Rome-ward Bound: An Evangelical Converts to Catholicism and Everyone Remains Friendly

WSJ Opinion Journal Online ^ | May 18, 2007 | David M. Howard, Jr.

[adiaireton8]

Some do, most don’t. Fatima and Guadalupe at least come close to worship, if not officially, then at least on the part of a lot of believers.

What definition of 'worship' are you using?

-A8

[Campion]

He ceased to be a Catholic when he formally/publicly professed another religion.

[Campion]

So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity

Are you sure you're reading the same passage?

[conejo99]

I guess ‘worship’ means to value something highly, or much higher than other things which you value. Perhaps with it’s origin in ‘worth’.
But I suppose I judge it by the perceived attitude and actions of those individuals.

[adiaireton8]

The keys were given to Peter alone. The other Apostles receive the keys derivatively, in communion with Peter. You cannot deny the significance of Jesus giving the keys only to Peter. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that Jesus gave the keys to anyone else. We see in Matt 18 that the other Apostles are given the power of the keys, but we never see them given the keys themselves. That's important. It tells us something about the uniqueness of Peter's authority and stewardship of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Isaiah 22:22). The other Apostles (and thus the bishops in succession from them) exercise the power of the keys derivatively, under the stewardship of the successor of Peter.

Regarding St. Augustine, see what else he says:

"Because [the bishop of Carthage] saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the primacy (principality/supremacy) of an apostolic chair [apostolicae cathedrae principatus] has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these Churches if his adversaries attempted to cause an alienation of them from him." Elsewhere he says, "In a passage in this book [written by Augustine], I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.' This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: 'At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt.'" Elsewhere in one of his sermons he writes, "[On the matter of the Pelagians] two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome]; and from there rescripts [decrees from the Pope] have come. The matter is at an end [causa finita est]." Elsewhere: "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". And elsewhere he writes, "Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?

"Not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church ...no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.... For my part I should not believe the gospel except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me." Elsewhere he writes, " These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands." And elsewhere he writes, " ...Why! a sprig that is cut from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter (Rome). And, in that order of fathers, see who succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice, rejoice in peace, only judge truly."

-A8

[adiaireton8]

I guess ‘worship’ means to value something highly, or much higher than other things which you value.

That explains everything. But now everyone is breaking the first commandment simply by valuing their family "much higher than" they value their house and car. I'm not going to debate with you about it, but if you want to accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary, then it is unfair to use your own idiosyncractic definition of 'worship'.

-A8

[LadyNavyVet]

I would agree that sometimes it’s hard to differentiate between worship and honor. In Catholic parlance we have “adoration,” which is acknowledgement of divinity and therefore reserved for the Triune God only, and “veneration,” a lesser act which shows respect and honor for the saints. That some Catholics stray from doctrine doesn’t change doctrine, and Catholics shouldn’t be decried for what some overzealous Fatima worshippers do any more than Protestants should be decried because of what some backwoods snakehandlers do.

[conejo99]

If you wish to define ‘worship’ as praying for miracles, no doubt there are plenty of Catholics who do that also. Officially they may just be praying for Mary’s intersession, but personally they may not be making that distinction. Catholicism may be defined as what the hierarchy says it is, or Catholicism may be defined by the actions of Catholics. In the later case neither of us has an accurate picture of what is in the hearts and minds of a majority of Catholics. By the way, my original definition was From a sermon of my local parish priest from a couple of years ago.

[Tokra]

That may be your interpretation - but Jesus said what Jesus said.

I find it odd that many fundamentalists insist that the Bible is to be taken literally and is not open to interpretation.

But as soon as a fundamentalist is given a quote from Scripture that they don't agree with - they start saying "Well, what it REALLY means is...."

Jesus meant exactly what he said - no more, no less.

You can try to spin what he said into whatever you want it to mean, but the fact remains Jesus gave authority to Peter and to Peter alone. If he meant it to mean the church in general - he would have said so. But he didn't.

[adiaireton8]

Not according to 67 of 70 Church Fathers, Rome didn't.

Which 70?

-A8

[ichabod1]

At the same time he seems funny and nice and genuine and I wish he was my priest.

[ichabod1]

I really doubt that you ‘left’ the Catholic Church

No one ever leaves us... :)

I always tell people "You're only a confession away from the Body and Blood of the Lamb."

[Risky-Riskerdo]

The keys were given to Peter alone. The other Apostles receive the keys derivatively, in communion with Peter.

Not according to the Church Fathers.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Regarding St. Augustine, see what else he says:

Augustine retracted the position you cited:

The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16: In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable---The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1

[Risky-Riskerdo]

So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity

Are you sure you're reading the same passage?

Ahhh, but you leave out the parts where Augustine explains what he means by "pre-eminence", in that Peter was a figurative representative of the Church by the confession he made, which is nowhere close to what Rome came to say of Peter being the "first pope" and the bishops of Rome being the "supreme rulers" as Peter's successors.

None of the Church Fathers do that, it was a later invention by Rome.

And yes, I'm reading the same passage. The difference is, I'm reading it on it's context and not reading a later Roman invention back into it where it doesn't exist.

By the way, you did see the part where Augustine says, "what was given to Peter was GIVEN TO ALL", didn't you?

[Campion]

Augustine retracted the position you cited

That's not a retraction. He says, "Let the reader decide."

But in any case, why do you think I ought to treat Augustine as infallible? Do you? Do you believe in the other things in which Augustine believed? For example, do you find Augustine persuasive when he says that one who refuses to adore the Eucharist is sinning thereby?

[adiaireton8]

Which 70?

... crickets chirping ...

[TomSmedley]

Oh I have, not to open a can of worms, but as a Catholic,

Are you sure you don't mean a Diet of Worms?

[Ransomed]

I’m sure it seems like worship(in the sense of worshipping Christ) to you. But why do us Catholics deny this worship—why would a religion claim to not worship something that is indeed worshipped? What would be the point?

Freegards

[Risky-Riskerdo]

That's not a retraction.

Of course it is, Augustine retracted his once held position and he states the position he held from then forward.

He says, "Let the reader decide."

Augustine advising people to decide for themselves has nothing to do with Augustine's personal retraction.

You do point out an important point though.

Can you imagine a Roman Catholic bishop today telling people to check the Scriptures and make a "private interpretation" for themselves as Augustine did? But then Augustine was not Roman Catholic.