Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by NewMan99

If the Catholic Church is the True Church, then Catholics SHOULD SAY SO.​

And when we True Catholics say the Roman Catholic church is not the True Church, and we say so, Roman Catholics play the victim card, and call us "anti-Catholic", "Catholic bashers", "Catholic haters", etc.

What should we call you for falsely saying your church is the "one true church"?

Would imposters be appropriate?
​

 

[TraderJack]

CJ,

Regarding your post #332...

.

This is because we both "fisk"...When two fiskers meet on the internet - their chats can get VERY long and complex. We are both fiskers.

To fisk or not to fisk, that is the question.:o

 

[Rick Otto]

Would imposters be appropriate?

I think that name has already been copyrighted by a rock band or a political lobby or something.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And when we True Catholics say the Roman Catholic church is not the True Church, and we say so, Roman Catholics play the victim card, and call us "anti-Catholic", "Catholic bashers", "Catholic haters", etc.

What should we call you for falsely saying your church is the "one true church"?

Would imposters be appropriate?

The word "defective/ignorant" could also be used

Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church - Christian Forums

On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the "universal primacy" of his Roman Catholic church, approving a document released on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, proclaiming that Orthodox Churches are "defective."........................

 

[TraderJack]

CJ,

Thanks for your thoughts, but sorry I don't have time to reply except to say that it remains obvious to me that you still do not grasp on a fundamental level what I am trying to say.

Au contraire mon frere, CJ grasps what you are saying jus fine.

CJ jus aint buying what yer selling because he knows the facts.

It's common for RC e-pologists when frustrated because we do not buy the RC line, hook, line and sinker because we have done the investigation into the facts, to eventually say, "You just don't understand".

 

[Rick Otto]

Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter

It also makes sense in that it gives Jesus the only reason for nicknaming impulsive Peter "petros". Peter needed the extra attention to strengthen him against the huge blow to his self-confidence that his thrice denial would bring. Peter's primacy is narrational, not institutional. He was the apostle that represented the best & worst of us all & so is looked to for example, but we need to not be in denial of the bad examples he provided or we'll miss valuable lessons & be tempted to be in denial about our own worst sides too.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=LittleLambofJesus;The word "defective/ignorant" could also be used

Only you could say that with a warm fuzzy smile.

Pope Benedict XVI reasserted... that Orthodox Churches are "defective."

Terms of endearment in The War On Disunity.

...or is that terms of engagement?

 

[TraderJack]

Augustine defends the authority and primacy of the See of Rome. Note well, the Pelagians were attempting to show that Pope Zosimus was on their side of the argument. In reply, Augustine answers all the Pelagian charges and in doing so he refutes Siman as well.

There goes your e-pologist source reading the later invention of Roman papal supremacy into Augustine where it does not exist.

Nowhere does Augustine indicate any Roman papal supremacy.

One has to engage in back engineering to accomplish that feat of semantical gymnastics.

 

[TraderJack]

" 'He saith unto him, Feed My sheep.' And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep" (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:331).

Chrysostom could not have made it any clearer. According to Chrysostom, Peter had authority over the other apostles, or in Chrysostom's words Peter had , 'the chief authority among the brethren.'

"And if any should say, 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He [Jesus] appointed Peter , not of the chair [in Jerusalem], but of the world" (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:332).

In one fell swoop, Chrysostom destroys your claims.

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges."
Theodoret of Cyrus,To Pope Leo,Epistle 113(A.D. 449),in NPNF2,III:293

Thanks for posting those, for they support my comments, that the church fathers in using exalted terms when speaking of Peter, were speaking of Peter, alone.

Now, show us where any of those say one thing about any of those comments on Peter being applied to the bishops of Rome in an exclusive manner.

If not, then concede that your e-pologist source misrepresents what they actually say and back engineers the later claims of Rome into them where they do not exist.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Only you could say that with a warm fuzzy smile.

Terms of endearment in The War On Disunity.

...or is that terms of engagement?

Engagement in the early centuries usually wasn't good for ones "health"

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

............A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”..........

 

[TraderJack]

The word "defective/ignorant" could also be used

Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church - Christian Forums

On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the "universal primacy" of his Roman Catholic church, approving a document released on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, proclaiming that Orthodox Churches are "defective."........................

You make an excellent point.

"Defective" would be appropriate since that is the term used for us.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

 

[TraderJack]

It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.

Why wouldn't God protect the truth?

God did.

IT'S CALLED----THE REFORMATION!

 

[TraderJack]

By way of closing and concluding this post and this analysis of the first question, I want to remind readers that the claim of Petrine Primacy does not rest on any one piece of evidence, but rather on a preponderance of evidence.

In reality, the later claims of papal supremacy by Roman bishops rests on a false supposition invented by power hungry Roman bishops, and their successors, who start with that false supposition and then twists both the Scriptures, history, and cherrypicked snippets from church fathers, taken totally out of context, to construct a case of misfacts to fit the false supposition.

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Would imposters be appropriate?
​

I think that name has already been copyrighted by a rock band or a political lobby or something.

You mean the Demonrats in Congress and the White House?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Before the Great Schism, the Roman Church was a part of the Church, yes.

After the Great Schism it was not. The pope essentially got a bit pigheaded and tried to give himself power and authority he never had nor was entitled to. The East said "hold on buddy, what are you doing? That's not right" in which the pope threw a hissy fit and quit talking to us.

That's the nutshell of it.

Thank you for that opinion. from an Eastern Orthodox perspective....




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your friend forgot the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869-870 (which the Pope participated in, though very few Bishops actually attended) which was later overturned by the council in 879-880.

And what's the next couple verses?.............

The RCC always mentions St. Peter, and uses him as theological proof of their supremacy, even though this very thing was warned against in scripture.

Take your time and have a good night.

Can you or others give us the Scripture that warned against this. Thanks

 

[Standing Up]

Can you or others give us the Scripture that warned against this. Thanks

There's the little read 3 John.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth [them] out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. Demetrius hath good report of all [men], and of the truth itself: yea, and we [also] bear record; and ye know that our record is true.

There's a beginning of the defection and reason for it. Church A with Diotrephes (nourished by Jove-Jupiter-Roman god) who LOVES TO BE PREEMINENT and receives not Christians versus Church B with Demetrius (belonging to Ceres, Roman goddess of agriculture), but has a good report.

Neither sounds perfect, but that's what happens with factious Churches (see also 1 Cor.). At the other end is Gaius (lord or rejoice) beloved in the truth.

 

[Mikeb85]

Can you or others give us the Scripture that warned against this. Thanks

...

But Jesus called them to [Himself] and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.

Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.

And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.

Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.

And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'

But not so [among] you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.

For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's [household], that there are contentions among you.

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours:

whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come--all are yours.

And you [are] Christ's, and Christ [is] God's.

 

[boswd]

Firstly, there is nothing cited above that indicates anything said of Peter applies to the bishops of Rome as any exclusive successors of Peter.

The above makes the false assumption and usual mistake of Roman Catholic apologists to apply a later claim made in opposition to the consensus of the church fathers by later Roman bishops of being the sole reciprients of the "keys" and "chair of Peter", then in fact the Church has never supported that claim.

[SIZE=+1]According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peter—for example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choir—that they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO![/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the ‘coryphaeus,’ the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation. This view is clearly validated from the following statements of Augustine:[/SIZE]

[/font]

Here, in fact, we have Augustine, a doctor of the Church, clearly and unambiguously defining, in a manner contrary to the claims of Rome, that Peter was a symbolic representative of the entirety of the "Christian people" and that what was given to Peter, was in fact, given to ALL.

[/font]

Augustine is in agreement with the misnomer "Protestant" view and opposed to the Roman Catholic view.
[/size][/size]

Hmmm are you REALLY presenting St. Augistine correct views on Peter, his other quotes seem to differ with the one you are presenting



Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, 'To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Mt 16:19)... Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It's not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord's sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles."
(Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)

"So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship."
(On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)

"For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples."
(On the Psalms,108[109]:1(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:536)

"The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus?

'For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues for the common health and weal.'?
(Cyprian, Epistle 76[70]:3)


But I'm sure you just going to say they are all forged

 

[boswd]

Thanks for posting those, for they support my comments, that the church fathers in using exalted terms when speaking of Peter, were speaking of Peter, alone.

Now, show us where any of those say one thing about any of those comments on Peter being applied to the bishops of Rome in an exclusive manner.

If not, then concede that your e-pologist source misrepresents what they actually say and back engineers the later claims of Rome into them where they do not exist.

well this is also from St. Aug"


All the more should he have feared to break the peace of unity, because Carthage was a great and famous city, whence the evil might spread from the head through the whole body of Africa. Besides, it was in touch with the overseas countries, and enjoyed widespread fame. Certainly, it had a bishop of no ordinary authority, who was able to pay no attention to a crowd of hostile conspirators, when he saw that he was united by pastoral letters to the Church of Rome, where the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished, and to those other countries from which the Gospel came to Africa, itself, and when arrangements were made for him to plead his case if his opponents should try to win over those churches from him."
(To Glorius et. al., Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397-398), in FC, XII:187)