) is beholden only to Christ . . . not to the Pope and not to the Church.

Yes, it is beholden to Christ. But Christ did bequeath this also to Peter (and to Peter’s office). “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven…” As any unbiased historian would know, this was a power given to the Jewish leaders in Jesus time to instill disciplines and to make rule that were binding on all Jewish faithful.

When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I shall found my Church,” He was referring to Peter’s declaration, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The Apostles (with Peter at their head) and the Apostles alone had the power to decide which doctrines are central to the Church. They are the doctrines one must believe in order to be saved, and they are shared by all Christians.

As numerous ECF’s point out, it is Peter AND his confession that is the rock. The two are inseparable.

The Roman Catholic Church is more circumspect nowadays but it still exercises rigid control over its clergy. Catholic professors who want to keep their chairs know that they must toe the Vatican party line, aka the doctrine of the Church.

And I thank God that we have this in effect, for this prevents any Fr. Tom, Dick, or Dr. Harry from teaching something that is false.

Any unbiased church historian (such as my late father, who had a doctoral degree in the subject) will tell you that for the first 3 centuries of its existence the Church was predominantly Greek and the Papacy didn’t come into its own until Gregory I. The Orthodox churches could make a case that they have a better claim to being the genuine Church of Christ.

When you consider that the first 30 popes were martyrs, and that Christianity was outlawed by Rome, this is understandable. However, you see the seeds with Clement in the first century and Victor in the second. The reason the Eastern Church does not have the Papacy is that Peter did not settle in the East. After Antioch, he settled in Rome.

The posts to this column illustrate one of the reasons I decided not to become a Roman Catholic. The Roman Church is becoming more and more polarized, with the conservatives becoming Ultramontanists and the liberals becoming libertarians, while the vast majority of Catholics in the middle have become indifferent to Church doctrine and simply go through the motions of the Mass.

From the inside, I don’t think you would see the Church this way. But just liek yours, that’s just my opinion.

 

[Mickey]

Up until the year 1054 and the Great Schism the Popes of Rome were part of my Church.

The Church (pre schism) always had it’s differences between East and West. But it was never serious enough to cause lasting schism.

 

[Mickey]

He does think he is in the true chuch. We are the Schismatics here. Get your facts straight already.

We are both schismatics–East and West. Both sides are equally precious to the heart of God. East and West are two sides of the one true Church.

Schism is a sin–and we should all be praying for a reunited Church in all charity.

 

[NotWorthy]

We are both schismatics–East and West. Both sides are equally precious to the heart of God. East and West are two sides of the one true Church.

Schism is a sin–and we should all be praying for a reunited Church in all charity.

 

[Damascus]

I can see that you are determined to attack me and accuse me of dishonesty. But again I have to say that I do not know what you mean. What documents? Can you please explain.

I do not wish you harm. This is an offensive attack unwarrented., You do know about the Balamand Decleration?No?

Personally- you are (&^ lucky.

 

[Damascus]

We are both schismatics–East and West. Both sides are equally precious to the heart of God. East and West are two sides of the one true Church.

Schism is a sin–and we should all be praying for a reunited Church in all charity.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Fr Ambrose
I have some questions for you ( we teach means our laity ministry)

1. We teach the Papal references you site apply to Catholics, as in to leave Catholism.
2. Concerning people who are not reared in Catholism we teach there are multiple condition a) They convert as clearly advised in the references you site, b) They follow God’s will and never truly know the Catholic Church c) They ignore either or and thus probably suffer the faith as discussed in the references.
3. In the underlying assumptions which appear necessary for the earlier posted comments it seams to me there is an implication that the Pope can a) condemn to hell, b) can grant eternally life? We teach both of these to be misunderstanding. We teach the Pope is granted leadership of God’s children thus he binds or loosen our discipline not our destination.
4. Do you believe the Pope can simply grant eternal life to every human and has simple chose not to do such?

Thank you in advance for you comments on these issues

 

[jim1130]

Jesus told Peter, “To you shall be given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.” He didn’t say, “To you and your successors in the Papacy.” The New Testament mentions priests, deacons and bishops but it doesn’t mention cardinals and popes.

The keys to the kingdom are not the power to save and excommunicate. The power to save belongs to Christ alone and that is why the inidividual Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or whatever) is beholden only to Christ . . . not to the Pope and not to the Church.

When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I shall found my Church,” He was referring to Peter’s declaration, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The Apostles (with Peter at their head) and the Apostles alone had the power to decide which doctrines are central to the Church. They are the doctrines one must believe in order to be saved, and they are shared by all Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church is more circumspect nowadays but it still exercises rigid control over its clergy. Catholic professors who want to keep their chairs know that they must toe the Vatican party line, aka the doctrine of the Church.

Any unbiased church historian (such as my late father, who had a doctoral degree in the subject) will tell you that for the first 3 centuries of its existence the Church was predominantly Greek and the Papacy didn’t come into its own until Gregory I. The Orthodox churches could make a case that they have a better claim to being the genuine Church of Christ.

The posts to this column illustrate one of the reasons I decided not to become a Roman Catholic. The Roman Church is becoming more and more polarized, with the conservatives becoming Ultramontanists and the liberals becoming libertarians, while the vast majority of Catholics in the middle have become indifferent to Church doctrine and simply go through the motions of the Mass.

Peace.

I found this very helpful for understanding St. Peter and the Papacy: “The Authority of the Pope” by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope0.html

 

[mo3]

Jesus told Peter, “To you shall be given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.” He didn’t say, “To you and your successors in the Papacy.” The New Testament mentions priests, deacons and bishops but it doesn’t mention cardinals and popes.

The NT doesn’t specifically mention the Trinity either. The NT was not intended as a catechism and was not meant to list every detail. Remember the bible was not written in English. If Jesus made Peter the head of his church, then Catholics can call Peter’s successor the leader of His church. We could call him “Leader” or Pope, the exact English name is not relevant.

he keys to the kingdom are not the power to save and excommunicate. The power to save belongs to Christ alone.

We agree on this.

The Roman Catholic Church is more circumspect nowadays but it still exercises rigid control over its clergy. Catholic professors who want to keep their chairs know that they must toe the Vatican party line, aka the doctrine of the Church.

I am sure you don’t mean to speak for ALL Catholic clergy and professors, otherwise your statement is simple false. Clergy are free to decide what they want to believe. I can’t speak for all clergy either but I would bet there is an extremely small number of clergy that disagree with obedience to the Church.

Any unbiased church historian (such as my late father, who had a doctoral degree in the subject) will tell you that for the first 3 centuries of its existence the Church was predominantly Greek and the Papacy didn’t come into its own until Gregory I.

How about these unbiased writings from the first 3 centuries:

“For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
There are many, many others. God bless.

 

[jim1130]

The NT doesn’t specifically mention the Trinity either. The NT was not intended as a catechism and was not meant to list every detail. Remember the bible was not written in English. If Jesus made Peter the head of his church, then Catholics can call Peter’s successor the leader of His church. We could call him “Leader” or Pope, the exact English name is not relevant.

We agree on this.

I am sure you don’t mean to speak for ALL Catholic clergy and professors, otherwise your statement is simple false. Clergy are free to decide what they want to believe. I can’t speak for all clergy either but I would bet there is an extremely small number of clergy that disagree with obedience to the Church.

How about these unbiased writings from the first 3 centuries:

“For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
There are many, many others. God bless.

This is good, too:

“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 epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, 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 Eleutherus. 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” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

 

[jim1130]

Any unbiased church historian (such as my late father, who had a doctoral degree in the subject) will tell you that for the first 3 centuries of its existence the Church was predominantly Greek and the Papacy didn’t come into its own until Gregory I. The Orthodox churches could make a case that they have a better claim to being the genuine Church of Christ.

Just curious, but where did your father earn his doctoral degree?

 

[jim1130]

This discussion reminds me of a musical production I saw very recently, The Rock and the Rabbi, packaged as part of a seasonal Broadway series traipsing through Oklahoma City. Some may argue that the production presented an opportunity for non-believers to learn of Christ and the Apostles; however, all I witnessed was blatant, but subtle, inaccuracy of the non-Catholic’s version of the Gospel message. The show omitted significant portions of the Gospel that reinforced Catholic doctrine.

The Rock and the Rabbi presented itself as a story of the relationship between Jesus and St. Peter, but the deliberate omission of important Gospel parts, the overall weakness of the story line, and the sappy musical songs and accompaniment made it nothing more than a lengthy fundamentalist sermon.

In the opening scene, the narrator, who also doubled as St. Peter #1 (there was another St. Peter who did the singing), said that when St. Andrew took Simon to see Christ for the first time that Christ said to Simon “You are now named Peter, the Rock,” and walked away without saying anything else. The narrator (St. Peter #1) discussed the confusion of being renamed without an explanation. When did that happen in Scripture, that Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter then walked away without another word? I do not seem to recall that happening in Matthew 16:16-19.

Later, the narrator discusses the name change again, but this time elaborated a little more saying that Jesus explained “Your name is Rock and upon this rock I will build my church,” but stops short of adding the important “keys of heaven” and “bounded and loosed” verses.

During the Last Supper, the narrator states that Jesus held up the bread and said “Do this in remembrance of me.” No mention of “this is my body.” For the cup, the narrator said was “This is the cup of the new covenant.” No mention of “this is my blood.” Two significant moments of the last supper, yet completely ignored.

There was no reference in the production to John 6.

On the resurrection, when Mary reported Jesus was not in the tomb, the narrator states that St. Peter and St. John ran to the tomb and that St. Peter entered and then St. John entered, seeming to ignore the symbolism that when St. John arrived to the tomb first, out of respect and deference to St. Peter’s rank among the Apostles, St. John waited for and allowed St. Peter to enter first, thereby indicating St. Peter’s rank among the Apostles.

Later, when Christ appeared in the room with the Apostles, the narrator said to the audience: “Christ breathed upon them and told them to go forth” and motioned to the audience indicating they were to go forth, not the Apostles. Safe to say that no mention was made of the Apostles ability to forgive sins.

It also offended me that St. Peter was presented and characterized as a bumbling and pathetic clown, fool, and imbecile with absolutely no backbone. The narrator over emphasized St. Peter’s weaknesses. Two scenes that stood out: The heavy emphasis on the verses when Christ said to St. Peter “Get behind me, Satan; you are thinking not as of God, but as of man” and as a babbling incoherent Apostle who he suggested tents be erected during the Transfiguration.

On the anniversary of the Reformation, the non-Catholics are still pitching the same lame ball that has been refuted repeatedly, but which they choose to ignore.

I often refer to the writings of St. Frances de Sales to guide me through the non-Catholic rhetoric that has been a broken record for 477 years or so. In the “The Catholic Controversy” St. Frances de Sales defends Catholicism by refuting the Reformers. In his pamphlets St. Frances de Sales writes on:

The Authority of the Church
The Doctrine of Purgatory
The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture
The Mission of the Church
The Papacy
Faith and Reason

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/fds/fds_index.html