Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
We believe in the same fashion that we believe in God, in His Word and in His Church.
Not according to Paul who writes:
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [I Corinthian 11:26]
According to Paul, even after consecration, it is still bread and that is what you are eating -- despite what the Aristotelians in the church contend.
>> Not according to Paul <<
So do you now believe in consubstantiation, or is this another time-waster? I’m going off on my own here, but:
Was Paul referring to bread as a substance, or as an accident of substance? Bread is formed from baking dough; bread isn’t bread if it isn’t baked. Hence, I would propose that what we mean by bread refers to an accident. Taking this to an extreme, I suppose you could propose that all of energy-matter is of a single substance, since all of energy and matter can be transmuted without being transubstantiated. But even at that apparently ridiculous extreme of the definition, the transubstantiation upholds its definition: even if all of matter is but of one substance, then the Eucharist still is transubstantiated, because what was simply matter is now Spiritual.
Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church.
Absolutely! You've answered your own challenge. The successor of Peter represents THE WHOLE CHURCH. Thank you for posting that. Augustine ALSO says the following:
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).
"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).
When opposing the modalist bishop Zephyrinus of Rome who first tried to twist Matthew 16:18-19 to mean he was the supreme ruler of the church, Tertullian's interpretation of that passage is in conformity with the other church fathers in opposition to Zephyrinus' twisting of the passage, saying:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?
This is patently devious. You've cleverly quoted Tertullian without first disclosing that this came AFTER he became a member of the Montanist heresy. He was not speaking as a "Father" of the Church, but a heretic when he challenged Zephyrinus. His views, by that point, were anathema, along with him.
You fall into (or set) the same trap by quoting Origen:
And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
It was this very exegesis that set Origen on the road to Anathema City.
Origen, Tertullian and Augustine are explicitly clear that the "keys" are NOT exclusively given to Peter the man, nor to the popes of Rome but to each and every true believer in Christ.
Two heretics and one quote removed from context does not a contradiction make. Augustine speaks in no uncertain terms that primacy resides in Rome. Since Peter represents the entire Church, his quote does nothing to contradict his primacy.
John Chrysostom speaks of James, not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:
Do you understand what take place at an ecumenical council? If you did, you would understand that the local bishop presides. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, it was the local bishop, James. What you leave out is that what James decreed fell first from the lips of Peter.
The Pope is first among equals, but a brother bishop just the same. The local bishop presides over and formalizes the decrees of the Council when it is ecumenical. If an ecumenical council were held in Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney would preside, not the Pope.
Chrysostom states, for example, that John also held the authority of the keys and, like Peter, he held a universal teaching authority over the Churches throughout the world:
Bishops share infallibility when they are united with Peter. Have you ever read the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians? The Corinthians were in the midst of great turmoil (nothing new with them), and things got so bad, they sent word to Rome that they could not resolve their disputes. So what happened? Clement stepped in and set them straight. Why is that such a big deal? Because the Apostle John was still alive and living (a heckua lot closer) in Ephesus. Why did they appeal to Rome and not a LIVING APOSTLE?
Furthermore, the penalty for persistently contradicting Rome has always been excommunication. Pope Victor began a great purge at the end of the second century. No one - not one Church - not one bishop - opposed his decrees of excommunication. Why's that I wonder? Where were all the alternative Churches that should have sprung up in defiance if Pope Victor wasn't vested with total authority to bind and loose as he saw fit? The answer is, there weren't any. Again, you cherry pick a quote here, a quote there, and you do none of the essential research to determine the context, and whether or not other events clearly contradict your assertions. It's easy to cut and paste from Loraine Boettner screeds and quote two Church Fathers whose views eventually became so heretical, they aren't even canonized.
One gaping flaw in the point you are trying to make, is that if you are quoting Tertullian as a "Church Father", you are stating that Rome had no authority to reject the Montanist claim that the Trinity is composed of only one person. Without the authority of Peter vested in the Bishop of Rome, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity, just a bunch of competing views, all claiming to be correct (Hmmm - what does that sound like, some 20,000 sects later?)
I appreciate this opportunity to set right your erroneous assertions.
>> “Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.” <<
This statement explicitly states that Peter represents the Church? How have you not proven the Catholic position? Surely you ask, but doesn’t the same passage also say, “Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them?” Absolutely! The Church has always maintained apostolic authority is held not only by the Pope (the successor of St. Peter) but by all bishops (the successors of the apostles)! But that same passage also states, “[A]ll those who wish to go apart into a party, and to cut themselves off from the whole, do not belong to the sacred reality signified by the four lines. But if they don’t belong to Peter’s vision, neither do they do so to the keys which were given to Peter.” So, yes, other apostles retain the keys, so long as they are faithful to Peter’s vision.
>> When opposing the modalist bishop Zephyrinus of Rome <<
Likewise, your quote from Tertullian seems to go on at some length to the exact opposite conclusion you reach, so much so that many other Protestants regard Tertullian, “Father of the Latinists,” because even while they deride the Catholic Church as “Latinist,” they see that Tertullian as boldly promoting the papacy. Tertullian’s question may certainly be asked of you: “what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) *personally* upon Peter?”
>> Likewise, Origen concurs with Tertullian, Augustine, Eusebius and the other church fathers I will be citing in Peter being a symbolic representative of the entire church whereas the Rock the Church is built upon is the faith Peter expressed in Christ, and the “keys” are bestowed to each and every Christian through the preaching of the Gospel <<
You create a bizarre false dichotomy: that the suggesting that Peter represents the entire church is somehow in opposition to the suggestion to the primacy of the Church. To “represent” means to “make present within oneself.” Hence, a declaration that Peter represents the Church is precisely a declaration Peter speaks for the entire Church.
Again, Origen specifically states that both understandings of the meaning of “the rock” are simultaneously true: “For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail.”
Honestly, you picked the exact quotes to refute your argument as the best of them.
It is the same "bread" that is referred to as "bread" or "loaves" of bread throughout the entire NT. It had the substance and accidents of "bread" and nothing but "bread" before and after consecration.
So when Jesus held up the bread - which still looked like bread - and said, “This is my body” - what does that mean to you?
You mean 'what did Jesus mean by those words'?
The most that you can say from them is that that bread and only that bread that He was holding up was His body -- not some other loaf in some other place or at some other time. Afterall Paul recounts this event and the precise words from the Last Supper, but then concludes with these words:
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [I Corinthian 11:26]
If you are proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes, then you are eating "this bread" -- blessed, consecrated "bread" -- but "bread" nonetheless, accidents, substance and all.
Do you go too far in distancing the Church from Origen and Tertullian? (that’s a question, not an assertion) While it’s important to note that his writings in his Montanist phase didn’t gain concurrence from orthodox Christians, and his “we’re all Peters” could suggest YOPIOS, the fact is that he did see Peter as to whom it was Jesus spoke and granted the gifts, and did recognize that all the Peters couldn’t contradict each other.
Whether it’s heresy disguised in orthodoxy, or orthodoxy, I think the most telling thing is that they attested that Peter represented the Church. Did Origen even KNOW he was dissenting from Orthodoxy?
You make an excellent point in showing that, however, the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved precisely through the papacy.
>> It is the same “bread” that is referred to as “bread” or “loaves” of bread throughout the entire NT. It had the substance and accidents of “bread” and nothing but “bread” before and after consecration. <<
Naw, now you’re making stuff up. There’s no mention of substance or accidents; and there are plenty of references to the bread being other than mere grain. (”I am the bread of life...”, “This is my body...”, “Is not the bread we eat...”, etc.)
Nope. The same Greek word that Paul uses for "bread" here is used for "bread" everywhere else in the NT. It is also the word used for those "loaves" of bread with which He fed the 5000. It was the same bread in all places.
I'm not making it up -- the Aristotelians in your church were the ones making it all up, creating a transubstantiation doctrine that had all the accidents of orthodoxy but lacking the substance thereof.
Oh, you just mean that the same term is used. That’s true. But it doesn’t change the fact that in several places, the NT DOES refer to the bread as being something other than mere bread.
Other than figuratively in phrases like "I am the bread of life", where is the Greek word "artos" [meaning "bread" or "loaf" of bread] ever translated to mean anything other than "bread" or "loaf, loaves" of bread??? Nowhere else does it mean anything other than "bread" or "loaves" of bread.
Are you joking? That statement is so shockingly removed from anything resembling the truth, I can only suppose you are joking.
Very well, then the Eucharist is not the actual, real flesh and blood of Christ.
But how do you know that the substance has changed if the accidents always remain the same?
They don't know and the early church viewed the Eucharist as symbolic, not the actual, literal flesh and blood of Christ.
In the medieval Roman church, the Eucharist literally gave life, and the threat of taking away the Eucharist to individual as well as entire nations was a means Rome used to keep them in submission to Rome.
No, the early church, including Augustine never viewed the bishops of Rome as being the supreme rulers of the Church, as Augustine and the others I've cited explicitly state. It is the later Roman reading back into them that error, that distorts and misrepresents the early church fathers.
In the view of those I cited Peter symbolically represented the church, and as they all clearly, emphatically state, what was given to Peter was given to the entire Church, every single member. They emphatically teach that the "keys" were given to each and every genuine believer and not to Peter exclusively and most certainly NOT to the bishops of Rome. Why do you totally disregard their clear statements? Is it because Rome has you so convinced of it's fraudulent claims that you refuse to see what is there is black and white?
Thank you for posting that. Augustine ALSO says the following: "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).
Note that in context, Augustine, as I have noted, says that Peter symbolized the church, and does NOT say that the bishops of Rome do. Rome reads that into it where it does not exist, practicing a self serving eisegesis to try to support it's false claims.
"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).
So? That is one of the most misquoted citations from Augustine. Augustine does not say that the pope has ruled so the matter is closed at all, as most Roman Catholics misrepresent. The councils had ruled, and the bishop of Rome finally agreed after having first been a supporter of Pelagius.
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?
This is patently devious. You've cleverly quoted Tertullian without first disclosing that this came AFTER he became a member of the Montanist heresy. He was not speaking as a "Father" of the Church, but a heretic when he challenged Zephyrinus. His views, by that point, were anathema, along with him.
Tertullian wrote that BEFORE turning to Montanism, and is often cited by Roman Catholics when they think Tertullian supports their position, yet when Tertullian is not useful for misrepresenting, and is in opposition to Rome's false claims, then try to impune him as a source, which is most devious and intellectually dishonest. Most, even Roman Catholics cite Tertullian as a "church father".
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”
-”Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
It was this very exegesis that set Origen on the road to Anathema City.
Once again we have a Roman Catholic trying to impune a source often cited by Roman Catholics when they think Origen is in their camp. Convenient and also two faced and hypocritical. But the Roman Catholic fails to inform the readers that Origen is recognized as a respected "Church Fathers", and repented of his once held view of anthropomorphism.
The Roman Catholic also fails to recognize that Origen's view was exactly the same as the rest of the Church Fathers, so OPrigen was not simply making a statement that was unconventional or novel, but was in conformity with the teaching of Church Fathers, when Rome is not. Origen, Tertullian and Augustine are explicitly clear that the "keys" are NOT exclusively given to Peter the man, nor to the popes of Rome but to each and every true believer in Christ.
Two heretics and one quote removed from context does not a contradiction make.
Firstly, not a single quote is removed from context. The context is clear, and is made abundatly clear from the other citations from Augustine.
Once again, Tertullian's comments were made BEFORE his Montanist era, and is cited often by Roman Catholics, just as Origen, who also repented of Anthropormorphism and both are included as church fathers.
Please try to refrain from distorting the facts.
Augustine speaks in no uncertain terms that primacy resides in Rome.
No he doesn't and the few citations given prove it conclusively. There are many, many more I can cite that reinforce the fact that Augustine did NOT hold to any papal supremacy extended to the bishops of Rome as it is presented by Roman Catholicism.
Since Peter represents the entire Church, his quote does nothing to contradict his primacy.
The Church Fathers are all in agreement, that Peter was symbolic of the Church and that every single beliver is a "rock" and are given the "keys to the kingdom", in contradiction to the false claims of Rome.
You create a bizarre false dichotomy: that the suggesting that Peter represents the entire church is somehow in opposition to the suggestion to the primacy of the Church.
Peter symbolized the Church in their view, not that Peter was the "Rock" that the church would be built on, or that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter exclusively, but that Christ is the Rock, and Peter's confession, as well as every genuine believer being a "rock" that the Church is built on, and that the "keys to the kingdom" were not given to Peter exclusively but to every genuine believer, and most certainly NOT given to the bishops of Rome exclusively as Rome falsely claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.