Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility
StayCatholic.com ^ | 2001 | Sebastian R. Fama

Posted on 03/05/2012 7:52:29 PM PST by Salvation

 

Papal Infallibility

by Sebastian R. Fama

The issue of Papal Infallibility evokes strong reactions from those who oppose it. This is usually due to a misunderstanding of what the Church means by "Papal Infallibility." The most common misconception is that the Church claims that the pope himself is infallible, that in all things he is incapable of error. This, of course, is not true!

It is a necessity of Christian theology that every person be allowed the exercise of free will. Everyone, the pope included, must be free to accept or reject Christ for himself. If God were to make the pope infallible in the ultimate sense, he would be depriving him of his free will.

Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin. All popes are human and therefore sinners.

Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does--he studies.

Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private teacher. As a man he is fallible and capable of error.

Infallibility does not guarantee that a pope will officially teach anything. However, when he does teach he is protected. If he decides to teach the truth, the Holy Spirit allows it. If he decides to teach error, either knowingly or unknowingly, the Holy Spirit will stop him.

Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope.

All Christians believe that God used men infallibly in writing Scripture. Why then is it so hard to believe that He would work through men to protect it from corruption? Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His disciples, "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16).

The First Vatican Council taught that three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible:

1. The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.

The first two conditions can be reasonably deduced from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The acts of binding and loosing in the context of the verse would by necessity be something more than casual remarks. The passage begins with Jesus saying, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" (16:18). The acts of binding or loosing would have to be official and meant for the whole Church.

The third condition stems from the obvious fact that Christian teaching is primarily a matter of faith and morals. Christianity's main objectives have always been getting people to heaven (faith) and teaching them how to live here on earth (morals).

Infallibility is also extended to the college of bishops when they, as a body, teach something in union with the pope. Collegial authority is usually exercised in an ecumenical council just as it was at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29).

Upon leaving the earth Jesus' final command to His apostles was to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Are we to believe that Jesus left us no means of knowing exactly what He commanded? That would make His parting statement nonsense. The Catholic Church believes the Bible when it teaches that:

1. Jesus requires that we obey all that He commanded (Matthew 28:20).
2. Jesus gives us the grace to obey all that He commanded (Philippians 4:13).
3. Jesus provides us a means of knowing what He commanded (Matthew 16:15-19).

Early Christian writers bear witness to the Church's infallibility. Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD). Irenaeus writes: "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 4:26:5, 180-199 AD).

Despite the evidence, critics try to prove their case by appealing to three supposed examples of popes teaching error. The first two are Pope Liberius (352-366) and Pope Vigilius (537-555). Both were made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. This of course does not count, as Infallibility only applies to free acts of the pope and not to acts under torture.

The third example is that of Pope Honorius (625-638). Critics of Papal Infallibility feel that this example demolishes the doctrine once and for all. Here, they contend, is an example of a pope teaching error. After his death, an ecumenical council (The Third Council of Constantinople) condemned him. What could be more contradictory than an infallible pope being condemned by an infallible council? However, in their excitement the critics have overlooked something -- the facts.

The controversy stems from a letter that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius, a Monothelite heretic. The Monothelite heresy maintained that Jesus had only one will, a divine will. The Church had always taught that Jesus was fully God and fully man. As such, He had both a divine and a human will. Before the heresy was widely known, Sergius sought to get the pope's approval by deception. In a letter to the pope he stated that Jesus never opposed the Father. Consequently, if two persons agree they may be spoken of as being of "one will." The pope, unaware of Sergius' deception, answered to the subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. He wrote in part: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ…Since Christ's human will is faultless there can be no talk of opposing wills." Subsequently, Monothelites fraudulently used this statement as proof that the pope believed with them that Christ had no human will.

Pope Honorius was deceived and then misrepresented. Furthermore, the Third Council of Constantinople condemned him for inaction, but not for teaching heresy. In any event, his letter was private. Thus the issue of infallibility never even entered the picture. By the way, if papal infallibility really was just a human invention, don't you think that the list of errors after 20 centuries would fill at least one book? And yet we are presented with only three examples, three examples that are not even plausible. Does this not speak in favor of the Church's position?

Ironically, many of the individuals who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility claim to receive special revelations from God. Most believe that they can privately interpret Scripture in direct violation of 2 Peter 1:20. They characterize the doctrine of papal infallibility as arrogant, while claiming for themselves authority that goes far beyond it. And what is the fruit of their claims? Thousands of denominations all claim the Bible as their authority and yet all disagreeing on what it teaches. To make matters worse, many of their teachings change from time to time. Those who object to the doctrine of papal infallibility are the greatest proof of its need.

An honest examination of the evidence can only lead to one conclusion: That Jesus Christ established an infallible Church. Scripture teaches it, logic demands it, and history confirms it.

Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com 



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; popes

For Further Study

The Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Rome (Free)
The Early Church Fathers on Peter's Presence in Rome (Free)
Books - The Gift of Infallibility by Rev. James T. O'Connor and The Primacy of the Church of Rome by Margherita Guarducci and Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray and
Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid and The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue
DVD - Footprints of God: Peter with Stephen Ray


1 posted on 03/05/2012 7:52:34 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation

**The First Vatican Council taught that three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible:

1. The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.**

Catholic Ping!


2 posted on 03/05/2012 7:54:01 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...

Catholic Ping!


3 posted on 03/05/2012 7:55:48 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility
Essays for Lent: The Pope
Essays for Lent: The Church
Essays for Lent: The Bible
Essays for Lent: The Trinity
Essays for Lent: Creationism or Evolution?
4 posted on 03/05/2012 8:07:29 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin. All popes are human and therefore sinners.”


But yet the Pope is called “Holy Father.”


“Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does—he studies.”

Except if you are Pope Alexander VI, then you can just get it through purchase at regular market cost.


“Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8)”


The dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are quite recent, and they are “new” dogmas that were proclaimed. They were never historically taught before. The Pope had a vision from Mary herself, also discussing the Brown Scapular as a ticket out of purgatory, provided you wear it, practice chastity, and pray the Rosary. Purgatory is another new doctrine. So is infant baptism, when the Biblical practice was baptism of a believer who was fully immersed.

The other doctrine, of course, is the one being discussed. Infallibility. The Apostles were all gifted with help of the Holy Spirit, and saw Christ Himself and in visions the doctrines of which they were to preach. Peter was not “infallible,” but was even rebuked by Paul for his mistake in following the lead of the Jewish converts who insisted on following the Jewish ritual law.

Paul, through the power of the Holy Spirit, was used as God’s messenger to blind a magician. Each of the Apostles “bound whom they will,” or received prophecy, or received divine knowledge of the hearts of others, and spoke as God directed, and led the early Christian Churches they established across the world according to God’s plan.

The “Rock” of the Church is not Peter, but the confession he gave, which is Christ. Christ is the chief cornerstone, and we are all “living” stones of that chief stone. Here are Peter’s words on the true meaning of Christ’s teachings, given by Peter as only Peter could, as it was Peter who was made a living example of Christ’s teachings:

1 Peter 2
Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

According to the Dictatus Papae, the Pope is supreme. He can command princes. He can bring down emperors. The Pope cannot even be judged!: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp

The modern view is the moderate view. It is not the historical view. It is definitely not the Biblical view.


5 posted on 03/05/2012 9:05:36 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

A lot of people confuse impeccability (lack of sin) with infalibility. They are not the same.

Popes go to confession too.


6 posted on 03/05/2012 9:12:11 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
For Further Study

The 62 Errors of the Roman Catholic Church

The Rise of Rome in a Nutshell

History of the Papacy

The Official Roman Catholic Policy of Obstruction of Justice

Apostolic Succession

The Non-Existent Early Papacy

The Popes of Rome

Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition

Contradictions in Roman Catholicism

The Magesterial Cat and Mouse Game

The Vicious Circle

The Infallible List of the Infallible Teachings of Rome

Forgeries and the Papacy

The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic

Historical Literature on the Earliest Papacy

The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18

7 posted on 03/05/2012 9:46:11 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

You wrote:

“The “Rock” of the Church is not Peter, but the confession he gave, which is Christ.”

Nope. According to Greek syntax it is Peter.


8 posted on 03/06/2012 4:46:57 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Vlad, you are correct, but remember, with protestants, things have to be twisted and distorted from the clear meaning, in this example......the obvious meaning of ‘rock’ is Peter...historically, it has been Peter, but that has to be done away by any and all means.....itz a shame.


9 posted on 03/06/2012 5:40:56 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are quite recent, and they are “new” dogmas that were proclaimed.

They were always a part of authentic Christian faith, that were not expressed formally.

A feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on 9 December perhaps as early as the 5th century. Note that the title of achrantos (spotless, immaculate, all-pure) refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception. By the 7th century the feast of her conception was widely celebrated in the East, under the name of the Conception (active) of Saint Anne. In the West it was known as the feast of the Conception (passive) of Mary, and was associated particularly with the Normans, whether these introduced it directly from the East or took it from English usage. The spread of the feast, by now with the adjective "Immaculate" attached to its title, met opposition on the part of some, on the grounds that sanctification was possible only after conception.

Wiki (links at source)

Although the Assumption (Latin: assūmptiō, "taken up") was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not, apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 4th century. The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to it. The earliest known narrative is the so-called Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose), which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation. Probably composed by the 4th century, this Christian apocryphal narrative may be as early as the 3rd century. Also quite early are the very different traditions of the "Six Books" Dormition narratives. The earliest versions of this apocryphon are preserved by several Syriac manuscripts of the 5th and 6th centuries, although the text itself probably belongs to the 4th century. Later apocrypha based on these earlier texts include the De Obitu S. Dominae, attributed to St. John, a work probably from around the turn of the 6th century that is a summary of the "Six Books" narrative. The story also appears in De Transitu Virginis, a late 5th century work ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis that presents a theologically redacted summary of the traditions in the Liber Requiei Mariae. The Transitus Mariae tells the story of the apostles being transported by white clouds to the deathbed of Mary, each from the town where he was preaching at the hour. The Decretum Gelasianum in the 490s declared some transitus Mariae literature apocryphal.

St Thomas receiving the Virgin Mary's girdle An Armenian letter attributed to Dionysus the Areopagite also mentions the event, although this is a much later work, written sometime after the 6th century. John of Damascus, from this period, is the first church authority to advocate the doctrine under his own name...

Wiki (links at source)

the Pope is supreme. He can command princes. He can bring down emperors. The Pope cannot even be judged!

I surely hope so. But that is not in the meaning of infallible.

10 posted on 03/06/2012 5:41:16 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; VinceASA; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


11 posted on 03/06/2012 5:52:02 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600; Salvation
@Salvation - thank you once more, dear! This one I have bookmarked for permenant reference.

@Apollo - Only just took a short break, so a longer answer will have to wait, but two quick points:

But yet the Pope is called “Holy Father.”

All priests are called Father, as they are responsible for the welfare of their flock in the same manner that a father is responsible for his family. The more usual title for the Pope is His Holiness.

The Pope cannot even be judged!

God judges us all. Popes confess too, forcing them to confront their failings, at least in their own minds. Someone once said, in a joking way, that God had to send us his Son as the way, since Heaven was still empty and Hell was getting full.

Thanks for the link the last time we talked. Some good stuff in there to ponder on. FReegards!

12 posted on 03/06/2012 7:50:39 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Holy Tradition has been alive since the before the Bible.

Tradition in the Catholic Church isn’t customs as most people think, but the Word of God handed down one person to another.

St. Paul, St. John make references to Tradition with a big T in the Bible


13 posted on 03/06/2012 8:30:53 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Tradition in the Catholic Church isn’t customs as most people think, but the Word of God handed down one person to another.

So post some of this word of God handed down outside of the scriptures...And of course you can't because it never existed...And that leaves your tradition as nothing more than invented customs made up by your religion...

14 posted on 03/06/2012 9:31:48 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All; boatbums
Photobucket

In between lying Hit pieces on the Early Church Fathers "Webster" models clothing because He could not make it as a scholar.

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

VERY Weird that after his Writing on Augustine I can not find these verses.

Photobucket

Augustine of Hippo:

Letter 53 (A.D. 400) 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..

Notice “successor of Peter”.

HE is either an Idiot or a Definite Deceiver. No way this man can be called legitimate. Anyone can gerry pick verses to make it what they want. Out of all that glop he could not put that in for a reason.

Photobucket

READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS FOR YOURSELF

Photobucket

15 posted on 03/06/2012 10:18:25 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome

The first Christians understood that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church and exercised authority over it. They believed that a rejection of Peter’s authority was a rejection of Christ’s authority. As the Scriptures tell us, Peter and Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19).
Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).


16 posted on 03/06/2012 10:30:22 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm


17 posted on 03/06/2012 10:31:26 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

The Early Church Fathers on
Peter’s Presence in Rome

Some contend that Peter couldn’t have been the bishop of Rome because he was never in Rome. This of course runs counter to the testimony of the Early Fathers and Scripture. In 1 Peter 5:12-13 Peter says: “I write you this briefly through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, exhorting you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Remain firm in it. The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.” Babylon is a code word for Rome and is used elsewhere in Scripture to mean the same thing. Examples can be found in Revelation 18:2, 18:10 and 18:21.
Dionysius of Corinth

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (ibid 3:3:2).

Tertullian

Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).

When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Peter of Alexandria

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Lactantius

When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


18 posted on 03/06/2012 10:36:19 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm


19 posted on 03/06/2012 10:37:09 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"Nope. According to Greek syntax it is Peter."

As usual you are spot on, but it was more than just syntax. It was the context and content in which He used the syntax of the Rock. The Gospels tell us exactly how and why Jesus determined that His Church would be lead by a Pope as chosen His form of Church governance and that the first Pope was Peter.

God has always chosen a single man to guide His Church and He has guided and protected that person through public and private Revelation. This was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, David and the many judges, kings and prophets that followed. It would be true of His Church too.

In His revelation Jesus specifically discussed the three possible forms of Church governance; the Democratic form, the Oligarchical form, and the Theocratic form before revealing His choice.

In this dialog Jesus asks His Disciples; "Who do the people say that I am?" (Matt 16:16). This was the Democratic option. He got answers varying from Elijah, to John the Baptist, to "One of the Prophets", but no clear, unambiguous or truthful answer. He then asked His Apostles; "Who do you say that I am?". This was the oligarchical form. None responded. These two forms were unambiguously rejected.

Then Peter stepped forward and without consulting the others said; "You are the Christ, the son of the living God.". In response to this Jesus revealed the basis and governance of His Church when He said:

“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:17-19)

20 posted on 03/06/2012 11:39:26 AM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Haven’t heard the argument in #20 before. Very compelling and insightful. Thank you!


21 posted on 03/06/2012 11:45:49 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
"Haven’t heard the argument in #20 before."

Its from the Archbishop Fulton Sheen Catechism.

22 posted on 03/06/2012 12:05:00 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; vladimir998; johngrace

Hold on tight, it’s gonna be a bumpy thread!


23 posted on 03/06/2012 3:10:55 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan

“Vlad, you are correct, but remember, with protestants, things have to be twisted and distorted from the clear meaning, in this example......the obvious meaning of ‘rock’ is Peter...historically, it has been Peter, but that has to be done away by any and all means.....itz a shame.”


No such doctrine exists in the Bible, and Peter himself in Acts as well as in 2 Peter calls Christ the cornerstone, and themselves and all believers as “lively stones.” It was a “illustrated lesson,” using Peter’s name, which means a “rock,” and directed him to the rock of the Church, which is Christ, the foundation of the church. Peter was never exalted over the other Apostles, nor did he ever exalt himself over them. All performed the same functions. There is, similarly, no indication that the Apostles as an office would ever pass into the future. There were not 12 rival popes... their task was handed off to the rest of us collectively, to preach the Gospel against the enemy of this world, picking up where the Apostles left off.

The Primacy of Rome was a later invention.


24 posted on 03/06/2012 3:18:02 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
"No such doctrine exists in the Bible,"

Please read post #20 in this thread.

25 posted on 03/06/2012 3:26:02 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
Photobucket

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

26 posted on 03/06/2012 4:21:06 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html


27 posted on 03/06/2012 4:22:22 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Nope. According to Greek syntax it is Peter.

The CCC must have gotten it wrong, then. You might want to inform the Vatican of their error:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
28 posted on 03/06/2012 6:36:51 PM PST by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

I am too busy at the moment to demolish you guys in this thread. Please have patience for my answer for later. I started a new job, and I’ve been getting up at 6am in the morning everyday, and I also still have many other duties to attend to.

It sucks not being unemployed anymore. LOL


29 posted on 03/06/2012 6:51:21 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Apollo5600
I respectfully submit the following:

Your evaluation of that scripture seems legitimate until a deeper examination of the words Christ used shows otherwise. Lets look at what He said.

Matt 16:18
You are “Petros” (a stone or a rock) and upon this “Petra” (a rock, cliff or ledge - a projecting rock, crag or rocky ground) I will build my church.

There is a difference in the Greek words used, their usage and meaning of the word translated “rock” as can be seen by the following:

Please compare to Isaiah 44:8
Is there a God beside me? yea, no “tsuwr”; I know not any.

TSUWR: rock, cliff. rocky wall, cliff.
PETRA: rock, cliff or ledge.
PETROS: a stone or a rock.

Note also the usage of the word TSUWR in Isaiah 8:14
And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock (TSUWR) of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

This passage is repeated in the NT: Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8. In both cases the Greek word used is Petra in place of the Hebrew Tsuwr. The same Petra (the “rock, cliff or ledge”) upon which Christ told Peter He would build His church. We can then determine that the rock in Isaiah and the rock in 1 Peter and the rock upon which Christ would build His church are one and the same. This agrees with God's assessment that there is no other rock (TSUWR in Hebrew or PETRA in Greek) beside Him.

Petra is also used to illustrate hearing and doing the words of Christ to the man who built his house on the Petra. Tsuwr is used often in the OT to refer to God as a rock of salvation. All implications of a very large stone capable of being built upon.

Examining the other side of the word for rock, we find that Petros is used exclusively as a name for Peter save for only one time that it is translated “rock” in John 1:42 when Jesus called Peter to be his disciple.

That is the context and content regarding the Petra upon which Christ would build His Church.

It is clear to these protestant eyes that Jesus was by no means calling Peter (Petros) the rock upon which the church was to be built but was actually referring to Himself (Petra). He would otherwise contradict Isaiah 44:8 which states there is no other Rock besides God (translated Petra in Greek). This is echoed by Peter himself when he declared that Petra is the rock that causes men to stumble.

In conclusion:
Petra = Jesus Himself, upon which the church is built. No other God besides Petra according to Peter when he quoted Isaiah 44:8.
Petros = Peter, sometimes translated rock according to John.

30 posted on 03/06/2012 7:37:44 PM PST by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
Congrats on your Job. I wish and pray you the Best.

"demolish' LOL!!!

WE believe in Bible only? But go to outside sources to Prove its not only by going to other people books or sources to declare the farce of Bible Only.

Our actions dictate "invention of primacy" from outside sources of bible. Real history shows otherwise not revised history. Also how would you know its outside the bible when how dare you go outside for so called authority sources. When "the Bible is the only authority" . Hello?

When people declare that The Catholic Church has no right but then go to an outside authority to declare not same for Catholic Church.

Like what about Christ put the Holy Spirit in the Day of Pentecost then the Apostles laid hands on believers.

Acts 6

The Choosing of the Seven

1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, Who Prayed and Laid their hands on them.

7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of PRIESTS became obedient to the faith.

YOU EVER GO TO AN ORDINATION OF A PRIEST.

All the priests put hands on each other and back from bishops to priests. This has been going on for two thousand years since the days of ACTS 6. THE Bishop explains this at every ordination. HMMMM

Luke writes these because it is stupid I guess by the Holy Spirit about a church lasting any length told by a Jewish leader. The Church for Two Thousand Years.

ACTS 5:

34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.

35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.

37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too Perished, and all who followed him were Scattered.

38 So in the present case I tell you, Keep Away from these men and let them alone, for IF this Plan or this undertaking is of Man, IT will Fail; 39 but if it is of God, you Will Not be Able to Overthrow them. You might even be found Opposing God!” So they took his advice, 40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

41 Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

38 "So in the present case I tell you, Keep Away from these men and let them alone, for IF this Plan or this undertaking is of Man, IT will Fail; 39 but if it is of God, you Will Not be Able to Overthrow them. You might even be found Opposing God!”

GEE ALL THROUGH OUT HISTORY.

I just Believe it all comes from an existing visible Church first for two thousand years.

31 posted on 03/06/2012 7:52:03 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: johngrace; Natural Law; Apollo5600

I apologize, in post #30 Peter did not quote Isaiah 44:8 but rather Isaiah 8:14 which is translated Petra in the Greek in 1 Peter 2:8, thus equating Petra (Greek) and Tsuwr (Hebrew).


32 posted on 03/06/2012 8:39:14 PM PST by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 1forall
"I respectfully submit the following:"

I understand this objection, but there are many layers within the dialog of Jesus. Before we consider syntax we must consider context. Jesus and the Apostles had the conversation in Matthew 16 in Caesarea Philippi. Located near the Golan Heights the city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall also known as the rock of the Gods. At the base of this wall was a flooded cave that local superstitions believed was a passage to the under world. It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan (the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. When you factor in the possible play on words the syntax is not so clear.

Now, were this the only passage in the Gospels that addressed the primacy of Peter there might be some room for disagreement, but there are about 50 verses that establish it. Peter, like Abram (Abraham) Jacob (Israel) and Sara (Sarah) was given a new name by God upon the bestowing of their holy office. Collectively these leave no doubt.

33 posted on 03/06/2012 10:11:16 PM PST by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome

From http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/:

Keep in mind, too, that there was not any such thing as a “monarchical episcopacy” for maybe the first hundred years or more of the church. It evolved over time; many have traced this evolution. It is not in question except by individuals such as these Roman apologists who want to maintain the fantasies of some kind of unbroken succession.

Interestingly, regarding Peter and succession, the Catholic writer Raymond Brown says, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Pauline type of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

The Catholic historian Paul Johnson goes a bit further than Brown, in his 1976 work “History of Christianity”:

    By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.

In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus.

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; “When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.

Going back again in time, it is interesting to note the development of certain “enhancements” to the stories of succession. Of course Irenaeus passes along the whopper suggesting that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. He says, “Since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches (helpfully provided above by Johnson), we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome …” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2).

Peter and Paul neither “founded” nor “set up” the church at Rome. Paul of course wrote to the Romans in 56 or 58 ad that he had never been there, although the church was existing, thriving, and was attested as early as the Edict of Claudius as early as 49 ad (see Acts 18:2-3), having traveled there from Jerusalem, maybe as early as Acts 2, via the Puteoli-Rome trade routes.

Peter is said to have died in 64 ad, under Nero. There were many legends that Peter arrived at Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54), and was “bishop” of Rome for 25 years. But Acts 15 places him in Jerusalem and Paul’s letters place him in Corinth and Galatia (not as a leader, but as a missionary) well into the 50’s, long after the church had been “founded” in Rome. Cullman, after a thorough investigation of the historical sources, says that he “became the leader of the Jewish Christian mission; that in this capacity, at a time which cannot be more closely determined but probably occurred at the end of his life, he came to Rome and there, after a very short work, died as a martyr under Nero.” (Cullman, “Peter,” pg. 152) Cullman refuses to discuss the notion that Peter lived in Rome for 25 years, noting that it is so obviously fictitious that it did not merit any serious discussion.

34 posted on 03/06/2012 10:20:08 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johngrace; Apollo5600
WE believe in Bible only? But go to outside sources to Prove its not only by going to other people books or sources to declare the farce of Bible Only.

It sure would be nice if y'all could understand the actual definition of sola Scriptura and REMEMBER it. The term means:

The Scriptures alone are our final and only infallible source from God for the doctrines of the Christian faith.

It can't get much plainer than that and it stands in direct contradiction to the Roman Catholic doctrine that "Tradition" and the "Magesterium/Pope" are equally authoritative and infallible. The truth is that ONLY the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures are infallible - something EVEN the Catholic Church teaches - and this means simply that only doctrines that can be backed up by Scripture are binding upon a Christian. It doesn't mean that other people: church "fathers", theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. cannot be studied or referenced, only that whatever they say MUST be proven by Holy Scripture. It is the guidebook for our faith.

So, stop already with the "Bible ONLY" strawman. If y'all didn't get it before, hopefully you won't continue to make the same mistake.

35 posted on 03/06/2012 11:20:05 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: armydoc

You wrote:

“The CCC must have gotten it wrong, then. You might want to inform the Vatican of their error:”

Nope. Nothing in the CCC contradicts what I said. That there are two interlocked meanings to the passage
has never been denied by the Church. Nor is it denied by me. The simple fact is Peter is the Rock, and he stood out as such by his confession of faith. Also - and perhaps you’re simply ill-informed rather than dishonest - but you might want to look at CCC 552. It’s always amusing when anti-Catholics attack the Church using the Catechism because it always ends up showing how little they know about the Catechism or the Church.


36 posted on 03/07/2012 5:40:32 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Collectively these leave no doubt.

I am glad you are solid in your convictions brother, as am I.

37 posted on 03/07/2012 7:24:33 AM PST by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
All that presented garbage is revised phony history from one of slanted bias websites. This is not real history of the church. It is the same vein as some write about the revised holocaust history. Just amazing we can find what we want because we want to believe a certain way.

If we want to believe non history made up we can. Just sheer after the fact from many centuries later. First started in the 1500 hundreds from the spirit that brought us a man who took books out of the bible.

Boatbums you are a fairly decent person from your writings. I remember years ago you were not so hung ho on this then we read more of this "trash" . We have to check out original sources like the early church father. I do not see how we can not see that these sites are taking them out of context. All the early church fathers were priests and Bishops as Catholic who believed in the real presence, and the apostolic succession. Just read it for your self.

We have people who tried to put that they did not believe in the real presence on these threads. Like one person had some writing from one of these sources. I go to the original I read it is showing the real presence by the consecration at the end. Consecration is a catholic term for the pray for the bread to be prayed over for the Real Presence. Then I read that the word " figure " is real explaining how the bread and wine become the body and blood but looks the same as bread. Which means the same explanation today in the Catholic Church.

Then the word "figured " is being used from someone who is trying to prove the commmunion is a symbol. Just plain idiocy from these sites.

Just read it for your self. You are well intended but wow. We can not change history.

38 posted on 03/07/2012 7:31:17 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; johngrace
"And Jesus said unto them, (Peter and the 11), Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, YE ALSO SHALLL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, judging the TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mat. 19:28.

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME, (Paul), they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that WE should go unto the HEATHEN, and THEY unto the CIRCUMCISION."Gal. 2:9.

"Howbeit FOR THIS CAUSE I (Paul) obtained mercy, for THAT IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN to them which should HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM to life everlasting." 1 Tim. 1:16.

There is a wealth of information to show who was doing what and why in those Scriptures. And how the Book of Acts transitions.

39 posted on 03/07/2012 8:02:07 AM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
If it is the final authority. Why do we have so many different denominations who claim the same thing. I think several hundred to two thousand denominations(?). I do not believe that thirty three thousand myself that has become poplar in the last ten years. All that division does not make sense that this is how Jesus wanted it.

Every group with some difference of opinion. We can all read the bible but what is the true meaning. So we go to a person or body outside of scripture. But who is the right one.

True history shows otherwise. Christ left people in charge not a book. Because of his great beautiful Divine Mercy we can find Christ and The Holy Spirit in the bible. But first came a Church then the bible with the same church.

"It doesn't mean that other people: church "fathers", theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. cannot be studied or referenced, only that whatever they say MUST be proven by Holy Scripture. It is the guidebook for our faith"

Yes but who ultimately declares what the meaning in a verse really means? We can pick and choose. Then disagree with someone with same philosophy that they are wrong too. Just not what our Lord intended. I beg to differ.

I have read some weird assumptions from some of these threads. They did not get it from the bible only. They had to read from outside then incorporate it into the meaning of the verse. Like Paul started first church and there are strange sequences after the book of acts going to book of revelation. We do not have to confess our sins. Hello!

1John:

 8 " If we claim to be without sin, we DECEIVE ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."

Decieve

Notice everything in that scripture. Just plain dangerous. We have to point out the most dangerous and harmful.

We all have to confess. I never met a Protestant Or Indy church person in my life who who no matter how a confession is made that did not believe in it until these threads. Just astonishing. And I left the Catholic Church then came back. Never. Dangerous to even assume.

40 posted on 03/07/2012 8:05:27 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“A feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on 9 December perhaps as early as the 5th century. Note that the title of achrantos (spotless, immaculate, all-pure) refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception. By the 7th century the feast of her conception was widely celebrated in the East, under the name of the Conception (active) of Saint Anne....

Wiki (links at source)”


There was no such cult of Mary in existence during the first few hundred years following Christ’s resurrection. Mary, who is supposedly without a sin nature and perpetually a virgin, a being so great she can hear the millions of Rosary prayers around the world, and can save people through devotion of her immaculate heart, is hardly mentioned in the Bible. In the Old Testament prophecies, she is a virgin who would give birth to “God with us.” There is no mention of any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary anywhere in the Bible. For one so important, why is there such extreme silence about her? And how can anyone ever be born without a sin nature, despite the scripture that teaches that even the best Saints are wicked in the sight of God? There is no contemporary historical accounts relating the assumption of Mary or the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin or without sin. All that we do have originates from fraudulent works attributed to people who did not write them or other sources that read like ridiculous fairy tales, and to which the Catholics justify through “it seems like it should be true, so it is.” Tertullian denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, and other Catholic dogmas only came up little by little over the next few hundred years. The only thing perpetual has been the perpetual addition of Mariology to the church, which is so altogether fleshy that it makes a mockery of all Christianity.


41 posted on 03/07/2012 6:08:13 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
All that presented garbage is revised phony history from one of slanted bias websites. This is not real history of the church. It is the same vein as some write about the revised holocaust history. Just amazing we can find what we want because we want to believe a certain way.

"All" that was presented in my post is "garbage"? Really? Did you take note that two of the references came from Catholic historians (Paul Johnson) including one who was a priest? His name was Father Raymond Brown and the document he wrote was given a nihil obstat AND an Imprimatur. So, when he or Johnson speak of the historical evidence that proves Peter and Paul did NOT found the Church of Rome, that Peter did NOT stay there as Pope for 25 years or that the lists of "Apostolic Succession" generated by a few of the Early Church Fathers, i.e., Eusebius and Irenaeus, then they certainly have no "axe to grind" nor should they feel the need to confect their own history since these facts were also known to many others. They have endorsements from the Catholic Church.

This brings up why, when we attempt to discuss things that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago, we find ourselves at loggerheads because we come at it from two different viewpoints. This site http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and.html does a good job of explaining why this can be like pulling teeth:

    One of the most frustrating difficulties encountered in discussions such as this is the fact that the starting assumptions of Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics are so different. Because these starting assumptions dramatically affect the way we read and evaluate evidence and arguments, it becomes difficult to avoid speaking past one another. For example, as I mentioned above, if one assumes the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, then the differences I allege between sola scriptura and solo scriptura become invisible. Likewise, if one does not assume the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, the differences can be discerned.

    The same phenomenon occurs when it comes to discussing historical evidence for and against the claims of Rome. A person who believes that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has special divine authority naturally looks at evidence for the claims of Rome in a much different way than a person who does not believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. If a person firmly believes that the Roman Magisterium is infallible (i.e. incapable of error) under certain conditions; in short, if that is his basic theological axiom, then by definition he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error. This is the reason that for faithful Roman Catholics, the very possibility of there being evidence contradicting the claims of the Roman Church is non-existent. Any alleged evidence of error offered by Protestants or others must be explainable in some other way.

    Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism see abundant evidence against the claims of Rome in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. For those who adopt the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism, all of this “alleged” evidence essentially ceases to exist. From the perspective of the non-Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight. From the Roman Catholic perspective, it is non-Roman Catholics who are reading the evidence with a distorted lens.

    To be fair, Roman Catholics are not alone in dealing with this kind of criticism. All of those who believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture are criticized in a similar way by liberals and skeptics who say they have found abundant evidence of error in Scripture. If a person truly believes that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God, he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error in the Scriptures. He trusts that there is an explanation for any apparent errors, even if he does not know what that explanation is. In the same way, a Roman Catholic who truly believes in the infallibility of the Magisterium will trust that there is an explanation for any alleged errors presented by non-Roman Catholics.

    So, knowing that none of us is completely objective, how do we deal with the claims of Rome? Rome claims special divine authority and infallibility. Rome claims to be the one Church Christ founded on earth. Rome claims that those who are not in communion with the Pope are schismatics. These are very big and very consequential claims. When faced with such claims, one does not simply make a blind leap of faith one way or the other. One needs to know whether the claims are true before making any kind of commitment. Why? Because if an institution is making those kinds of claims and they are false, one would be committing oneself to a lie of monumental proportions. On the other hand, if the claims are true, rejecting them is equally serious.

    I submit that the claims of Rome do not stand up to close scrutiny when measured by any standard other than Rome herself. While the claims of Rome have a theoretical plausibility when considered alone, that plausibility evaporates when we evaluate the evidence for and against those claims. At issue, then, is the truth or falsity of the premise regarding the special divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church. If that premise is granted, many of the remaining claims of Rome follow. The problem, however, is that there is abundant evidence from Scripture, tradition, and history that renders the truthfulness of the basic premise entirely implausible. In other words, while Rome’s arguments using this premise may be logically valid, none of them are sound because the key premise is false.

I sincerely hope you will go to the site and read the entire article. My intent is NOT to sow discord but to speak the truth in love the best way I can. I fully understand that not everyone will accept it, but, perhaps, there are a few who will and will find rest for their souls in the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ which is salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

42 posted on 03/07/2012 7:10:39 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Apollo5600
What you write is typical Protestant pap, that has nothing to do with papal infallibility. The question is not what you happen to think or, rather, what your semi-educated pastor happens to think about Mary the Mother of God, but what papal infallibility is or isn't. More specifically you asked about the late marian dogmas, and I explained that they are late in proclamation but not in actual belief.

Let me now briefly -- since this is not the topic, -- comment on your objections to the veneration of Mary.

The premise that she is "is hardly mentioned in the Bible" is wrong. Regarding the Old Testament, you forget the mini-gospel of Genesis 3:15 where the prophecy is made that the seed of a woman will crush Satan. Since women have no seed, and no one but Jesus her Son crushed Satan, that woman would be Mary. In the New Testament she is the central character of two Gospel chapters Luke 1-2, she appears with Jesus throughout His ministry, where Jesus gives her keeping the Word as an example to others (Luke 11:27-28) who already venerate her. She is alone with John at the foot of the Cross, where she is told to adopt John and through him, the entire Church as her children (John 19:26-27). That request of dying Christ was of course fulfilled as in Revelation of John (chapter 12) we see her engaged in combat with Satan together with her children "who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Apoc. 12:17). In the Upper Room as the Holy Spirit enters the Catholic Chruch -- she is there also with the Holy Apostles (Acts 1:14, then see Acts 2:1-4). Aside from Jesus Himself and possibly St. Peter our First Pope, she is the most prominent figure of the Gospels. you should try reading the Holy Scripture every now and then, not just repeat Protestant propaganda.

The icons of Mary appear as soon as there are icons.



Nativity scene

The catacombs of Saint Priscilla
2 A.D., Rome

(link).

So on "here was no such cult of Mary in existence during the first few hundred years following Christ’s resurrection", your statement seems lacking in education as well.

You don't have a concept of sin and sainthood right. Saints are people who overcome their sinful nature and become united to Christ in the course of their lives. When they are saints, they are no longer "wicked"; they overcome sin. Mary is a saint who attained sainthood at conception ("hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women", Archangel Gabriel called her in Luke 1:28).

Finally, please get a clue regarding the operation of the Catholic Church. In the Protestant world, there are teaching of men that are proclaimed out of their own head and then they become what the Protestant pastors teach. So Lutehr invented Bible Alone and Faith Alone, Calvin invented limited atonement and total depravity of man, and bingo, Protestant pastors, like cockroaches, crawl off to repeat their lies. The Church of God does not operate that way. The dogmata of the Church are forever in the deposit of faith given the Apostles by Christ ("the faith once delivered to the saints" Jude 1:3). The dogmata of the Church are proclaimed when, with the passage of time, a controversy arises and a need emerges to clarify the Deposit of Faith. The dogmata do not alter the faith, they sustain it in purity and protect the doctrines of Christ from ravings of heretics.

I invite your brief questions since this might be a lot to digest for you, but I will not respond to another silly screed off-topic.

44 posted on 03/08/2012 6:02:32 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I posted to you it was taken out.

What I was stating among other things is that Raymond Brown has liberal theology leanings. I do not even understand how he is a priest. These sites that are mentioned are presenting third party sources. The thing we have to do is really read the books that are mentioned on these sites. I have read their source materials and found twisting of words. Especially of the early Church fathers writings.

The early church writings about Peter and Paul does not conclusively state that Paul had last say. All it was stating that churches were founded by both. I read this document outside of this site. The site takes the liberty to take sentences out of context. Then put in whatever to their view it seems without a doubt.

Read the original source material not third party minimal quotes from site.

45 posted on 03/08/2012 10:02:52 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I just read the article

His writings declare no succession. Gee I wonder why and when they ignore something like this in their writing.

What in the world is this:

Augustine of Hippo:

Letter 53 (A.D. 400) 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..

Notice “successor of Peter”.

In all that Glop of words on that site. Not once did I read this successer of Peter By Augustine!!

How convient!

Its what they do not show that is astonishing!

Please! amazing! Go to original sources.

46 posted on 03/08/2012 10:31:31 AM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson