Posted on 08/01/2015 3:50:22 PM PDT by Salvation
Greetings:
I am staying on the topic related to your claim that Rome and Papal Primacy rests only on MT 16:16-19. That is not true. Again, you claim Rome’s Doctrine of Primacy rest on MT 16:16-18. Have you not been saying that? The first text cited was in fact “NOT” that text but John 1:42. Again, Chapter 1 from the link I gave you (On the Institution of the apostolic ministry of blessed Peter) formulates a doctrinal statement “We teach and declare that,..... and the first text cited was indeed John 1:42. Are you calling me a liar on this forum for making that claim because that is indeed the first passage cited. Mt 16:16-19 is indeed cited, but it is cited Second in that doctrinal statement where it states
“that after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God..., spoke these words and then MT 16:16-19 is cited and it then continues that after Christ rose from the dead confided jurisdiction to Peter etc and cited John 21: 15-17. So there are hear indeed 3 Petrine texts cited.
The last citation period in the doctrinal statement is Petrine text,Luke 22:32 “strengthen your brethren”
So I am not incorrect. There are 4 Petrine text cited. You are harping on Saint Augustine and the interpretation of 1 text and whether it is Peters Confession or Peter himself. Well even the way the doctrine is formulated when MT 16:16-19 is cited leaves open the exact interpretation, i.e. is it his confession that or his person. Now given the structure of the text and other text, I think both are true it is Peters Confession and Peter himself. That is my own personal view.
Augustine did view the Pope as having a Primacy and he certainly looked to Rome for guidance on many, many, many occasions. As I said No Council he ever was involved with did not send its Canons for confirmation by the Bishop of Rome. So what Kind of authority he recognized in the Pope, only he knows, but it is lot more than just the Pope was just the Bishop of Rome and had no authority outside his City and Diocese.
Pretty strong evidence you don't even read my posts and are just making lots and lots of noise. Go imitate your Pope and kiss a Koran, or pray with leaders of false religious (as he does), or sit around as a Buddhist places an idol on a Catholic altar.
Greetings:
You are now resorting to this. Ok We are done
How can he recognize the pope as having a primacy as he did not recognize Peter being the rock as that is what the papacy is built upon?
ealgeone:
Who is He? Saint Augustine? Because the rock can be either or, it is the Confession of Peters Faith or it is Peter that Christ built his Church. So the debate over what was “rock” is just that, there was a difference of view and Augustine earlier said it was Pete and in Reconsiderations, he said 2 interpretations are plausible, let the reader choose which 1.
And the entire Passage has other central points. Rock is one, but not the only 1, there is also the Keys, which if you read the Vatican 1 declaration, the word “Keys” is stressed more than the term “Rock” as it is in Bold text.
And as I also noted, there are in fact 4 Petrine Texts, John 1:42, MT 16:16-19, John 21: 15-17 and Luke 22:32, that are cited in the formulating in its most definitive form, the Doctrine of Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome, and the related doctrine of infallibility.
While it seems there is divergence of views over “rock”, in the patristic writers (was it Peters Confession of Faith or His Person), there is very little on the question of Keys.
On this question, Saint Augustine seems pretty clear, even though as I said earlier, he offered 2 interpretations on the question of “rock”. In this Sermon (295), you will also see Augustine site John 21:15-17.
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/151/Peter_and_Paul____St._Augustine.html
In his Commentary on Psalm 108/109 (depending on numbering), Saint Augustine clearly states something’s apply only to Saint Peter
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801109.htm
In his Commentary on Saint John’s Gospel (Tractate 56:1), he notes the Apostle Peter is “First among the Apostles”
http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701056.htm
The title “First Among the Apostles” or the related term “Chief of the Apostles” being applied to Peter has a long tradition in the ECF. Two examples are found, Saint Clement of Alexandria (200AD), Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in 350AD. In Saint Clement’s writing, find Peter in the link below and you will see again “First Among the Apostles” amd the paying of tribute recorded in MT 17:27 where Christ told Peter to go to the sea find some coins and pay tribute for you and me. Interestingly, this passage is one that has never been cited extensively but it again points to a unique role of Peter and I think Saint Clement has picked up on something here.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in Lecture 17:27 does not debate the meaning of Rock, but rather defines Saint Peter as Chief of the Apostles by virtue of being the Keeper of the Keys
http://newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm
As for MT 16:16-19, here is Saint Thomas Aquinas Patristic Commentary
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CAMatthew.htm#16
For John 1:42
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CAJohn.htm#1
For John 21-15-17, here is the commentary and based on this passage, Saint Augustine does refer to Peter as Chief Apostle
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CAJohn.htm#21
And Finally, Luke 22:32
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/CALuke.htm#22
So as I said, Vatican 1 has starting with Footnote 42 through #60 4 Petrine text cited, the ones I Listed above.
This back forth on what the “rock” referred to in MT 16:16-19 is really not relevant to me because the Vatican 1’s Definition does not hinge on either or interpretation, is it the Confession made by Peter, The Faith of Peter or his Person, etc, not relevant, it is all tied to the Apostle Peter. I am not interested in debating what is the 100% accurate interpretation as if you and I here can arrive at such a thing. I, for the record, think all 3 interpretations contain truths to help us arrive at a deeper theological understanding. This either or approach posited by fundamentalist protestant theology is not my approach. Theology does have both and. Christ is a Divine Person, 2nd Person of the Trinity, which is 3 Divine Persons in a perfect communion, but 1 God. Christ the 2nd Person as a Divine Person has “BOTH” a Divine and Human nature.
Gods Grace is what saves us, yet or Free will still maintains. How to 100% resolve it, I don’t think we can this side of the divide.
Yes, and if read in context Augustine is disavowing Peter is the rock....and thus the primacy.
ealgeone:
Not really. In fact, the more your read Saint Augustine (and I have read a heck of lot more than you have, it seems pretty apparent), he did not such thing.
And he did not disavow Peter was the Rock, he said it might be Peter is the Rock, it might be his Confession of Faith or his Faith, etc. Let the reader choose. But as I said in the other post, there is another key to that passage “Keys” and there are 3 other Petrine Texts cited in Vatican 1.
You apparently are like these “internet self proclaimed apologist”, most of which are in secular jobs by trade, yet get behind a computer and play “internet theologian”. There was a guy about 10-15 years ago who was cited a lot named Webster I think, first name escapes me, who as a rich guy who backed fundamentalist protestant groups who decided to write a book and was fixated on MT 16:16-19 and the rock. It seems some you, at least me, are his kindred spirits.
As I said before, whether it was Peter’s confession, his faith, or his person, is not relevant, it all is still the Apostle Peter who had his name changed by Christ, was told specifically to feed his lambs and that Christ prayed especially for.
Again, there are 4 Petrine texts cited in Vatican 1. Furthermore, MT 17:27 is another Petrine text, as evidenced by Saint Clement of Alexandria’ writing in 200AD (I provided you the link). The readers digest is “The Blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, form whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute (MT: 17:27) [From Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 21:3-5).
The Current Catechism of the Catholic Church does indeed take this verse in the context of Saint Peter. In CCC paragraph 586
I am working on doing some research if there are other ECF with commentaries or writing on MT 17:27. Cleary Saint Clement of Alexandria in 200AD saw this as a Petrine text as well.
And here is another Commentary on MT: 17:27 on the passage where Christ tells Peter pay them “for me and you”. Interestingly, Saint JOhn Chrysostom in Homily 58 on Matthews Gospel connects this passage to Peter and the Keys. Peter is united with Chris in a special way in guiding and leading the Church. So this homily from the Church Father Saint John Chyrsostom (347-407) Doctor of the Church and one of the great theologians from the Greek speaking east.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/200158.htm
So this very similar view to Saint Clement of Alexandria’s commentary on this same passage (I think I linked it earlier).
And your qualifications in this area would be????
Note also that being Catholic can be defined as not being "Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term," as Ratzinger said.
ealgeone:
Without going into to it, I do teach at University, although not Theology. My point was not to criticize you. It seems to me that most of the people here have never actually ready Catholic teaching as taught by Official Catholic sources. Citing internet sites that have no official standing, which was the case in some of the earlier post, is what I was referring to.
It seemed to that in the past you refrained from that. The argument that sticks entirely on the Rock in MT 16:16-19 is one that I remember from 12 to 15 years ago that was based on a work by a lay Protestant guy named Webster. To be fair, there were several “lay Catholic” websites that got into these internet debates with this guy, which I personally questioned.
The idea that the entire Primacy of Rome rest of the interpretation of “Rock” in MT 16:16-19 is a “Simpleton” argument. Most of the people who posit that theory seem to me to have never read the Vatican I Dogmatic definition on the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Bishop of Rome. Again, I linked that Document before and there are in fact in that document 4 texts from the Gospels that are “All” seen from the Catholic Theological tradition as indicating the Primacy given to Saint Peter as first among the Apostles and thus the Apostle who was maintain unity among all the Apostles. These text again are John 1:42, John 21:15-17, Luke 22:32 along with MT 16:16-19.
And as I said in an earlier post, the word “KEYS” is in bold in the document, whereas the word “ROCK” is not, so my personal reading of the Vatican I document is the word KEYS seems to more of a “KEY”, pardon the pun, than the word “ROCK”. However, please note I am not saying the word “ROCK” is not important.
Now back to this “internet apologetic mentality.” In my experience it is for the most part not rooted in Christian “Charity” but rather in the attempt to attack and win a debate similar to a political debate, etc. If you are going to debate a theological point, the question has to be asked what is your intent. Is it to tear down the other guy or is it to genuinely learn what they are saying.
Dialogue among Christian Confessions is a good thing, if it is rooted in Christian charity. The dialogues between Catholics and the Orthodox are done that way. Of course these discussions take place at the highest levels of each Church. On the other hand, as I said before, these internet apologetic debates in my experience are poison. I no longer frequent those sites that have these debate counter point debate counterpoint and have not done so in over 10 years.
One last thing, I have in the past pointed out that “most” of the FR Prots who post me, never disclose which protestant confession or tradition they come from. I find that troubling and a lack of transparency and it reflects a lack of Christian charity. So in the future, I have made the decision that unless a FR Prot discloses which protestant tradition they are from, I will not get into a point counterpoint. If there is a mischaracterization of Catholic teaching, I will try to the best of my ability clarify the what and why of a particular Catholic Doctrine, but not discuss it beyond that unless I know which protestant confession the person belongs to.
Lastly, as for my religious training, I did teach Religious Ed and work with RCIA at a Catholic Parish affiliated with a University and I did 30 Hours of Seminary courses to have a “credential” to teach as a Catechist. The 30 Hour program that I took is the same 30 Hour program that my Diocese requires for a Man to be a Permanent Deacon (No I am not a Catholic Deacon, for the record).
I do not disclose what church I go to as I feel that gets in the way of the conversation. I identify as a follower of Christ. The way I see it we're not gonna be measured if we were a good catholic, Methodist, baptist, eye. It will only be on we're we a follower of Christ. If we look at the NT we don't see the RCC, Methodists, episcopalians, baptists, Lutherans etc. Just Christians.
I am currently working on a graduate certificate in biblical languages. I've completed the Greek section. I have the option to take Hebrew or switch over to make the designation one completely in Greek. Still not sure which way to go just yet.
. My primary purpose of being on these threads is to help lead people to Christ, show how they can be adopted into His family and know they have eternal life.
. Off to bed now. Work comes early.
ealgeone:
Good luck with your studies, do plan on getting into graduate school (PhD) to enter into academia at a religious based school to teach Biblical studies, theology, etc.?
Well as I said you are among the few Prots here that I can say I do enjoy “bantering with”. You tend to stay on point and not move the topic from one point to the next with respect to every Catholic Doctrine you don’t accept. Others, I can’t make that statement about. It is constant barrage of tangential points that are not related to the topic of the OP.
Well I respectively disagree on not disclosing which Church you belong to. Regardless of what people claim on this forum, everybody reads the Bible and holds to Doctrine based on some theological tradition and framework. That may be a particular Church Tradition or it may be from a purely individual framework, which for me, is more rooted in individualistic philosophy that came out of the “rationalistic movements” of Europe starting in the 1700’s. etc. Nevertheless, I still hold that everyone here has a certain theological tradition based on which they interpret the Bible, form theological methods, which of course lead to how they understand Doctrine.
I really think our clergymen do a disservice to the flock by not focusing on the Greek. The various tenses and moods of the verbs really make it focused.
. I may try and obtain a Master of Arts in theology. Don't think I'll teach grad school. I just want to be a better student of the Word and teacher of the Word. If He wills I'd enjoy evangelistic speaking.
. The Good News we have is too good not to share!
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.