Skip to comments.Study: Over Half of South Jersey's Catholics Believe That Jesus Sinned
Posted on 05/07/2012 2:39:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Although the sinless life of Jesus Christ is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith, a study recently released by the Diocese of Camden found that 60 percent of practicing Catholics in southern New Jersey believe Jesus sinned during his time on Earth.
"The number of Catholics who have a very flawed, a seriously flawed, understanding of who Jesus is, that's troublesome," Bishop Joseph Galante of the Diocese of Camden said during a press conference, USA Today reports. "We've got to re-focus on how we teach and inform people. Jesus is the foundation of who we are as Catholics."
The study was commissioned by the diocese with the hope that the results would help it to better evangelize the communities it serves. The study was conducted by the Barna Group, a Ventura, Calif.-based research organization, which surveyed 612 adults living in the six New Jersey counties within the diocese.
Of those surveyed, 34 percent identified themselves as Catholic, but there are some discrepancies between what the church teaches and what some of them believe.
For example, the study showed that four out of ten of these Catholics disagree with the idea that sex should be reserved solely for marriage. While 38 percent of the total residents living within the Camden Diocese agree strongly with the idea that the Bible is "totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches," only 28 percent of Catholics in the diocese believe the same.
Another major issue Galante discussed during the press conference was the high number of Catholics in his diocese who simply don't attend Mass. One-third of lapsed Catholics said they have other priorities or are too busy to attend, while others said they just aren't interested in church (27 percent).
"What intrigued me in particular was the high number of people who don't attend Mass simply because they have other priorities," said Galante.
"One of the things we need to do is emphasize that worship time can also be part of family time as well. These findings are both troubling and a challenge as we begin to deepen our evangelization efforts."
Peter Feuerherd, director of communications for the Diocese of Camden, told The Christian Post on Monday that another thing that struck him from the study was the low percentage of Catholics who invite others to church. The study found that Catholics (33 percent) were half as likely as Protestants (66 percent) to invite someone to visit their church.
"I find that the 'ask' is so important, and Catholics are not in the habit of the 'ask.' Even our parishes are not in the habit of the ask," said Feuerherd.
He also indicated that a major issue all churches have to deal with is the tendency for people to want to always be productive in the American culture. Those who don't take time off from work on the weekends are honored in our society, he says, and other "distractions" like youth sporting events and various forms of entertainment can sometimes take away from church attendance.
"I think we have lost ... the idea that whatever that Sabbath day is, it is valuable. It's important that people have it," he said.
Other interesting findings from the study:
-Of the Catholics surveyed, 38 percent favor attending church only on holidays.
-Among all of the adults surveyed, 51 percent said churches are "too involved" in opposing abortion or same-sex marriage.
-Nine out of ten (89 percent) adults said they know about the clergy abuse scandals that have occurred within the Catholic Church. Among those who are aware of the scandals, 89 percent consider it a "major issue."
-Only 18 percent of Catholics strongly agree that it is their personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others, as compared to 40 percent of Protestants and 36 percent of people who believe in non-Christian faiths.
Here is more Blessed Augustine for you showing the succession from Saint Peter
St Augustine Letter 53..
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!” Matthew 16:18 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. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they were known.
When did Augustine write this?
Augustine was a prolific writer and he has made numerous comments which relate directly to the issue of the interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. In fact, Augustine made more comments upon this passage than any other Church father.
At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peters confession which pointed to the person of Christ. 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).
Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter.
You might have been quoting an EARLIER piece that he wrote, not the RETRACTIONS he wrote at the end of his life.
Also, notice that Augustine gave the reader the FREEDOM to determine which understanding he believes is correct, he never imposed his own personal understanding on others.
RE: Matthew 16:18. I am sure you will interpret this differently than do I, which is why I dont get into scriptural discussions with those outside of the Church
The only beef I have with the above statement is your use of the term “Church” ( as if those who are not Roman Catholic are outside the church ).
There is not one shred of scriptural evidence that this understanding is correct.
“”At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous.””
Dear,seek,Blessed Augustine Retractationes did not denounce any Catholic teaching Augustine held,they were only Blessed Augustine’s effort to explain the work in some of his previous writings. Augustine never wrote anything denouncing the primacy of Saint Peter and the succession of the primacy.
Here is Augustine’s 53 letter again- Blessed Augustine never retraced any of this at all!
St Augustine Letter 53..
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! Matthew 16:18 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. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of mountain men, or Cutzupits, by which they were known.
The biggest issue with Blessed Augustine was his lack of understanding in Greek-this is where he sometimes runs into trouble with some of his writings and where our fellow Eastern Orthodox rightfully take issue as well.
I suggest you go back and read Augustine sermon 26 since I think this is where Augustine lack of Greek understanding seems to be shown a little
Augustine Sermon 26
He still comes to the conclusion in 26 to uphold Saint Peter as chiefest Apostle, which also coincides with his letter 53
In that one Apostle then, that is, Peter, in the order of Apostles first and chiefest, in whom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be represented, that is, both the strong and weak; because the Church does not exist without them both. Saint Augustine letter 26
But again, I question the TIME he wrote that piece you just shared.
Augustine is a prodigous writer and you have to determine the TIME by which he wrote a piece of work.
He also changes his mind as he thought about things.
Just look at his work : RETRACTIONS.
The Retractions is an invaluable book. In it Augustine offers a retrospective re-reading and review of all of his written works, one at a time. He re-read his words so as to see what progress he had made in the truth, and to correct whatever he though required changing so as to be of better clarity and use for his many readers - present and future.
It is a revision of his works in chronological order, and explains the occasion and dominant idea of each. Even had there not been the circumstances of his great age and the threat of Vandal attack, this revision by Augustine was unique among Classical authors up to his era.
That was here he started to rethink all of the things that he wrote. AND IT WAS NEAR THE END OF HIS LIFE.
It was in that context that he rethought the Matthew 16 passage that I quoted.
And BTW, it isn’t only Augustine who wrote about Matthew 16.
Here are some passages from early church fathers:
Vatican Is interpretation of Matthew 16:18 does not find unanimous consent among the church fathers:
And if we too have said like Peter, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, Thou art Peter, etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
-Origen, Commentary on Matthew 12.10
What then saith Christ? Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas. Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee; all but saying, As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, Thou art Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession.
-John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew LIV.3
Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for On this rock, He says, I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
-Theodoret, Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Letter146
So no, there is no unanimous consent on this issue by many of the early church fathers.
RE: . Augustine never wrote anything denouncing the primacy of Saint Peter and the succession of the primacy.
“denounce” is such a strong word. I would have to say that THERE WAS NOT A TIME WHEN AUGUSTINE THOUGHT OF ROME AS HAVING OVERALL JURISDICTION ON EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH OR BISHOP ON EARTH.
Augustine does not degrade the importance of St. Peter nor does he look at him with disrespect. No, he clearly recognizes Peter’s leadership. But that is a far cry from calling him the Pope.
That is not denouncing, that is simply what the early church was during Augustine’s time.
St. peter himself never calls himself that. In his epistle, he calls himself a FELLOW ELDER.
Here is what he wrote in 1 Peter 5:1 (emphasis mine )
1 I urge the elders among you, AS A FELLOW ELDER MYSELF, and a witness to the sufferings of Christ, and as one who is to have a share in the glory that is to be revealed:
2 give a shepherd’s care to the flock of God that is entrusted to you: watch over it, not simply as a duty but gladly, as God wants; not for sordid money, but because you are eager to do it.
BTW, I am quoting from the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible.
The church was what it was and its structure is clearly not similar to what the Vatican says it is today.
“”I would have to say that THERE WAS NOT A TIME WHEN AUGUSTINE THOUGHT OF ROME AS HAVING OVERALL JURISDICTION ON EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH OR BISHOP ON EARTH.””
A word to the wise, be careful of what you might find out when you suggest something without checking history
From + Augustine.....
“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...the succession of priests from the very Chair of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, committed His sheep to be fed, even to the present Episcopate.” Cont. Epist. Manich. Fund.
“The Roman Church, in which the Primacy of the Apostolic See has always been in force.” Epist. xlii.
“To be unwilling to give the primacy to the Roman Church either stems from the utmost impiety or from rash arrogance.” De Util. Cred.
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Psalmus contr. Partem Donati, str. 18
Also, on your other post you mentioned writing from +John Chrysostom did not post what the rest of what he said
Here it is ....
“Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as a brazen pillar, and as a wall; Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.”
“I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?”
St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew
One other thing ,dear friend,regarding Saint Augustine’s retractions, which deal mostly with predestination and Grace. There are psuedo writings out there that are not acceptable and I have seen people post non authenticated writings on this before,so be careful what you read.
Work to do.I wish you a Blessed day!
RE: I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...the succession of priests from the very Chair of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, committed His sheep to be fed, even to the present Episcopate. Cont. Epist. Manich. Fund.
By the word “catholic” what did Augustine mean? Did he mean a church Headquartered in Rome having jurisdiction over every single church in the world from Eastern Europe to North Africa?
No, by catholic, I believe he meant the community of saints who truly believe and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Sure, the Lord gave Peter the command to feed His sheep but that is a command that is applicable to all those who minister to others. Why should such an important task be solely applicable to Peter alone?
What is this food with which shepherds are to feed the flock of God? It can be no other than the Word of God. Peter declares that Christians are to desire the pure spiritual milk of the Word so that by it, we can mature in our salvation (1 Peter 2:2). As early as the book of Deuteronomy, we see the Lord describing His Word as food for His people who live not by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from His mouth (Deuteronomy 8:3). Jesus reiterates this thought in His temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:4). The importance of the Word of God as food for our souls cannot be over-emphasized.
Clearly, the job of the shepherds of Gods people is to provide them with the pure milk of the Word of God so they can move on to the meat and solid food of the spiritually mature (Hebrews 5:12-14). Pastoral ministry should be primarily one of pastors feeding their people the Word of God. It is an important task given to Peter, but it is a task that ALL MINISTERS equally a commanded to perform.
Why do I say this?
Well look at other similar command Christ gave to Peter....
Luke 22:31,32 - Jesus prayed for Peter so he could strengthen his brethren.
Some actually claim this proves Peter was Pope. But other people besides Peter strengthened or confirmed brethren (Acts 18:23; 14:21f; 15:32,41). Were these people all Popes too?
Jesus prayed for other apostles and disciples besides Peter (John 17:9,11,15,20). Did that make them all Popes?
The next verses in Luke 22 (v33,34) show that Jesus did not pray for Peter to exalt him as Pope, but for just the opposite reason. Jesus knew Peter was about to deny Him!
Peter took the lead in many events in Acts.
This includes the choosing of Matthias (Acts 1:15-26), preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2), healing a lame man (Acts 3,4), the death of Ananias & Sapphira (Acts 5), preaching to the first Gentiles (Acts 10), etc. Some claim this proves he was Pope (Question Box, p. 148).
But Paul was at least as dominant in Acts 13-28 as Peter was in Acts 1-12. Was Paul Pope too?
So yes, Peter was truly an important man, just as Paul was.
In all groups some people are more outspoken than others, and this was surely Peter’s case. But none of these passages say or imply he was Pope or head of the church. The fact a man is able to speak well DOES NOT PROVE he has authority over others.
As for all the quotes you mention of Augustine giving primacy to Peter, I will only say this -— I have no problems giving primacy to one of the leaders of the apostles. And clearly Peter took the lead in many cases.
St. Peter was clearly a leader and in many cases, acted as the leader. But what primacy does this mean?
I stand with St. Ambrose in his interpretation of the rock passage Ambrose makes this quite clear:
“He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, But who do you say I am, immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank.
This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peters flesh, but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).
So yes, Peter holds primacy. Yet, While he holds a primacy it is NOT A PRIMACY OF JURISDICTION but of HONOR.
So, let’s go back to how Augustine viewed Matthew 16 again.
In his exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16 Augustine states:
You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:1519). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peters confession. What is Peters confession? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Theres the rock for you, theres the foundation, theres where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
Here Augustine explicitly states that Peter is not the rock. His confession of faith is. He separates Peters confession from Peters person. The Church is not built upon his person for he says Christ did not build his Church on a man but on Peters confession. If it is not built upon his person there is no papal office. The foundation is Peters confession which points to Christ as the true foundation.
So again, Do I believe that Peter has primacy? OF COURSE.
However, like Ambrose and Augustine, I believe that Peter’s primacy was simply a matter of personal privilege, personal honor and not an office.
This is true but there is much more ,dear friend. Through valid Sacraments of Eucharist,Baptism,Reconciliation, anointing of the sick, etc...We are of one faith as the church fathers believed.... and their is only one Church that can be traced back to Christ and it's the Catholic/Orthodox church, not some non denomination community of believers that willfully separated themselves and reject Sacraments.
So yes, Peter was truly an important man, just as Paul was. In all groups some people are more outspoken than others, and this was surely Peters case. But none of these passages say or imply he was Pope or head of the church. The fact a man is able to speak well DOES NOT PROVE he has authority over others.
Since you're trying to use Church Fathers to make a case ask yourself why NONE of them speak of Paul or any other Apostle regarding Primacy?It's always succession from Saint Saint Peter as I posted in Augustine's writing a few posts ago.
I stand with St. Ambrose in his interpretation of the rock passage Ambrose makes this quite clear...However, like Ambrose and Augustine, I believe that Peters primacy was simply a matter of personal privilege, personal honor and not an office.
And here is Blessed Ambrose and Blessed Augustine making it even CLEARER...
"Christ is the Rock, St. Peter is the Rock, faith is the Rock. It is all-encompassing. However, these excerpts do not diminish the understanding of the chair and primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Catholic Church at all. The universal primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Church is explained by the very Fathers that you have provided"-St. Ambrose ("On the Incarnation")
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" Saint Augustine(Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church . . . " [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " Saint Augustine(Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Dear Friend, I realize you're copy and pasting from protestant websites.
I really am happy you're taking an interest in the Early Church Fathers and would encourage you to read them on your own so you would hopefully realize that they led Eucharistic lives
I will pray for you to be led towards truth.
I wish you a Blessed evening.Good night.
RE: This is true but there is much more ,dear friend. Through valid Sacraments of Eucharist,Baptism,Reconciliation, anointing of the sick, etc...We are of one faith as the church fathers believed.... and their is only one Church that can be traced back to Christ and it’s the Catholic/Orthodox church, not some non denomination community of believers that willfully separated themselves and reject Sacraments.
Yes there is only one church that can be traced back to the apostles but I disagree that it is ONLY the one headquartered in Rome. It is composed of ALL who by grace through faith accept Christ as their Lord and Savior and who truly believe and obey His word.
You cannot limit the church to an institution based in one location which historically was not recognized as having jurisdiction over all other churches.
The church of Rome had its bishops, but so did the Church of Ephesus, Carthage, Hippo and other places. They were all catholic in the sense that THEY SHARED THE SAME FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.
Hence, all churches that share this faith similarly are part of Christ’s church.
RE: Since you’re trying to use Church Fathers to make a case ask yourself why NONE of them speak of Paul or any other Apostle regarding Primacy?It’s always succession from Saint Saint Peter as I posted in Augustine’s writing a few posts ago.
Because Paul was the LAST of the apostles to believe. Peter was among the first. The difference is not in terms of who is superior in terms of hierarchy but in terms of TIME OF BELIEF.
Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way SEE: 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11.
Paul, by virtue of the authority of the word of God ( the gospel ) even REBUKED Peter for his hypocrisy PUBLICLY and even wrote about it ( see the epistle to the Galatians ).
All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.
Here is how Augustine defines what he means when he says that Peter is the first of the Apostles:
As you know, all of you who know the holy scriptures, among the disciples whom the Lord chose while present in the flesh, Peter was the first to be chosen. Paul on the other hand was not chosen among them, nor with them, but a long time afterward, though not for all that unequal to them. So Peter is the first of the apostles, Paul the last; while God, whose servants these two are, whose heralds, whose preachers these two are, is the first and the last (Rv 22:13). Peter first among the apostles, Paul last among the apostles; God both first and last, before whom nothing and after whom nothing. So God who has presented himself as eternally the first and the last, himself joined together the first and the last apostles in martyrdom (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons III/8 (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermon 299.2, p. 229).
The blessed apostles Peter and Paul were called at different times, and crowned on the same day. The Lord called Peter before all the others, Paul after all the others; Peter the first of the apostles, Paul the last; they were led to martydom on one and the same day by the First and the Last (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons III/8 (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermon 299C.1, p. 250).
Note here that Augustine states that Peter is the first and Paul is the last. This has to do with the priority of time, NOT WITH OFFICIAL POSITION IN A HIERARCHY. Augustine also states that Paul and Peter are EQUALS.
There is no indication or mention of a papacy in Rome with jurisdiction over all other churches in the world, anywhere in his writings.
RE: Dear Friend, I realize you’re copy and pasting from protestant websites.
I’ll tell you where I am copying and pasting my sources from and here it is :
It is a compendium of the early church fathers.
It has little to do with what protestants say but what the fathers wrote.
If I think the fathers are right, I’ll agree with them, if not, then I don’t.
The fathers don;t all agree with each other and even Augustine himself acknowledged that.
RE: I really am happy you’re taking an interest in RE: the Early Church Fathers and would encourage you to read them on your own so you would hopefully realize that they led Eucharistic lives.
I ALWAYS have an interest in the early church fathers, however, more than that, I have an interest in SCRIPTURE.
What scripture says and teaches is what I hold as SUPREME over all the church fathers.
I do read the fathers, but I realize that the fathers DO NOT HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT and there is no indication of any early writings that they accepted Rome as having universal jurisdiction over all other churches in the world.
And as usual, even as one respects the opinion of the church father, one does not read them blindly without discerning and comparing them with reasonable exegesis of scripture.
RE: I will pray for you to be led towards truth.
Thank you, I believe your prayers have already been answered.
RE: I wish you a Blessed evening.Good night.
Have a good night too my friend.
Just so you know Augustine did write about the Successor of Peter.
Here is what the Good Bishop Augustine wrote:
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 and "Lineal succession".
That does not answer my question -— DID AUGUSTINE BELIEVE THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER ALL OTHER CHURCHES IN THE WORLD?
The fact that he believed that there were bishops who succeeded the first Bishop does not therefore tell us that Rome now has jurisdictional control over Carthage, Ephesus or Hippo or any other church in the Roman world.
Let’s go back to what Augustine wrote again and what he meant. EMPHASIS MINE.
Christ, you see, BUILT HIS CHURCH NOT ON A MAN BUT ON PETER’s CONFESSION. What is Peters confession? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Theres the rock for you, theres the foundation, theres where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).
And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, On this rock will I build my Church, because Peter had said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. FOR THE ROCK (Petra) WAS CHRIST; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
Augustine states that Peter is the first and head of the apostles and that he holds a primacy. However he does not interpret that primacy in a Roman Catholic sense. He believes that Peters primacy is figurative in that he represents the universal Church. Again, he explicitly states that Christ did not build his Church upon a man but on Peters confession of faith. Peter is built on Christ the rock and as a figurative representative of the Church he shows how each believer is built on Christ. In Augustines view, Peter holds a primacy or preeminence, but none of this applies to him in a jurisdictional sense, because he says that Christ did not build his Church upon a man.
So, putting a list of people who succeeded Peter to become Bishop of Rome does nothing to show that Peter was the Pope (nor does it suggest that succeeding Bishops were popes ).
St. Paul started the church of Ephesus for instance and Timothy was his successor. What does that prove? That Ephesus now has jurisdiction over Galatia or Thessalonica or Philippi? It does not follow.
You mentioned Clement as a successor of Peter for instance.
In his Epistle to the Corinthians, you see that the early church seems to follow the model of a PLURALITY OF ELDERS taught by Paul in his letter to Timothy.
This is how Clement’s first epistle starts:
“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”
Where in that salutation does it even suggest that Clement has jurisdictional authority, by virtue of his being from the church on Rome, over Corinth?
It does not. He speaks for the church in one city to another.
Notice Successor of Peter and "Lineal succession".
The only time that the antiCatholics invoke Augustine is when they think that they have a gotcha moment against Catholicism. Or in a mistaken defence of Calvin's hellish doctrines.
It doesn't matter that Augustine was declared a Saint of the Church. Just as St. Paul is routinely misinterpreted and used to develop personal doctrine, so is Augustine. The rubble of the Reformation and the ruin of the Restoration demands no less.
RE: Amazing. Go Back to The Original Documents.
Yes, it is called SCRIPTURE.
RE: I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.
Scripture itself and the Holy Spirit, who guides people in the truth moved me to believe in the Gospel. The church played a role true, bit it does not necessarily be limited to the Roman Catholic Church.
Scripture itself and the Holy Spirit, who guides people in the truth moved me to believe in the Gospel. The church played a role true, bit it does not necessarily be limited to the Roman Catholic Church.
Very good. The quote is from St. Augustine - Against the Heretics - in his efforts to battle those who would distort and change Christianity to whatever it is that they wanted at the moment.
I do not advocate that the Roman Catholic Church is the only pathway. I believe that the Catholic Church is the only pathway that our Lord has indicated. There may be more, but of that, only He can say. I cannot. I sure wouldn't want to bet my eternal salvation upon that...
The Most Holy Scriptures! Amen!
I like your tag line. I always seek to find with Our Lord in prayer.
No matter what.
I like to read alot of your posts!
RE: I do not advocate that the Roman Catholic Church is the only pathway. I believe that the Catholic Church is the only pathway that our Lord has indicated.
Well, I am there’s something we agree on. Other than the second sentence above, I couldn’t agree with you more.
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.