Papal Infallibility.

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope was unknown for the first 6 centuries of the church. The supremacy of the bishop of Rome was unknown to Augustine in the 4th Century.

The truth is that the Bishop of Rome appointed himself to the role of supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church after it had fulfilled the predictions of the writers of the New Testament and fallen into apostacy. The church of whom the Pope is the head, bears absolutely no resemblance to the Christian church pioneered by the Apostles, and the church which existed up until the 4th Century AD before it was split by the Pelegan controversy.

The church split in two when the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople exccommunicated each other.

It would have been odious to Jesus, Paul and the other Apostles to have the Christian church ruled by some old bachelor in Rome. The scripture gives absolutely no warrant for it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Progress?


Another thread addressing one of the critical issues that divide us....


The claim has been repeated - louded and clearly.
But nothing offered to substaniate it.


We have, "But the Pope says so!" "The denomination headed by the Pope says so!" "The snippets of writtings (most amazingly late) chosen by and interpreted by that self-same denomination say so."


For being one of the KEY issues between us, more that "I say so" is required. And so we find that the non-catholics here just don't seem overly convinced. I think Catholics should be able to understand that this isn't necessary hate or ignorance or anything else - only that the case just hasn't been made, especially considering what an important and divisive issue it is.



Stuck anyway?


The think my fellow Protestants don't always appreicate is that Catholics (well, "good" ones, anyway, LOL), can't do other than affirm this. Since 1877, this is DOGMA. Dogmas cannot be questioned and cannot be denied - such makes one a heretic and their salvation is in danger. Now, in reality, I've heard LOTS of Catholics flately deny this dogma, many much more boldly than I would, but they are not permitted to do such. Dogmas also CANNOT be removed (their theologians cannot even discuss that), so once it's declared - that's it, there's NOTHING that can be done, no matter what. One of MY frustrations is that the RCC has been busy declaring dogmas since 1054 - in each case, it's burning a bridge and building a wall between us. This one (key to the RCC's separation from the Church in 1054) made so in 1877 (800 years after their excommunication of the East, over 300 years after their excommunication of Luther). Anyway, I find our situation sad. MANY Catholics do, too - but nothing can be done about it. Nothing. While this issue was pretty open in 1054 and more open in 1517, it is no longer, one more bridge destroyed, one more wall built. Don't misread me: I think Protestants SHOULD discuss this - it's critical and one of the key issues - and Catholics should too to the extent that their conscience and denomination will allow. But like all the RC dogmas that divide His church, there's nothing any of us can do about it - including the Pope - no matter what.


While I appreciate the INTENT here (to preserve truth), IMHO, it has a dark side. The epistemology: self appoints self as the sole interpreter and the sole arbiter and declares self infallible in both - is about as circular and self-authenticating as is possible. Then when the end product of this is declared "dogma" and thus CANNOT be questioned by anyone, ever - well, I think you've not only created a good system for protecting truth but the perfect system for protecting error.


I can appreciate that Catholics and Mormons and others who embrace this epistemology can simply accept all this as a pure article of faith. I am very accepting of others when it's framed as a sincere article of faith. But I still lement it because it insitutionalized the division and freezes the disagreement - the disunity of His church has just become "stuck" with no way, no means, no possibility of unity (ironcially, the very denominations that have created the "stuck" position tend to be the ones who decry it the most - for others!!!!!!!). The ONLY thing they have to offer is for everyone else to completely denouce our faith and join them (at least where dogmas are concerned).


Our Website:


Our website has a very clear, very focused mission statement. Many of us are here because of that mission statement. And it can be very frustrating.

We are here to TALK and WORK toward a growing unity and consensus. While much of that is attitudinal, and I think we can (and do!!!!) make progress there - for which I GREATLY rejoice, we do have a major problem.

As in all such ecumenical, inter-denominational conversations, we have people "coming to the table" not just with different views but with differernt attitudes and presumptions. One very major voice comes and quickly insists: "I'm the sole teaching authority here. I'm the sole interpreter of Scripture here. I'm the sole interpreter of anything else I want to bring to the discussion. I'm the sole arbiter of anything I choose to arbitrate. I'm infallible in all of that and thus I'm unaccountable. What I declare to be dogma cannot be questioned. Now, does anyone have anything to ask?" While I'm PASSIONATE about ecumenism, while I'm DEDICATED to advancing the unity of His church, like most Protestants, I'm very frustrated. I can understand why nearly all my fellow Protestants have given up, arguing to just go out for pizza and beer instead, LOL, and give up seeking any unity. Someday, I may well join them down at the pub and indeed give up. But I'm young and still have hope that we can learn from each other, that the Holy Spirit is still alive and well and powerful, and with prayer and work and openness.... Well, probably not.







Pax!


- Josiah

 

[BrightCandle]

The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope was unknown for the first 6 centuries of the church. The supremacy of the bishop of Rome was unknown to Augustine in the 4th Century.

The truth is that the Bishop of Rome appointed himself to the role of supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church after it had fulfilled the predictions of the writers of the New Testament and fallen into apostacy. The church of whom the Pope is the head, bears absolutely no resemblance to the Christian church pioneered by the Apostles, and the church which existed up until the 4th Century AD before it was split by the Pelegan controversy.

The church split in two when the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople exccommunicated each other.

It would have been odious to Jesus, Paul and the other Apostles to have the Christian church ruled by some old bachelor in Rome. The scripture gives absolutely no warrant for it.

Very good point, my brother. That is very clear when you examine the record of the book of Acts. There is no record of Peter or Paul, or even James, trumping themselves up as a Pope! It was not in their character to do so, they were for the most part form humble fisherman, and their Lord was a former carpenter. Even Paul, made tents when he need money to survive, he didn't expect to lifted up and supported by his brethren. Their example is in sharp contrast to the Papacy that we see in Rome nowadays.

 

[Trento]

The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope was unknown for the first 6 centuries of the church. The supremacy of the bishop of Rome was unknown to Augustine in the 4th Century.

The truth is that the Bishop of Rome appointed himself to the role of supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church after it had fulfilled the predictions of the writers of the New Testament and fallen into apostacy.

Protestant Contra-Catholic Revisionist History.


AUGUSTINE: THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST MUST BE HEADED BY DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF PETER
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: ‑Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found” (Letters of Augustine 53, 2 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1st series, 1:298).

AUGUSTINE SAYS THE POPE OF HIS TIME, ANASTASIUS, SITS IN THE CHAIR OF PETER
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” [Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS AUTHORITY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. EVERYONE IN THE WORLD KNOWS WHICH CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”




<B>Protestan Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy --

"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)​

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy: ​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954​

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.​

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954​

Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398). ​

Phillip Schaff Protestant Patristic and historical scholar-- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH​

CHAPTER IV: ​

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system.​

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.​

I cited the testimony of Protestant Historical scholars acknowledging that the Catholic position was the one espoused in the ancient Church of the late first Century and throughout much of the 1500 years before the Reformation


​

</B>

 

[agoniste]

Of course we know who the true Pope is. There's an unbroken line of succession from Peter all the way to Pope Benedict XVI.

So what do you think of corrupt and immoral popes then? Like the Borgias Popes, among others.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

So what do you think of corrupt and immoral popes then? Like the Borgias Popes, among others.

They were corrupt and immoral. No human is free from corruption and immorality. It is merely a matter of the depth and significance of the corruption and immorality that had any bearing on this question at all. Pope John Paul II, God rest his soul, as good a mas as he was, was not free from sin. Popes are not impeccable, they can and do sin. They cannot, however, change infallible doctrines and dogmas. This is the extent of Papal infallibility.

Dogmas aren't new teachings. They are merely Papal declarations, Papal Bulls, stating that (even though the Church has always espoused and held true this teaching) it is with Papal authority that this Doctrine is declared Dogmatic, and unquestionable. When the Papal Infallibility was Declared (made Dogmatic), it was merely a ex cathedra statement by the Pope upholding an already long-standing teaching. The only reason Dogmas are declared is that the Doctrine has for some reason come under particular question, and because of widespread confusion within the Church itself as to the true meaning of the teaching (ie, everyone's confused and unsure about whether the Roman Bishop has Primacy or not).

This has always been the meaning and procedure of Dogmas. But... I've said more already than I had planned and gone way beyond merely responding to the quoted post.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Protestant Contra-Catholic Revisionist History.


AUGUSTINE: THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST MUST BE HEADED BY DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF PETER
&#8220;For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: &#8216;Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!&#8217;

If Augustine said this, he was making a speculative statement that was not supported by the Apostles.

The Apostle's interpretation of Jesus' words, "Upon this rock, etc.," is that the rock was Christ Himself - that the church was to be built on Christ as the Rock. This is clearly brought out in many references in the writing of the Apostles in the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence in the form of any statement by Paul. Peter. James. Luke, or John, that Peter ever had the role of leader of the Christian church. The Christian church in each locality was governed by its own elders, with the Apostles providing support.

Paul did not acknowledge the supremacy of Peter, because at one place he rebuked Peter because he went and mixed with his fellow Jews when they arrived, instead of freely mixing with the Gentile Christians as he did before the party of the Christian Jews arrived on the scene. If Peter had the role of the head of the church, Paul would have subjected himself to Peter. This did not happen.

If the Bishop of Rome had been recognised by the Apostles as the head of the Christian church, the Apostles would have taught it as a thread through their writings. There is absolutely no mention of it.

There is no actual evidence that Peter ever was the Bishop of Rome. There is scant evidence that he was ever in Rome. We only have tradition for that. There is absolutely no warrant in Scripture for believing that Peter ever held a leadership position in the Roman church. It seems more likely that he itinerated around the churches in the same way that Paul did.

In Peter's letters, he does not at any time refer to himself as the Bishop of Rome, nor as the head of the Christian church. In fact, all the Apostles clearly taught that the risen Christ was the head of the church.

There is absolutely no warrant in Scripture for the role of Christ's Vicar or representative on earth. Because Scripture is the final authority, I can say in the Name of Jesus with boldness and authority that the notion of the Bishop of Rome being the head of the Christian church is an invention of the Popish church for the purpose of power and control.

The Popish role is a counterfeit and is more of an image of the anti-Christ taking up residence in the Temple.

The notion of Peter being the first Pope, and having a lineage right up to the present pope is an invention of a group of people at the head of the church in Rome who manipulated the rest of the church into believing and accepting its supremacy over the whole church. This happened after the 10th Century.

The Eastern church's response to attempts by the Roman pope to take command of the church was to excommunicate him. The Roman pope, through political and spiritual pride, excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople. There has been a division between the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox church ever since.

In actual fact, the Eastern Orthodox church has kept the original doctrines of the early church in better condition, and much freer from heresy and error than the Roman church over the centuries.

If you decide to believe in man's speculative nonsense over the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then you must separate yourself from what is truly Christian and set up your own religion, because genuine Christian faith is solidly based on the New Testament. Every other document, including the writing of the church fathers, must point back to the Scriptures as the final authority for Christian doctrine.

The supremacy of the Pope, and Peter being the first pope does not hold water as far as the Scriptures go. I challenge you in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord to show me in any of the writing of the Apostles in the New Testament that would back it up in any way.

 

[Trento]

If Augustine said this, he was making a speculative statement that was not supported by the Apostles.

The Apostle's interpretation of Jesus' words, "Upon this rock, etc.," is that the rock was Christ Himself - that the church was to be built on Christ as the Rock. This is clearly brought out in many references in the writing of the Apostles in the New Testament.

This is your personal interpretation of this. as we can see by a host of contemporary Protestant scholars and the Unanimous consensus of the Early Church fathers beginning In 90 A D.


According to
William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, "You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church." Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, "And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.


New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14
Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.


"The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate"
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock". The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.


The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning "rock" (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter.


Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock", etc.


Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, "Thou are kipho, and on this kipho". The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, "Thou are kepha, and on this kepha".... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier."



Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words "this rock" Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, "You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church". As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.


"Matthew"
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname "Peter" (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, "You are Peter", parallels Peter's confession, "You are the Christ", as if to say, "Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are." The expression "this rock" almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following "the Christ" in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word "rock" (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.


The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32
David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the "rock" as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.


"The Gospel of Matthew"
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. "Simon", the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the "rock" on which God will build the new community.


The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.


Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

[SIZE=+1]All of the preceding quotations are from Protestant biblical scholars. Do you consider youself a scholar?


[/SIZE]




continued on the next post

 

[Trento]

There is absolutely no evidence in the form of any statement by Paul. Peter. James. Luke, or John, that Peter ever had the role of leader of the Christian church. The Christian church in each locality was governed by its own elders, with the Apostles providing support.

I just gave you irrefutable evidence even by your own Protestant Scholars and here is the early Church Fathers.






The Early Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

"...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church."
Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15(A.D. 337),in SPP,58

"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: [highlight[that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer."
Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393),in GILES,182


Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church."
Basil,In Isaias,2:66(A.D. 375),in SPP,55


" 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, 'It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?' He answered, 'It is true O king!' Then says he, 'Can you show any such power given to your Columba?' Colman answered, 'None.' Then added the king,"Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?'They both answered,'We do.' "
Bede Venerable, AD 700,

'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. 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),in NE,228-229


"[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built."
Epiphanius, In Ancorato,9:6 (A.D. 374),in SPP,in 57


"Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter(Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures."
Ephraim, Homily 4:1,(A.D. 373),JUR,I:11


"And Peter,the rockon whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' "
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,6:25 (A.D. 325),in

NPNF2,I:273

"Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church."
Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration 32:18(A.D. 380),in SPP,56


"The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church."
Gregory of Nyssa,Panegyric on St. Stephen,3(ante A.D. 394),in SPP,56


"lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom..."
Hilary de Poiters,On the Trinity,6:20(A.D. 359),in NPNF2,IX:105


By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished."
Hippolytus,Discourse on the Holy Theophany,9(ante A.D. 235),ANF,V:237


"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18


"But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one. Peter among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism."
Jerome,Against Jovinianus,1 (A.D. 393),in NPNF2,VI:366

This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..."'
Maximus of Turin,Homily 63(A.D. 408),in SPP,61-62


"[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardone only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest."
Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum,7:3(A.D. 370),in GILES,120
'
"And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..."
Origen,Commentary on John,5:3(c.A.D. 232),in ANF,X:347


"...the most firm rock, who Peter from the principal Rock recieved a share of his virtue and his name"
Prosper of Aquitaine,The Call of All Nations,2:28(A.D. 426),in SPP,71

Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...' "
Tertullian,On the Prescription Against the Heretics,22(c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:253

You People miss this too.
Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
It is quite clear that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. Therefore, he is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all.

again to Peter alone Jesus says--
I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
To Peter alone that Christ entrusts “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”
WE know that the ancient, Davidic kingdom of Israel was merely a prefigurement of the New Testament’s Kingdom of God. So the keys to an office referred to in 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, and elsewhere is given to Peter by Christ to govern His Household, which is the Church (1 Tim 3:15
St. Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing Matthias as successor to Judas, and he leads the Apostles in preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). He performs the first Pentecost miracle (Acts 3). He speaks in the name of all the Apostles and for the whole Church when the Twelve are brought before the Sanhedrin for a trial (Acts 4). It is to St. Peter alone that God sends the revelation that gentiles are to be allowed into the Church (Acts 10), and he is the Apostle who first welcomes them into the Church (Acts 11). St. Peter's dogmatic pronouncement is accepted, and causes all disputes to cease at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). After his conversion and healing from blindness, St. Paul visits St. Peter to have his teachings confirmed by him (Gal.1:18).


continued on the next post

 

[Trento]

Paul did not acknowledge the supremacy of Peter, because at one place he rebuked Peter because he went and mixed with his fellow Jews when they arrived, instead of freely mixing with the Gentile Christians as he did before the party of the Christian Jews arrived on the scene. If Peter had the role of the head of the church, Paul would have subjected himself to Peter. This did not happen.

St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter, instead of implying a denial of his supremacy, implies just the opposite. He tells us that the example of St. Peter "compelled" the Gentiles to live as the Jews. St. Paul's example had not the same compelling Power.


The duty of fraternal correction (Matt, xviii. 15) may often require an inferior to rebuke a superior in defense of justice and truth. St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury and St. Catherine of Siena have rebuked Popes, while fully acknowledging their supreme authority.

The rebuke, however, did not refer to the doctrine, but to the conduct of St. Peter, as Tertullian says (De Pras., 23) AD 210. St. Peter had not changed the views he had himself set forth at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 10). But at Antioch he withdrew from the table of the Gentiles, because he feared giving offence to the Jewish converts.

There is no actual evidence that Peter ever was the Bishop of Rome. There is scant evidence that he was ever in Rome. We only have tradition for that. There is absolutely no warrant in Scripture for believing that Peter ever held a leadership position in the Roman church. It seems more likely that he itinerated around the churches in the same way that Paul did.

In Peter's letters, he does not at any time refer to himself as the Bishop of Rome, nor as the head of the Christian church. In fact, all the Apostles clearly taught that the risen Christ was the head of the church.
There is absolutely no warrant in Scripture for the role of Christ's Vicar or representative on earth. Because Scripture is the final authority, I can say in the Name of Jesus with boldness and authority that the notion of the Bishop of Rome being the head of the Christian church is an invention of the Popish church for the purpose of power and control.

According to the witness of our ancient Christian forefathers: (1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).
(8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
(9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).
(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).
(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).
(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).
(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).
(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).
(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).
(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).
(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."
(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).



Now, if our critic would care to produce ONE ancient quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then perhaps he has an argument. Yet, until such time, the ancient witness stands firm and consistent.



Our critic is chasing "phantom Catholicism," not the real thing. The Pope, for example, is the linear successor of the Apostle Peter IN THAT he directly succeeds to the EPISCOPAL OFFICE held by the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 5:1), which was the episcopate of the city of Rome (called "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13, just as it is in Rev 14:8, 16:19, 1:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21, etc). And the episcopal office of Peter holds particular responsibilities when it comes to maintaining the unity and orthodoxy of the entire Church (e.g. John 21:15-19).

I can also point to the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus and the (258) Bishops who offered no protest when the papal legates read out this statement at the council:


"There is no doubt, and in fact has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." (JP&K, 258)
Not to mention the Eastern bishops who wrote to Pope Symmachus (342) or the 250 Eastern bishops who signed the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (268; the authors of JP&K cite Dollinger to the effect that this number eventually climbed to 2500 Eastern signatories).

The Popish role is a counterfeit and is more of an image of the anti-Christ taking up residence in the Temple.

With your polemics here you are proving to be a good disciple of Luther.



"The Papacy at Rome", was written early in Luther's game, 1520, and it is obvious that Luther was trying to convey to his followers that he had some sort of authority in order to justify his movement to separate from the Catholic Church. However, he obviously failed to do so, and thus quickly moved on to the next and much more destructive stages.
He decided that if he could not fight The Church on their level, then he would [SIZE=+2]demonize the Papacy.In 1520, Luther wrote a document called, "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church".
In it, likened to the roaring lion of Scripture (1Peter 5:8), he made these rather coarse statements simply because he did not have his way in his attempt to dictate to the Papacy:

"Godless pontiffs boastfully claim the right to do this, that they pretend to be seeking the Church's welfare with this Babylon of theirs."
"Since they are wolves, they want to look like shepherds."
"Since they are antichrists
, they want to be honored as Christ."
"The Papacy is antichrist."
"The Papacy is the Kingdom of Babylon."
"The Papacy is the power of Nimrod."
"The Papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon, yes, the kingdom of the real antichrist."

[/SIZE]

continued on the next post

 

[Trento]

The notion of Peter being the first Pope, and having a lineage right up to the present pope is an invention of a group of people at the head of the church in Rome who manipulated the rest of the church into believing and accepting its supremacy over the whole church. This happened after the 10th Century.

The Eastern church's response to attempts by the Roman pope to take command of the church was to excommunicate him. The Roman pope, through political and spiritual pride, excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople. There has been a division between the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox church ever since.

In actual fact, the Eastern Orthodox church has kept the original doctrines of the early church in better condition, and much freer from heresy and error than the Roman church over the centuries.

Oh so now you move it to the 10th Century
May i point out that the some of the Fathers mentioned above are Eastern Fathers but i will not get sucked into a dispute between East and West since there are talks going on now for reunification.

If you decide to believe in man's speculative nonsense over the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then you must separate yourself from what is truly Christian and set up your own religion, because genuine Christian faith is solidly based on the New Testament. Every other document, including the writing of the church fathers, must point back to the Scriptures as the final authority for Christian doctrine.

Since some of the Fathers i mentioned above were involved in Canonizing the scriptures this is a straw man.

The supremacy of the Pope, and Peter being the first pope does not hold water as far as the Scriptures go. I challenge you in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord to show me in any of the writing of the Apostles in the New Testament that would back it up in any way.

The Church came before the New Testament so this is a Straw man challenge

 

[WarriorAngel]

One of the Popes titles is servent of servents.

Read a book by E.R. Chamberlin (Signet, 1969), entitled "The Bad Popes". The writer finds seven popes that he calls bad, seven out of now almost three hundred. Does this historical fact that some popes lived lives unworthy of their calling discredit the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Jesus Christ? Let me point Holy Scripture.

Our Lord chose twelve of his disciples to be Apostles, pillars and leaders of the Church (Mark 3:13-19). One of these was Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him, whom Jesus himself called "a devil" (John 6:70-71). The failure and fall of this apostle, personally chosen by Christ, does not discredit Christ's Church. His power is with the Church always (Matt. 28:20), and his Spirit is mightier than the weaknesses of his members.

No sinful pope has ever taught error or tried to change the rules of morality to justify his own bad behavior. Jesus defended the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees while attacking their sinful behavior (Matt. 23:2-3). Similarly, even if a pope is a grievous sinner, Jesus is faithful to his promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church of Christ, built upon Peter (Matt. 16:18). Peter and his successors the popes, whatever their failings great or small, infallibly teach the truths of Christian doctrine and morality, always sustaining the Church of the living God, so that she is unfailingly the pillar and foundation of truth (1st Tim. 3:15).
Like Judas in the college of apostles, bad popes in the Church cannot discredit the work of Christ. They are a proof of the Church's truth and vitality, that she has survived,for 2000 years in spite of all her sinners, to produce a marvelous array of saints
After all Jesus Predicted that scandal would come but His Church was not the source but individual men.
"Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come,
but WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM SCANDAL DOES COME!"
Matthew 18:7

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1


The Catholic church itself is indefectible. It has to be, because it has an indefectible founder.
See Ephesians 5:25-27
Jesus promised He would be with His Church forever.


"I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world."
Matthew 28:20

"...and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"...and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth..."
John 14:16-17

"I will not leave you orphans."
John 14:18

"...a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, BEING HIMSELF SAVIOR OF THE BODY."
Ephesians 5:23

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Trento again.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Anyone that actually knew J.P.II knows he was a man of deep prayer and a Mystic. It was at World Youth Day in Toronto in 1980 that Emil Barbar who was born with cerebral palsy and whoDoctors told his parents that he would always need a wheelchair. As he grew older, he started to mumbled and could not speak in clear phrases.
On Easter Monday, his family gathered together with a group of disabled people at St. Peter's Square. Seeing John Paul II, they began to shout: 'Holy Father, come this way! Come this way.
The Pope gave him a kiss on the head. His mother began to cry. The Holy Father asked her, 'Why are you crying?' 'My son can't walk,' she said. 'Take him to Lourdes,' was the reply. 'You will see that he will walk.'
The Pope handed her a cross and rosary. Rosemary and Emil traveled to the French shrine. There, she immersed Emil in the pool that formed following a Marian apparition. a couple weeks later, he stood up and got out of his wheelchair completely healed.
Another time i remember he sent a hopeless non-believer to the Divine Mercy devotion. "Entrust yourself to Jesus and pray to my Sister Faustina asking for her intercession," the Pope told the man -- who, then prayed before an image of Divine Mercy at an altar (in Trent)and felt a twitch through his body, had a vision of Jesus, felt a warmth pass through his body, and suddenly realized he was standing out of the wheelchair to which he had been condemned for years!
These are not unverified. They are documented by a professional journalist. Intriguingly, a Jewish man who attended a Papal Mass at Castel Gandolfo and took Communion from the Pope without knowing that non-Catholics should not do so was nonetheless instantly healed of a brain tumor.

During Youth Day in Toronto in 2002, another sixteen-year-old, Angela Baronni -- ill with devastating bone cancer -- was prayed over by the pontiff, who put his hands on her head and made the Sign of the Cross. Afterward, her body showed no trace of cancer.
On July 1, 2004, John Paul II received sixteen-year-old Rafal of Lubaczow in a private audience. The boy had lymphoma -- but right after the meeting was healed of the "incurable" disease. As in other cases, the cure befuddled doctors.
The Pope treated seriously those who wrote to him with personal prayer requests there were hours of such prayer each day.

Gotta love JPll.......who is still helping ppl in Heaven. Indeed a Saint.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Protestant Contra-Catholic Revisionist History.


AUGUSTINE: THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST MUST BE HEADED BY DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF PETER
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: &#8209;Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found” (Letters of Augustine 53, 2 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1st series, 1:298).

AUGUSTINE SAYS THE POPE OF HIS TIME, ANASTASIUS, SITS IN THE CHAIR OF PETER
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” [Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS AUTHORITY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. EVERYONE IN THE WORLD KNOWS WHICH CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”





<B>Protestan Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy --

"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)​

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy: ​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954​

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.​

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954​

Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398). ​

Phillip Schaff Protestant Patristic and historical scholar-- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH​

CHAPTER IV: ​

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system.​

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.​

I cited the testimony of Protestant Historical scholars acknowledging that the Catholic position was the one espoused in the ancient Church of the late first Century and throughout much of the 1500 years before the Reformation



​

God bless you brother. How do you know so much about what the Protestants said?

Yours in Christ.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Progress?


Another thread addressing one of the critical issues that divide us....


Our Website:

Our website has a very clear, very focused mission statement. Many of us are here because of that mission statement. And it can be very frustrating.

We are here to TALK and WORK toward a growing unity and consensus. While much of that is attitudinal, and I think we can (and do!!!!) make progress there - for which I GREATLY rejoice, we do have a major problem.

As in all such ecumenical, inter-denominational conversations, we have people "coming to the table" not just with different views but with differernt attitudes and presumptions.

Now, does anyone have anything to ask?" While I'm PASSIONATE about ecumenism, while I'm DEDICATED to advancing the unity of His church, like most Protestants, I'm very frustrated. I can understand why nearly all my fellow Protestants have given up, arguing to just go out for pizza and beer instead, LOL, and give up seeking any unity. Someday, I may well join them down at the pub and indeed give up. But I'm young and still have hope that we can learn from each other, that the Holy Spirit is still alive and well and powerful, and with prayer and work and openness.... Well, probably not.







Pax!


- Josiah

Greeting to you Josiah my brother, and the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ,

I haven't seen many go out for pizza. I definately have seen certain people go out of their way, again and again,to attack Catholics. More often than not using strawman arguments to setup up false declarations of what Catholics believe and then attacking them. Pure textbook strawman fallacy. We have an obligation to defend the Truth of the Catholic Faith and so present the facts from Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and available historical evidence.


It should also be noted that, according to a recent poll, a very large percentage of Catholics on CF were raised Protestant, and so have a good understanding of, and respect for, the Protestant beliefs.

So, I will ask in turn, do you have any sincere questions with regard to the Catholic Faith?



Grace and peace to you.



Your brother in Christ

 

[susanann]

The pope is probably MUCH more infailable than any of the hundreds of different protestant ministers, each one of which think they know more than the pope does.

Thousands and thousands of baptist, methodist, lutheran, etc ministers all have different ideas, and if God reveals the truth in one religous leader, why would he pick the pastor of a Boone County Kentucky church?

If God is helping to keep any religious minister on the right track, I gotta put my money on Rome, with a billion followers.

The pope only claims to be infailable on matters of faith, not on horse races, politics, or any other everyday stuff. Is the pope perfect? I dunno, but hes gotta be more right than Jim Baker, or Jimmy Swaggert, or David Koresh, or Jim Jones (Jonestown mass suicides) or or Malcom X, or Brigham Young, or Elmer Gantry, or the preachers in Tennessee who release rattle snakes during the service, etc.

The pope and the catholics seem to come down on the right side of important faith issues, such as abortion, getting baptized, communion, recognizing certain individuals who have done Gods work very well, etc.

 

[icedtea]

I've been going to "protestant" churches for 28 years, and they all came donw on the "right side" on issues that you mention. They never say "My word is always right>" They tell us a good thing, to read God's word for ourself. We are not so dense as to not realize what it says, and detect errors.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

The pope is probably MUCH more infailable than any of the hundreds of different protestant ministers, each one of which think they know more than the pope does.

Thousands and thousands of baptist, methodist, lutheran, etc ministers all have different ideas, and if God reveals the truth in one religous leader, why would he pick the pastor of a Boone County Kentucky church?

If God is helping to keep any religious minister on the right track, I gotta put my money on Rome, with a billion followers.

The pope only claims to be infailable on matters of faith, not on horse races, politics, or any other everyday stuff. Is the pope perfect? I dunno, but hes gotta be more right than Jim Baker, or Jimmy Swaggert, or David Koresh, or Jim Jones (Jonestown mass suicides) or or Malcom X, or Brigham Young, or Elmer Gantry, or the preachers in Tennessee who release rattle snakes during the service, etc.

The pope and the catholics seem to come down on the right side of important faith issues, such as abortion, getting baptized, communion, recognizing certain individuals who have done Gods work very well, etc.

May God richly bless you, watch over you and give you many blessed days.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[DArceri]

The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

A pun? I don't buy this argument..... Pretty convenient way to explain how Christ is not the large Rock (Petra)....

The rock is mentioned in scripture over 30 times as God being the rock.

Rev 21:14...The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

It reads 12 apostles, It doesn't say Peter's name as any leader or rock.

ALSO: 1 Peter 2 :1-8

The Living Stone and a Chosen People

4As you come to him, the living Stone&#8212;rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him&#8212; 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."They stumble because they disobey the message&#8212;which is also what they were destined for.





JESUS CHRIST is the cornerstone, not Peter.

 

[Trento]

May God richly bless you, watch over you and give you many blessed days.

Your brother in Christ.

The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

A pun? I don't buy this argument..... Pretty convenient way to explain how Christ is not the large Rock (Petra)....

The rock is mentioned in scripture over 30 times as God being the rock.

Rev 21:14...The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

It reads 12 equal apostles, It doen't say Peter's name as the leader.

Your argument is with Protestant Bibical and Protestant Historical Patristic scholars and the unanimous
consensus of the Church Fathers.
Perhaps these Scholars took the following into consideration.

Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
It is quite clear that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. Therefore, he is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all.

again to Peter alone Jesus says--
I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
To Peter alone that Christ entrusts “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”
WE know that the ancient, Davidic kingdom of Israel was merely a prefigurement of the New Testament’s Kingdom of God. So the keys to an office referred to in 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, and elsewhere is given to Peter by Christ to govern His Household, which is the Church (1 Tim 3:15
St. Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing Matthias as successor to Judas, and he leads the Apostles in preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). He performs the first Pentecost miracle (Acts 3). He speaks in the name of all the Apostles and for the whole Church when the Twelve are brought before the Sanhedrin for a trial (Acts 4). It is to St. Peter alone that God sends the revelation that gentiles are to be allowed into the Church (Acts 10), and he is the Apostle who first welcomes them into the Church (Acts 11). St. Peter's dogmatic pronouncement is accepted, and causes all disputes to cease at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). After his conversion and healing from blindness, St. Paul visits St. Peter to have his teachings confirmed by him (Gal.1:18).

I make claims as an amateur historian too, but the difference is that I back them up with scholars, and almost all Protestant ones, lest I be accused of Catholic bias. You should care about the informed opinions of the experts in the field Seeing that the historians who are familiar with the Fathers; who specialize in patristics and Church history and history of theology or of doctrinal development of same, completely contradict you. Who shall we trust the views of the Protestant Scholars and Church Fathers concerning the Rule of Faith, or the relationship between Bible, apostolic succession, and the Historical Church or you?