Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[vanshan]

Also:

"For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose . . . when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say tht he held primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.)

"Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all--the unshakable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice." --Saint Cyril, in his Letter to Nestorius

"Behold, how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own power or authority." --Saint John Chrysosotom (407 A.D.)

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Saint Gregory the Great (608 A.D.), Pope of Rome, Book VII: Epistle XXXIII, written to the Emporer Maurice.


What can be said to be more clear? The Orthodox have maintained, just as all my quotes clearly defend, that all decisions in the Church were made collegially by concensus, not by a top-down authority with the Pope at the head, instead of Christ. The bishops in council, just like the one recorded in the Book of Acts in Jerusalem, would decide matter in dispute together as equals. Sometimes the Bishop in Rome might, as first among EQUALS, call a council, but when it convened all bishops were able to participate and prayerfully sought evidence and the direction of the Holy Spirit to reaffirm the true faith, guarding it against heresy.

Basil

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just drop it. I am going to ignore you.

Friend and brother, you are the one that brought it up - and won't let it go.

Friend, did you read posts # 648 and 656?
Did ANYTHING there mean anything to you?






Now, again:

Do the words of the "witnesses" you brought forward evidence that, from 30 AD on, Christians all accepted that Jesus founded the Papacy, that the bishop of the diocese of Rome was given the "keys" of Peter in a unique, special, individual sense and THEREFORE, by virtue of being the bishop of that specific singular diocese, he is the SURPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all as The Vicar of Christ? Did they give evidence to the distinctives of the Catholic Papacy? Quotes that express the view that Peter and Paul are associated with the congregation in Rome, or quotes showing that a beloved Christian is looked to for counsel, or that the bishop in Rome held a view another bishop did not docilicly accept - none of this documents that they viewed the Office of Pope as created by Jesus in or before 30 AD, that BY VIRTUE OF BEING the bishop of a particular, singular diocese, he is the SUPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all BECAUSE he uniquely has the "keys" of Peter. Isn't that obvious? I promised I would read your "witness" with an open mind and heart - assuming nothing. And that's what I did. And I posted my reply - but you (a Catholic Apologist of some esteem) wrote that you will not be responding to me in this.

They said nothing about any Papacy at all. Obviously. I think it's possible to read them with a very strong bias and thus read INTO them all kinds of things, probably almost endless things, as is always the case with anyone. But that doesn't mean the documentation is expressing that, it ONLY means that such is being read INTO that. When the quotes provided are read objectively, with an open mind and heart (as you, an apologist, would insist upon) - they speak of respect, love, humility, but they say NOTHING of The Papacy of the RCC. And this seems abundantly obvious, so obvious that I've kept the quotes provided for evidence to support the Protestant position - which they do extremely well, as long as one reads what is actually written without purely imputing their own bias into what is written.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah


.

 

[Albion]

Well, I wouldn't be that strong, but it does (sadly) seem to be a common practice among some of our Catholic brothers and sisters here at CF - although not nearly as much as it was some years ago. It is sad, not for personal reasons but for ecumenical reasons.

.... and on and on and on and on and on (speaking genericly and not of any specific poster). And then choosing to be insulted by such, and using the claimed "insult" as reason to terminate discussion of the topic at hand (which, IMHO, is the real sadness).

The frustrating thing for ME in our ecumenical discussions is that "offense" is claimed typically NOT for what is actually posted by the Protestant but for the opposite of what is posted (been on the receiving end of this many times). I'll note what I actually said - by a verbatim quote - but that is entirely, completely, absolutely moot. The only thing that seems to matter is what I "implied" via invisible words contradictory to what I posted, that the Catholic can "see" perfectly - and then is so deeply offended, injured, insulted and disgusted by it that he/she terminates all discussion of the important topic (and perhaps I'm reported). I can't possibly count the number of times this has happened in my time here at CF. But, the personal side of it is moot (I don't matter a bit), it's the use of such as an excuse to terminate the conversation that is very sad.

IMO, you are at times too fair-minded. This one of them.

 

[NewMan99]

Imagine how the Roman Catholics here would react if the rest of us demanded, under penalty of being accused of being disgusting and offensive, that they never use any terminology, no matter how standard or common unless it's what some Protestant church chooses to use!
​

... it does seem remarkably one-sided; a double standard.

This is nonsense. I am asked ALL THE TIME by various people to call them "just Christian" - so I call them " Christian". Or they ask me to call them "Reformed" - so I call them "Reformed". Or I am asked to call them "Protestant" - so I call them "Protestant." Or when extreme ultra-traditionalist Catholics ask me not to call them "rad trad" because that term is used as a weapon against them - I don't call them "rad trad". And when non-denominational Christians ask me not to refer to their little congregation as a "denomination" - I respect that request and do not call it a "denomination."

Everybody has a right to self-identify. And we should respect that and call them what they want to be called.

What I was offended by - and was disgusted by - was your continued use of the term after I repeatedly asked you to stop calling my Church a denomination. THAT is the difference here.

And if someone asked me to not call them "Protestant" and I refused their request and continued to call them "Protestant" anyway (even though I could certainly find dictionaries that would put them squarely in the Protestant category), and if they repeated their request more than once, and if I continued to use it anyway...then should I be surprised if they get upset with me???

There is no double-standard.

This is common courtesy and respect for others. If you can't be respectful of what other people prefer to self-identify as, then your attempts at fruitful inter-faith dialog will be doomed and severely hampered before you even get out of the starting gate.

It is amazing to me the number of people who resent being asked to either find another term to use other than "denomination" or resent being asked not to use commonly known religious slurs.

People either want to engage in ways that don't offend others or not. If "not" - then maybe I should just leave this place and lump it in with CARM et.al.


​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Also:

"For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose . . . when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say tht he held primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.)

"Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all--the unshakable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice." --Saint Cyril, in his Letter to Nestorius

"Behold, how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own power or authority." --Saint John Chrysosotom (407 A.D.)

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Saint Gregory the Great (608 A.D.), Pope of Rome, Book VII: Epistle XXXIII, written to the Emporer Maurice.


What can be said to be more clear? The Orthodox have maintained, just as all my quotes clearly defend, that all decisions in the Church were made collegially by concensus, not by a top-down authority with the Pope at the head, instead of Christ. The bishops in council, just like the one recorded in the Book of Acts in Jerusalem, would decide matter in dispute together as equals. Sometimes the Bishop in Rome might, as first among EQUALS, call a council, but when it convened all bishops were able to participate and prayerfully sought evidence and the direction of the Holy Spirit to reaffirm the true faith, guarding it against heresy.

Basil

Thank you.....


IMHO, no one is better at finding snippets than the RCC.
It finds the ones it likes (which, in all fairness, if often what researchers do)
As we've seen, often the snippet found actually doesn't support the Catholic position AT ALL - rather, it's the biased imputed INTO the quote that affirms the Catholic position.

I'm no expert in early Christian history, but I often WONDER (that's all) if there are other snippets out there that the RCC chooses to NOT quote. Sometimes, we have a poster who is not a member of the RCC or a Catholic apologist that supplies these quotes. I think a service is done by such.




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

[/size]
IMO, you are at times too fair-minded. This one of them.

There's no need to find some way to put a good face on something like this. Here we have a contrived complaint that is without merit on its face, and one that employs ludicrous exaggerations that do nothing but expose the lack of genuineness in it all. Take, for example, that "n" word comparison. No one could possibly take that seriously...and so we see what the whole dance is about.

Greetings Albion.
If a word or words are offensive to one or more members here, why not, in the interest of harmony, just not use it/them?

There are times I have been reported for various posts where if the poster would have told me either by PM or on the thread it was offensive to them, I would have removed it.
This is one reason I will be posting less on the GT board in the future. Just my humble opinion of course. God bless

 

[NewMan99]

Just drop it. I am going to ignore you.



Friend and brother, you are the one that brought it up - and won't let it go.

This was directed at Racer - not you. And I was merely responding to her. I would like to desperately drop this whole topic, but people continue to defend/rationalize it as if it is perfectly fine to use commonly known slurs.

So now I am going to ask you what I asked of Racer. Just drop it.

 

[NewMan99]

If a word or words are offensive to one or more members here, why not, in the interest of harmony, just not use it/then?

BINGO!!! This is it exactly.

People need to stop presuming to be the arbiter of what other people should be offended by. If they are offended - then they are offended whether you think they have the right to be or not. And when an entire GROUP of people say "We are not a denomination" or "Do not use a slur like Romish" then it is even more reason to just not use the words that offend them. If a person is not willing to respect that - then they are not here to engage in edifying discussion.

 

[Albion]

Greetings Albion.
If a word or words are offensive to one or more members here, why not, in the interest of harmony, just not use it/them?

For at least two reasons.

One, the last time this "problem" came up, I started a discussion asking exactly what terms should be off limits. The Catholics listed almost nothing, and after the rest of us had heard these kinds of real or contrived complaints over and over again.

Secondly, there are NOT just a few words. The list is extensive and never closed. If all the grouching were accomodated exactly as one Roman Catholic or another demanded, the rest of us would be prohibited from even opposing most Catholic beliefs and practices. No, it's not just a matter of terms such as you are thinking of.

And I might add that the complaints would have more of a ring of truth if the protesters' side followed its own advice. But do we see a similar avoidance of anti-Protestant talk and jargon? No, or at least not much.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings Albion.
If a word or words are offensive to one or more members here, why not, in the interest of harmony, just not use it/them?[/qutoe]
For at least two reasons.

One, the last time this contrived problem came up, I started a discussion asking exactly what terms should be off limits. The Catholics listed almost nothing, and after the rest of us hearing these kinds of real or contrived complaints over and over again.

Secondly, there are NOT just a few words. The list is extensive and never closed. If all the grouching were accomodated exactly as one Roman Catholic or another demanded, the rest of us would be prohibited from even opposing most Catholic beliefs and practices. No, it's not just a matter of terms such as you are thinking of.

And I might add that the complaints would have more of a ring of truth if the protesters' side followed its own advice. But do we see a similar avoidance of anti-Protestant talk and jargon? No, or at least not much.

That is hogwash.
So you are saying Tit for Tat? I expected more from you than that dear friend.

With that I am unsubscribing from this thread

 

[Trento]

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory response from any of the Roman Catholics refuting these quotes. They are pretty clearly worded; whereas, many of the quotes I've read allegedly supporting the papacy actually only prove what the Orthodox believe, which is that sometimes the Patriarch of Rome, as first among EQUALS, was sometimes appealed to in order to help resolve disputes in other regional churches as an arbiter. He was never legitimately given authority over the disputing parties, just the honored position to weigh in on the argument to help in the resolution of the dispute. They twisted the meaning of scripture against the concensus of the Church Fathers, regarding what was meant when Peter's confession was called the Rock of foundation for the Church, suggesting that Christ meant Peter himself, and his successors, would be the Rock or foundation of the Church. This is highly blasphemous really, considering that it usurps Christ's proper position as the only foundation for the Church.

Basil

Protestant Patristic Scholars do not agree with you.


Protestant Patristic scholar Harnack says about Rome.

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). When even a liberal Protestant scholar such as Dr. Harnack makes such a concession as this, how can we argue about this issue.

Protestant Philip Schaff states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)
​

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)
​

Do you consider yourself a Patristic Scholar?
​

 

[NewMan99]

With that I am unsubscribing from this thread

Ditto for me. Have fun slamming the Romish denomination and the Papacy. Maybe I will just go post at CARM instead.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

maybe I should just leave this place.

NewMan99 -


Did you read posts # 648 and 656? What is actually posted there? Did ANYTHING there mean ANYTHING to you?


Is there a reason you seem SO amazingly focused on the offense you have chosen to take? Is your statement that you won't discuss the topic here with me (a lowly, nothing 21 year old) and the above comment related to that reason?




Now, again: Do the words of the "witnesses" you brought forward evidence that, from 30 AD on, Christians all accepted that Jesus founded the Papacy, that the bishop of the diocese of Rome was given the "keys" of Peter in a unique, special, individual sense and THEREFORE, by virtue of being the bishop of that specific singular diocese, he is the SURPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all as The Vicar of Christ? Did they give evidence to the distinctives of the Catholic Papacy? Quotes that express the view that Peter and Paul are associated with the congregation in Rome, or quotes showing that a beloved Christian is looked to for counsel, or that the bishop in Rome held a view another bishop did not docilicly accept - none of this documents that they viewed the Office of Pope as created by Jesus in or before 30 AD, that BY VIRTUE OF BEING the bishop of a particular, singular diocese, he is the SUPREME, infallible, powerful authority over all BECAUSE he uniquely has the "keys" of Peter. Isn't that obvious? I promised I would read your "witness" with an open mind and heart - assuming nothing. And that's what I did. And I posted my reply - but you (a Catholic Apologist of some esteem) wrote that you will not be responding to me in this.

They said nothing about any Papacy at all. Obviously. I think it's possible to read them with a very strong bias and thus read INTO them all kinds of things, probably almost endless things, as is always the case with anyone. But that doesn't mean the documentation is expressing that, it ONLY means that such is being read INTO that. When the quotes provided are read objectively, with an open mind and heart (as you, an apologist, would insist upon) - they speak of respect, love, humility, but they say NOTHING of The Papacy of the RCC. And this seems abundantly obvious, so obvious that I've kept the quotes provided for evidence to support the Protestant position - which they do extremely well, as long as one reads what is actually written without purely imputing their own bias into what is written.

IMO, you are at times too fair-minded. This one of them.

.[/quote]


I confess, I find it more than ironic that probably NO non-RC here at CF has publicly and consistantly said so much positive and affirming about The Catholic Church and that publicly holds such an embracing view of such as I do. And NO CATHOLIC yet (including NewMan99) has been willing to say ANYTHING even close to such about me or my denomination. And yet, this 21 year old NOTHING, seems to be seen as so very much offensive, insulting, disgusting - not because of what I post (which seems frequently ignored anyway) but for the opposite of what I post (which must be what I mean - and is regarded as so extremely offensive, distructive, hateful, anti-Catholic, insulting, disgusting, and at times a rule violation). It has puzzeled me. BUT (and this is very, very important): whatever the reason for this oddity, it matters not because I don't matter. At all. The reason why it concerns me is that such is often used as a tool (excuse?) to try to stop the conversation or at least to "justify" why that person at least will stop discussing the topic. I don't matter at all. The topic does. Truth does.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

This is nonsense. I am asked ALL THE TIME by various people to call them "just Christian" - so I call them " Christian". Or they ask me to call them "Reformed" - so I call them "Reformed". Or I am asked to call them "Protestant" - so I call them "Protestant." Or when extreme ultra-traditionalist Catholics ask me not to call them "rad trad" because that term is used as a weapon against them - I don't call them "rad trad". And when non-denominational Christians ask me not to refer to their little congregation as a "denomination" - I respect that request and do not call it a "denomination."

Everybody has a right to self-identify. And we should respect that and call them what they want to be called.​

And THAT is nonsense. The RC's here don't even agree on what they want to be called, but if we don't cater to each one's whim at that given moment, something like that positively juvenile "n" word baloney is trotted out. When to you get to the "This reminds me of Hitler" ploy?

What I was offended by - and was disgusted by - was your continued use of the term after I repeatedly asked you to stop calling my Church a denomination. THAT is the difference here.

Well, it IS a denomination and the word is used in that way by religious scholars, reference works, and much more than even the ordinary dictionary which I mentioned before. There is no comparison in that to something like Romish or Papist, and you know it. The intent here is force the rest of us to acquiesce in the acceptance of your theology by limiting the acceptable terms to those that you use to set your church above others.

There is no double-standard.

There are, in fact, innumerable instances of just that which have continued to appear on these forums.

​

 

[JimfromOhio]

Ever since I grew out of my "debating" mode in which have caused others to stumble and problems for me. I have learned that Knowing your true enemy is important and that enemy is Satan who can easily become the tool of Satan, who is called the accuser. One of his chief weapons is discouragement. He knows that if he can make us discouraged and dispirited we will not fight the battle for holiness. Since Satan's first sin is pride, then the real source is PRIDE. Satan loves this. The Greek form of this word, sarkasmos, means "to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer" that often used towards what we think may be our enemies (people). Satan plays with your emotions and he is good at it.

Satan have successfully sowed seeds of discords between believers so that there won't be any spiritual and relationship restoration for unity. The ability to do discernment is basically an ability to think biblically and it is a reality that discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. God holds us accountable for what we believe as well as how we think about the truth He has revealed. I see many give "lip-service" to the importance of doctrine and frown upon doctrinal discussions.

Many of us fail to understand, receive and live out God's conditional grace, forgiveness and practice of faith. At the same time, many of us fail to use grace for unconditional love, forgiveness and grace to other people. 2 Corinthians 8:7 But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us —see that you also excel in this grace of giving. Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

I will debate but I have changed my debate tactics (or still changing).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What I was offended by - and was disgusted by - was your continued use of the term after I repeatedly asked you to stop calling my Church a denomination. THAT is the difference here.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2406658/
What is a Denomination?

 

[Albion]

I confess, I find it more than ironic that probably NO non-RC here at CF has publicly and consistantly said so much positive and affirming about The Catholic Church and that publicly holds such an embracing view of such as I do. And NO CATHOLIC yet (including NewMan99) has been willing to say ANYTHING even close to such about me or my denomination.

It's true. But always, everyone must keep from hurting THEIR tender feelings while you are told, bold faced, that Luther wanted to start his own church because he didn't want to accept lawful authority, that he (one of the greatest Bible scholars in history) made up everything from thin air, etc.

 

[Albion]

http://www.christianforums.com/t2406658/
What is a Denomination?

According to the first reference work I picked up here at home, it is--

"a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things; a collection or society of individuals called by the same name, esp. a religious sect."

Real fightin' words, those, huh?

 

[JimfromOhio]

[/size][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][/size][/color][/color][/font][/color]
It's true. But always, everyone must keep from hurting THEIR tender feelings while you are told, bold faced, that Luther wanted to start his own church because he didn't want to accept lawful authority, that he (one of the greatest Bible scholars in history) made up everything from thin air, etc.

Not quite, Martin Luther began this even though it was NOT his intent. He was trying to "reform" the RCC by working for biblical reform from within. He was never a Lutheran and died as a RCC.

 

[Standing Up]

Ever since I grew out of my "debating" mode in which have caused others to stumble and problems for me. I have learned that Knowing your true enemy is important and that enemy is Satan who can easily become the tool of Satan, who is called the accuser. One of his chief weapons is discouragement. He knows that if he can make us discouraged and dispirited we will not fight the battle for holiness. Since Satan's first sin is pride, then the real source is PRIDE. Satan loves this. The Greek form of this word, sarkasmos, means "to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer" that often used towards what we think may be our enemies (people). Satan plays with your emotions and he is good at it.

Satan have successfully sowed seeds of discords between believers so that there won't be any spiritual and relationship restoration for unity. The ability to do discernment is basically an ability to think biblically and it is a reality that discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. God holds us accountable for what we believe as well as how we think about the truth He has revealed. I see many give "lip-service" to the importance of doctrine and frown upon doctrinal discussions.

Many of us fail to understand, receive and live out God's conditional grace, forgiveness and practice of faith. At the same time, many of us fail to use grace for unconditional love, forgiveness and grace to other people. 2 Corinthians 8:7 But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us —see that you also excel in this grace of giving. Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

I will debate but I have changed my debate tactics (or still changing).

I find it all amazing, watching from the sidelines on this "discussion". But like I friend told me, you're way too naive.

Folks, when you drill down into what happened, you're bound to hit a few nails. But shall we not drill?