Amazingly lucky on your part, my word! ?Obviously I saw something that you missed.
Your study was neither deep nor thorough, as far as I can see! At the Robber Council of Trent , which is classed as a Ecumenical Council, by Rome, and obligatory on all Ecclesiastics and on all ," who promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome", it was firmly stated of the Scriptures ,'Nor, will I ever understand or interpret it, except according according to the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers."
Thinking on Matthew, there are different interpretations, Maldonatus a 16th Cent, Jesuit, whose Commentaries are mentioned as, 'the best ever published,' says clearly, ' There are amongst ancient authors some who interpret,'this rock, that is,'on this' faith,,or,'on this confession of faith, in which thouGr hast called Me the Son of the living God,' as Hilary and Gregory Nyssen, as well Chryostom and Cyril of Alexandria. S.Augustine going still father away from the true sense, interprets , on this rock, that is, 'on myself Christ, because Christ was the Rock.' Origin however, claims, 'on this rock, that is to say, on all men who have the same faith.'
Launoy, another Jesuit I understand, made lists,
17 Fathers in favour of the Rock being S.Peter.
Fourty Four, for is meaning the faith S.Peter Confessed.
Sixteen for it being Christ Our Saviour and eight for it being all the Apostles.
Archbishop Kenrick, in the famous speech never given at Vat.1 wrote,
'From this it follows either that no arguement at all or only a very feeble one , can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words ,'on this rock will I build my Church.'
(Fred., Documents Vol1, pp195.)
A Catholic who was properly taught and understood it.
"But if you think that the whole Church was built by God upon Peter alone,what would you say about John, the sun of thunder, or each of the apostles? Or should we say that the gates of Hell, should not prevail against Peter but shall prevail aginst the other apostles and those that are perfect"?
Pope Gregory. "Establish your faith on the Rock of the Church, that is the confession of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles .(Ep.4:38, ad Theodalind,PL 16.)
Thy Holy Church hast thou founded upon the Rock of Faith that the gates of hell may not prevail against it!" ( Anaphora.Liturgy of S. James.)
Grant we beseech thee O almighty God that thou wouldst not suffer us whom thou hast established on the Rock of the Apostles to be shaken by any disturbance.'
Dear Friend,laternonjuror: I'm flattered that you think I'm a well taught Catholic who knows what I'm talking about. I do aspired to be such.But the quote you attribute to me is not mine. Sorry.
The history of the pope's over the centuries did the following in Peter's name: having innocent people murdered, having people strangled to death, burning people at the stake, having illegitimate children, sex with prostitutes, sex with children, homosexuality, protecting child molesters, digging up corpses and putting them on trial, killing someone for wanting to translate the Bible for people, etc. Why do they claim to do this stuff in Peter's name? Do you think Peter would approve of the Papacy? The answer is no. It's not a trick question.
Why does the Roman Catholic Church continue to dishonor the memory of the Apostle Peter with these "successors of Peter?" They should be ashamed of themselves and so should every Catholic having the audacity to associate the "papacy" with the Apostle Peter!!
I'm Catholic and I've read enough Church history to say that it is true that there were popes that did these scandelous things. However, there were many more good Popes. And suffice it to say, Protestant ministers were guilty of the same scandals. The problem was not the Catholic Church, but human nature.Well, I don't know if all that's true.
Yes but protestant ministers don't claim infallibility and a line of untarnished succession.I'm Catholic and I've read enough Church history to say that it is true that there were popes that did these scandelous things. However, there were many more good Popes. And suffice it to say, Protestant ministers were guilty of the same scandals. The problem was not the Catholic Church, but human nature.
Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability. The Catholic Church makes no claims that its Popes are impeccable.Yes but protestant ministers don't claim infallibility and a line of untarnished succession.
Not quite sure what that has to do with my postInfallibility has nothing to do with impeccability. The Catholic Church makes no claims that its Popes are impeccable.
I was talking about problems of sin, and you brought up infallibility. Apples and oranges.Not quite sure what that has to do with my post
Well, I don't know if all that's true. But I'm sure if we knew all of your personal history or my personal history or the personal history of all the Protestant pastors over time it would be a pretty terrible thing also.
I don't know Church history well enough to know all of the good the Popes did. Do you?
As far as the Church being built on Rock (Peter), even the famous Protestant exegete DA Carson affirms that, as I understand it.
Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability. The Catholic Church makes no claims that its Popes are impeccable.
Which is as well!Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability. The Catholic Church makes no claims that its Popes are impeccable.
The New Advent website says of Honorius' heretical letter: " The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance." IOW it was Honorius' private opinion, and not a teaching of the Church.What was it the 6th, Council of Constantinople shouted regarding Honorius, the Bishop of Rome, ,' The Heretic Honorius' & "Anathema to the heretic Honorius,'. 'Honorius who was pope of ancient Rome, Anathema.'
The New Advent website says of Honorius' heretical letter: " The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance." IOW it was Honorius' private opinion, and not a teaching of the Church.
1. You are right as far as personal history goes, in my opinion, but then we do not claim to be "Christ in office , Christ in jurisdiction and power.....We bow down before thy voice O Holy Father as we would before Christ Himself..... the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ."
(9/1/1870 Vat. pronouncment.)
2. Regarding the Church being built on Peter?
In his study of Pius iX, J. Blank comments
No reputable exegete can hold that the New Testament gives any clear support for papal primacy and infallibility.(Orthodox Source Book.)
Pope Gregory. "Establish your faith on the rock of the Church, that is the ,Confession of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles."
3. Launoy a Jesuit Scholar?Has oftimes been quoted.
A. 17 Early Fathers in favour of the rock being S>Peter.
B. 44 Suppose it was the Faith of S.Peter that was confessed.
C. 16. For it being Our Saviour Christ Himself.
D. Eight for it being all the Apostles.
This is made more powerful testimony in that the 'False Creed of Trent' insists that Roman Catholics should view the Scriptures through the testimony of the fathers.!
Jesus gave Simon the name "Rock". Why do you think he did that? As to human sinfulness being incompatible with representing Christ... wouldn't that apply to the Biblical authors, too?
Jesus gave Simon the name "Rock". Why do you think he did that? As to human sinfulness being incompatible with representing Christ... wouldn't that apply to the Biblical authors, too?
I don't think you understood her post.Dear friend,
"Jesus gave Simon the name Rock"? But I've already given you a list of early fathers who think differently!! I've already pointed out that the Roman/ Latin council of Trent, tells us that the scriptures should be seen through the lens of the early fathers!!Which is the Rule of faith!
With all due respect are you telling me that you,( patricius 79.) know better than the Fathers of the Church?
Further, if you follow scripture, certainly the Psalms, the term Rock is applied to God, in one aspect or 'tother in most if not all cases.
!
Oh! But I did, sadly she has nothing new, it's easier than study!I don't think you understood her post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?