"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[Albion]

Saint Peter is in Matthew 16:13-20. What one makes of that is a matter subject to much debate today.

Very well. We have established 1) that there is a church and a reason to think it would continue on and prevail. At other places 2) we have various references to Peter.

We are wanting to know what basis there is for claiming that there is, "the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter...."

 

[MoreCoffee]

Very well. We have established 1) that there is a church and a reason to think it would continue on and prevail. At other places 2) we have various references to Peter.

We are wanting to know what basis there is for claiming that there is, "the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter...."

No doubt there is an answer. I believe the answer that my Church gives.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18

How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?

The schism was an unfortunate result of the Reformation. We can imagine a lot of hypothetical what-if statements, such as wondering what if there had been cooler heads on both sides (Luther certainly was hot-headed, as were many of his most powerful opponents in Rome)--things escalated pretty quickly. But history doesn't let us do take-backsies.

The purpose of the Reformation, for the early Evangelicals (Lutherans) was not to leave Rome or create division in the Church, but the pursuit of reform. Of course they said reform, Rome said it was rebellion. Thus fracture, division, schism. It was ugly.

From the position of the Evangelicals the Reformation was about fidelity to the ancient catholic and apostolic faith, it was about keeping the faith of the apostles and the ancient fathers of the Church and the Creeds--from the Evangelical position they were defending the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith from what they saw as theological and ecclesiastical abuses and deviations from ancient and historic Catholicism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yeah. In Luther's Larger Catechism on the Apostles Creed he seems to suggest that the Church is a local congregation of believers that gather around the Word rightly preached and Sacraments. OK... but where was the Church in the Middle Ages then? How do Lutherans and the Reformed understand the schism if they claim continuity with the early Church, which in my mind was an organic entity, not a set of doctrines to be mined.

The Church in the Middle Ages was right there--gathered at Mass to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments. Luther wasn't restoring the Church, the Church hadn't gone anywhere, it'd been around for 1500 years and wasn't going anywhere.

Martin Luther isn't the Lutheran Joseph Smith.

Were Augustine, Jerome, Anselm and Aquinas proto-Lutherans? How about the hundreds of thousands of ordinary, often illiterate people that just went to church to stare at the priest elevating the Host, and maybe receiving the Precious Blood through a fistula (straw) if they were lucky, and praying to the saints and having votive masses for their dead relatives?

They were Christians, members of the Church catholic. Coming for Mass to receive Word and Sacrament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

If the issue was over disputes of doctrine, we should find hints of justification sola fide in the Middle Ages. I know Anselm is sometimes quoted, but where else would we find this? And was there even a true consensus concerning doctrine in the Middle Ages?

Would it be correct in Protestant eyes to say Trent was a response to Luther, and not necessarily a reiteration of the Church's consensus?

Owing to the Joint Declaration concerning justification, would it be true to say the only major doctrinal hurdles between the World Lutheran Federation and Roman Catholics are the doctrines of the Papacy, and perhaps the doctrine of Purgatory? (the Augusburg Confession, from what I have read, accepts the concept of praying for the dead, and Lutherans don't seem to deny many other Catholic teachings).

BTW, I don't see in this passage in Matthew a reference to the Papacy per se. I just see it as a statement about the indefectibility of the Church based on the faith that Peter shows (that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God). Which is why I'm curious about Protestant views of continuity, because a rupture in the Church would seem to contradict this passage.

 

[lesliedellow]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18

How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?

Protestants would deny that the ekklesia spoken of by Jesus is identical with a human institution which has grown too big for its boots. You are more likely to find Protestants quoting the early church fathers than Thomas or Anselm. The reason being that thjey are less than enamoured with the way in which Catholic Theology is shot through with Aristotlean philosophy, and even less enamoured with the way in which the present day Catholic Church tries to hang onto it for dear life. (Because to do otherwise would be to admit that the Magesterium is not, after all, the fount of all wisdom.)

People in the middle ages, just as they are today, were saved through faith in Christ - not because of a Church which tried to make itself the centre of the universe, but in spite of it.

 

[pshun2404]

If the "Peter = Rock" concept is true, then the real "mother church" ceases to be Jerusalem (as per instructions of the Christ led Apostles) and forget Rome (for which even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits no evidence he was Bishop there), then Antioch (where Peter was definitely the first Bishop years before Rome) is it...

and thus all should become Antiochene Orthodox...

 

[FireDragon76]

Christians have always tried to meet non-Christians through some kind of common philosophical basis, starting with Justin Martyr (and maybe even Paul for that matter, he seems to have quoted a Greek at Mars Hill). The medieval scholastics were just trying to reconcile the Christian conceptualizations of goodness with Aristotle, who was widely respected in the ancient world (and before that, Christians used Stoic and Platonic categories- the Eastern Orthodox still retains this).

You should study the Roman Catholic theology prior to and around Vatican II. I believe you will be surprised how un-Aristotilian it is. There is a lot of reliance upon phenomenology and modern philosophical trends.

 

[seekingsolace]

I've been reading through Justin Martyrs works recently, one pertaining to topic.

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho
Chapter CXIV

For I have shown that Christ is oftentimes called a Stone in parable, and in figurative speech Jacob and Israel.

Blessed therefore are we who have been circumcised the second time with knives of stone. For your first circumcision was and is performed by iron instruments, for you remain hard-hearted; but our circumcision, which is the second, having been instituted after yours, circumcises us from idolatry and from absolutely every kind of wickedness by sharp stones, i.e., by the words [preached] by the apostles of the corner-stone cut out without hands. And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life. But you do not comprehend me when I speak these things; for you have not understood what it has been prophesied that Christ would do, and you do not believe us who draw your attention to what has been written. For Jeremiah thus cries: 'Woe unto you! because you have forsaken the living fountain, and have digged for yourselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. Shall there be a wilderness where Mount Zion is, because I gave Jerusalem a bill of divorce in your sight?'

 

[concretecamper]

There are plenty people in the Church's history that fought for rightful reform and avoided schism. In the final analysis Luther did schism because of pride and the result is many were led into heresy.

For the life of me I cannot understand the current fascination (among Catholics) with a man who is possibly the greatest heretic ever. Maybe it is similar to everything else that is going on today......evil is becoming the new right.

 

[lesliedellow]

There are plenty people in the Church's history that fought for rightful reform and avoided schism. In the final analysis Luther did schism because of pride and the result is many were led into heresy.

He led nobody into heresy. And we have had examples of what a self serving, highly centralised, organisation can lead to very recently.

 

[concretecamper]

He led nobody into heresy. And we have had examples of what a self serving, highly centralised, organisation can lead to very recently.

Man's vanities have been unsuccessful for nearly 2000 years in trying to destroy His Church. And the recent events will fail too. Praise The Lord

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is no doubt about it, Martin Luther did start a movement that created division and led to more divisions and now, 500 years later, the divisions are so numerous that giving an accurate account of the number of them is very difficult indeed.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's more complicated than that, otherwise the Lollards and Moravians would have taken over Europe, but they didn't. Politics played a role too.

Most historians see the Reformation as inevitable. Rising state power combined with religious corruption.

The East never faced those sorts of issues because the Church there was smaller and less institutional. The Vatican filled a power void that existed in Europe for centuries, where religion and politics mixed freely. In some ways this was very good, considering western Christendom was filled with barbarism and the ruins of civilization for many centuries.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's more complicated than that, otherwise the Lollards and Moravians would have taken over Europe, but they didn't. Politics played a role too.

Most historians see the Reformation as inevitable. Rising state power combined with religious corruption.

Yes, it was very likely inevitable but as Jesus said "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come"

 

[FireDragon76]

The Roman Catholic Church has acknowledge the causes of the Reformation are not unilateral. Antipopes, Avignon Papacy, Great Western Schism, is just a short list.

And some historians would say the institutional focus of the Church, articulated in the doctrines, made that sort of thing inevitable. The same things have been said about the priestly abuse scandals, the attitude of clericalism fostered an atmosphere without accountability.

If the Roman Catholic Church fully embraced Vatican II in spirit (and I'm not talking about guitar masses), I'd probably be the first in line to swim the Tiber. I don't like the Reformation happened at all, honestly. But... what are we going to do about it? Up until Francis I, we've had two popes that refuted the reforms of Vatican II.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Roman Catholic Church has acknowledge the causes of the Reformation are not unilateral. Antipopes, Avignon Papacy, Great Western Schism, is just a short list.

And some historians would say the institutional focus of the Church, articulated in the doctrines, made that sort of thing inevitable. The same things have been said about the priestly abuse scandals, the attitude of clericalism fostered an atmosphere without accountability.

If the Roman Catholic Church fully embraced Vatican II in spirit (and I'm not talking about guitar masses), I'd probably be the first in line to swim the Tiber. I don't like the Reformation happened at all, honestly. But... what are we going to do about it?

The Catholic Church embraces the second Vatican council but that need not necessarily mean that every individual Catholic does. People can be remarkably perverse if they want to. The Church, however, teaches the very things that the second Vatican council proclaims.

 

[FireDragon76]

A good example, the hierarchy of the Roman Church has little respect for the sensus fidelium. Most Roman Catholics use birth control and they believe it is best for their families. Most want greater inclusion for divorced and gay Catholics. These people aren't ignorant of Church teaching, they've just looked at the moral theology used and found it wanting. But they have no power in their church to actually elect bishops, something that was done in the early Church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A good example, the hierarchy of the Roman Church has little respect for the sensus fidelium. Most Roman Catholics use birth control and they believe it is best for their families. Most want greater inclusion for divorced and gay Catholics. These people aren't ignorant of Church teaching, they've just looked at the moral theology used and found it wanting. But they have no power in their church to actually elect bishops, something that was done in the early Church.

Those Catholics who use artificial means of contraception are not doing so as an act of faith in God, are they? There will without doubt be good reasons for their choice but is serving God faithfully in their marital relations one of them? Some may say it is, but many would not. So artificial contraception use among Catholics is not likely to be a case of sensus fidelium. It very likely is a matter of economic necessity, convenience, or something else.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If the "Peter = Rock" concept is true, then the real "mother church" ceases to be Jerusalem (as per instructions of the Christ led Apostles) and forget Rome (for which even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits no evidence he was Bishop there), then Antioch (where Peter was definitely the first Bishop years before Rome) is it...

and thus all should become Antiochene Orthodox...

Except we know he was martyred there. And replaced by another.