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.
Prayer (an attempt to contact) to the deceased is denounced completely in God’s word. No exceptions are given, and none are appropriate.
We have no way of knowing who really is a saint; we cannot see into their spirit to know, and God’s word says that they “sleep” anyway. Necromancy remains necromancy.
We are instructed by Y’shua to only pray to the Father, and that he being the good Father will give to us abundantly, so there is no valid reason to violate God’s word by praying to the dead.
As for the question of worship, you are tap dancing on the head of a pin. Catholics in general Worship ‘Mary’ and merely acknowledge the Father and Son.
When you read all of Augustine's or any Early Church works first before you get to Webster then get back to me. If I know I do not have to prove to you. You have to prove it to yourself.
To go back to a misinform site all the time is ludicrous. Just look at all the early church fathers on their own writings without a Protestant or Catholic prejudging the writing. When you do you will see it for yourself but be honest to yourself. He claims to point out what they are writing about. Well just read it for your self. Cut out the misinformed middleman presenting it to you. You will then see how Catholic in writing by itself.
If some one keeps getting it wrong. All you have to do is read Augustine or any early church father.
Also you wrote please no link. I never did put a link. You are thinking of the other replies.
First, the New Jerusalem Bible is not the "Roman Catholic" Bible. The translation that is found on the Vatican website is the New American Standard Bible. The New Jerusalem Bible isn't intentionally misleading, it is simply flawed. The word used by James, translated as "judgment" by the New American Standard, the RSV, and the Douay Rheims and "sentence" in the King James Version is krino (κρίνω). The word has many idiomatic meanings including to prefer, to opine, and to choose. One has to contextually interpret it. If your context is to diminish Peter you will see krino and think verdict. The Church sees it otherwise.
"The question is what was the MAIN work of either one at the start of their ministries?"
I can't recall anyone ever arguing that on these threads, including you. The Protestant argument is always that St. Paul was THE Apostle to the gentiles and therefore St. Peter copuld not have been. That is a specious argument.
All of the Apostles were tasked to preach the Gospel to all of the nations of the world. All struggled with that, yet all preached to gentiles. St. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians. According to Hippolytus and Eusebius, St. Bartholomew preached in India. St. James preached in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal). St. Matthew preached in Parthia which is near modern day Tehran. St. Peter was the first to preach to Gentiles in Caesarea. His travels are well documented in Acts and was martyred in Rome, where he was its first bishop. (Note: St. Peter is always listed first for a reason). St. Philip preached in Phrygia and Eastern Turkey. St. Jude preached to , preached to the people of Edessa, and to all Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). St. Thomas covered considerable ground having preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians. He was martyred in Calamene in India.
"The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal:"
All bishops are equals, the Bishop of Rome is first among equals. Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?
"Abbe Guettee, p. 174."
Vladimir Guttee is a discredited 19th century former Catholic priest. The work you cited is on the Index of Forbidden Books because it is completely false and heretical. (Before anyone begins shrieking that this is another example of Catholic censorship a "Forbidden Book" does not mean that it is to be burned and made completely unavailable, it is a way of labeling it for what it contains. It is the the Catholic equivalent of Free Republic's Jack Chick policy) When you resort to citing sources like this you lose all credibility.
RE: The New Jerusalem Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is a Roman Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd and Les Editions du Cerf, and edited by the Reverend Henry Wansbrough OSB, MA (Oxon), STL (Fribourg), LSS (Rome), a monk of Ampleforth Abbey and a biblical scholar.
You write as if the translators have sinister motives in translating the Bible just because you don’t like the way this specific passage was translated.
Are you a mind reader? Do you know who the translators are?
My context is NOT to diminish Peter, but to put him in his rightful place. If someone is other than who he really is, then all talk of trying to diminish him is rubbish.
He is what he is and I am simply reading what scriptures describe him as.
In the council of Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were sent to the meeting to speak to the apostles and presbyters (v2) - no distinctions were made among the apostles. If Peter was the head, why doesn’t it say they went to confer with “the Pope, the apostles, and the presbyters”? Surely an important position would have been emphasized... but I see no such thing.
Peter did not speak first. There had been long debate before he spoke (v7). And his speech did not settle the issue. People kept silent after he spoke only so they could listen to other speakers (v12)! The final course of action was suggested by James (v13,19ff). And the whole procedure was directed by the Holy Spirit (v28), which led all apostles as we have already shown.
There is more very interesting evidence in the eighth chapter. Philip the evangelist had been preaching the
gospel in Samaria, and God had wonderfully blessed.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth verses we read: When
the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (I’m using your favorite NASB)
How plain it is from this narrative that there was in the church at Jerusalem an authority greater than either
Peters or Johns.
This authority was in the apostles which were at Jerusalem. It is a true axiom that the sender is greater than the sent, and Peter acknowledged this authority in going down to Samaria.
Would it not be inconceivable that the cardinals of the Roman Church would send the pope on some mission? And
would any pope allow himself to be sent?
Yet, here you are insisting that Peter has higher authority that the rest of the apostles.
Please understand, this in no way diminishes Peter. I already said many times that Peter is first in many things. But I DO NOT FIND ANY PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT SUGGESTS HE WAS ABOVE ALL OTHER APOSTLES.
It does however, question YOUR INSISTENCE that these passage proves that he was Pope. It does no such thing.
RE: I can’t recall anyone ever arguing that on these threads, including you. The Protestant argument is always that St. Paul was THE Apostle to the gentiles and therefore St. Peter copuld not have been. That is a specious argument.
Hey, you’re dealing with me. I speak for myself, I don’t speak for anybody else.
I quote Paul when he says what he said. So please deal directly with what I said and not others ( I do not speak for them and they are very well capable of explaining what they themselves meant ).
As for all mention of other Apostles preaching and being martyred everywhere, I am not sure what your point is... I want to know how that shows that Peter is Pope. I’m not getting your point in bringing this up.
RE: All bishops are equals, the Bishop of Rome is first among equals.
Where in scripture does it tell us that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals?
If this is so important a doctrine, I would expect it to be codified in scripture and Peter himself to tell us that. Where in Scripture does it tell us?
RE: Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?
More than the church fathers, I will give HIGHER CONSIDERATION to what scriptures teach.
I give greater weight to what Scriptures say and Paul CLEARLY STATES he is NOT inferior to ANY eminent apostle ( See the passage I just presented in his letter to Corinth).
Your term — First Among Equals is NOT a scriptural term. I will acknowledge that it is a term that is historically used BUT NOT BY THE EARLY FIRST CENTURY CHURCH.
Historically, The Bishop of Rome was considered by many to be the first among equals, mainly because the governing of the Roman Empire was centered in Rome.
THAT’s ALL THERE IS TO IT. And that came MUCH LATER. The modern notion of the papacy gradually developed due to various historical circumstances, BUT IT WAS NOT SO IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Early on, the Bishop of Rome was never considered the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS of the entire church of Christ scattered all over the world.
In fact, Significantly, the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, granted Constantinople equal status with Rome, because of its status as the new capital of the Empire.
RE: Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?
Can you quote for me a church father BEFORE the 3rd century BC who tells us that the Bishop of Rome had authority and jurisdiction over all other churches?
If Peter’s position was so important for everyone, in the following lists, he is NOT named first: Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; John 1:44.
Does this prove the people listed before Peter had authority over him? Being first in a list does not prove one is a Pope.
The lists where Peter is named first clearly state the office to which he was appointed - like other men, he was chosen to be an apostle (Luke 6:13-16; Matt. 10:2ff). If Peter was chosen to the office of Pope, a VERY IMPORTANT POSITION, why is this never stated anywhere?
And if you can, please explain this to me — when Peter was writing his last two epistles, where did he address himself as Bishop of Rome?
RE: Vladimir Guttee is a discredited 19th century former Catholic priest.
Sure you dislike him because of what he wrote. The question is this — DID HE WRITE THE TRUTH OR IS IT FALSEHOOD?
You have to establish first that this particular passage he wrote is wrong. Where have you done that other than to rant against him?
RE: When you read all of Augustine’s or any Early Church works first before you get to Webster then get back to me. If I know I do not have to prove to you. You have to prove it to yourself.
You seem to be a knowledgeable fellow regarding the works of Augustine...
Maybe you can tell me where Augustine was DEAD SURE about Peter being the Rock that Christ was referring to in Matthew 16.
That was the point of his exchange with Steve Ray.
So please, cite me the passage and we can discuss it...
RE: The translation that is found on the Vatican website is the New American Standard Bible.
I find it interesting that the Vatican prefers to use a Bible translated by scholars from a variety of denominational backgrounds (non-Catholic) instead of one translated by Roman Catholics.
Here are a list of the NASB’s translators:
MOST OF THEM ARE EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS.
The NASB is a project of the LOCKMAN FOUNDATION.
Dr. Samuel H. Sutherland (1900- ), President Emeritus of Biola University (an Evangelical School), is President of The Lockman Foundation.
Maybe you might want to ask these translators if they recognize Peter as the first Pope or the Bishop of Rome as having jurisdictional authority over the church they attend...
Sorry - I misspoke. The Bible found on the Vatican site is the New American Bible, not the New American Standard. It translates Acts 15:19 as follows
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God" Peace be with you.
So you read all the early church fathers works before you go to other sites? Or what whole texts of early Church Fathers have you read alone?
Brother go to the unvarnished original. This is so faulty it is wrong unless we see the original writing.
To adopt another man 's opinion about an original document is not being fair to yourself.
RE: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God” Peace be with you.
OK, It is the NAB, but where in the text does it say that Peter made the final judgment? It was still James who made the final judgement. Most of all, nowhere in the text does it even INSINUATE that Peter was the head of the council of Jerusalem.
RE: To adopt another man ‘s opinion about an original document is not being fair to yourself.
Sigh, I despair of ever getting you to even discuss the source that you wish me to look at.
What are we to do? Do you want me to cut and paste the ENTIRE work of Augustine?
For our edification and for the purpose of this discussion, let’s limit it to one of Augustine’s writings which was in dispute — Whether or not Augustine was SURE as the sun rises in the East that the passage of Matthew 16 truly refers to Peter as the rock that Jesus Christ was referring to.
Could you point me to the EXACT Augustinian passage that shows this? You can cut and paste the exact passage from your source.
Better still, let me help you -— here is a compedium of the works for the church fathers:
Scroll down to the part that says : St. Augustine Volumes
You can start by cutting and pasting for me the exact Augustinian passage you think I misunderstand concerning Peter.
. I can use it as a concordance for key words but not phrases in any early church fathers writings. I do not know how perfect but pretty good when I last used it.
I always find it strange to discuss this with Sola Scriptura Protestants who, because of the necessity to diminish St. Peter in defense of the Reformation, go to extremes to find things that are not in the Scriptures and to exclude things that are in the Scriptures to support their case. If you render the entire narrative of the First Council of Jerusalem you will have no choice but to concede St. Peters Petrine role in the council.
First we have to understand the timing or location of the council was not random or arbitrary. It was in Jerusalem because St. Peter was in Jerusalem in 49 AD. Recall St. Peter had literally disappeared from Acts in chapter 12 after escaping prison and fleeing Jerusalem in 42 AD. St. Peter was present in Jerusalem because the Jews had been expelled from Rome in 49 AD (the same year as the Council). St. Peter was present as the Bishop of Rome and In Persona Christi Capitas, which was the role of the bishop who spoke on behalf of the entire church. St. James had a role because he was the bishop of Jerusalem and was the head of the Jewish faction. It was this Jewish faction who were described in Acts 15:1-2 as "Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved. The some who had come down from Judea were certainly not St. Paul and Barnabas, now were they St. Peter, they were from James flock.
St. Peter began the discussion by relating that he had baptized the first gentiles, the Centurion Cornelius and his entourage, at Caesarea at the instruction of the Holy Spirit. Then after much debate among the bishops and presbyters the Scripture says St. Peter stood up and the room fell silent indicating that it was St. Peter who had the authority to cut off debate. The Greek word used (esigese) indicates that the room remained silent, reinforcing his authority. St. James then gave his judgment to his followers that St. Peter was right when he says; It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to stop troubling the gentiles. "Then the Apostles and presbyters, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. This is the letter delivered by them...". It was St. Peter acting In Persona Christi Capitas that represented the whole Church.
RE: If you render the entire narrative of the First Council of Jerusalem you will have no choice but to concede St. Peters Petrine role in the council.
I have never ( and I don’t think other Protestants who are knowledegable) have ever denied the Petrine role in the council. Read my posts and you should and ought to clearly see that I acknowledged his role. I have not diminished ( your words not mine ) his role.
My beef is your “READING INTO” the text to insist that he had some supreme hierarchical role and the others (like Paul and James) a lesser role in the council.
I do not infer that from the text at all.
If the Papacy is such an important position in the Council of Jerusalem I would have expected this to be highlighted by Luke in this passage. That it is not simply shows that it is NOT what you want it to be.
RE: St. Peter stood up and the room fell silent indicating that it was St. Peter who had the authority to cut off debate
I would imagine that the room fell silent when Peter spoke ( although the text does not say that — read it again ).
The text does say that the room fell silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
If the room fell silent when Peter spoke, THEY DID TOO when Paul and Barnabas spoke. Which indicates ( as Paul himself tells us in his letter to the Corinthians ) that Paul IS NOT INFERIOR to any of the eminent Apostles in the council, certainly not to Peter.
Whatever the case is, there is NO INDICATION that Paul and Barnabas’ roles were any less important or unequal with Peter’s in the council.
The Acts 15 text does not infer or say it.
To insist that Peter’s role was supreme and Paul and Barnabas’ role was inferior is NOT SUPPORTED by the text. You will have to ASSUME IT and then READ INTO the text to make this argument and that is EXACTLY what you did.
RE: . St. James then gave his judgment to his followers that St. Peter was right when he says; It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to stop troubling the gentiles. “Then the Apostles and presbyters, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. This is the letter delivered by them...”. It was St. Peter acting In Persona Christi Capitas that represented the whole Church.
You see the problem here? You are again assuming that Peter alone acted In Persona Christi Capitas and James and the rest are then neglected.
In fact, James COMPARED what Peter said to the SUPREME AUTHORITY -— God’s word (see vs 15-18) before making his judgment.
He said “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this”. In other words, Peter’s words had to be CAREFULLY COMPARED with God’s already revealed word before a final decision was made and THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD BE DOING WHEN A BISHOP, POPE or AN ANGEL FOR THAT MATTER TELLS US TO BELIEVE SOMETHING.
The conclusion I get from this is -— The ENTIRE GROUP under the guidance of the Holy Spirit acted In Persona Christi Capitas.
The text does say that the room fell silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
It takes a basic knowledge of idiomatic Greek and the procedural norms of the ekklesia to fully appreciate what is written. We are dealing with two Greek words for silence. Verse 12 describes what happened before St. Paul and St. Barnabas were recognized to address it's council. The word used is "esigese". This is the past tense aorist usage, meaning that the assembly became and remained silent after St. Peter's address. Scripture is very clear that indeed, after St. Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled. In verse 13 the verb used is "sigesai". This is the infinitive aorist: meaning only that Paul and Barnabas had finished talking.
St. Peter was clearly identified as a special Apostle by Jesus. He was the one who was given a new name. He was the one who was always mentioned first by all of the Gospel writers. He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given. I cannot ignore all of that so that I have an open mind to Protestant eisegesis. I understand why the Reformation needed to destroy the Papacy of St. Peter and attempted to erase the Traditions of the Church in order to create the blank slate onto which they wrote their theology. I find it simply one more in a long line of heresies and heterodoxies that have unsuccessfully challenged the Church. That said I do not find Protestants evil or even damned, just wrong.
Peace be with you.
RE: It takes a basic knowledge of idiomatic Greek and the procedural norms of the ekklesia to fully appreciate what is written.
The idiomatic Greek DOES NOT TELL US who spoke first or later in the text. It does tell us BASED ON the sequence of the verse that Peter spoke in verse 6 and Paul and Barnabas spoke in verse 12.
The word SILENCE was applied to the speech of Paul and Barnabas. THAT”S ALL THE TEXT TELLS US.
In fact, the text clearly states :
When they finished, James spoke up.
Who are they? I understand it to be both Paul and Barnabas. However, I would imagine you would like to include Peter in the mix. That’s alright with me. The important point is still this — Peter’s speech IS NOT THE ONLY ONE GIVEN CONSIDERATION in the text. Paul and Barnabas’ speeches were as well.
I cannot infer from the text that Peter settled the matter for everyone.
Everyone’s speech was given EQUAL CONSIDERATION, James then COMPARED what Peter said with scripture ( to confirm that it had the blessing of God’s word ) and THEN made a decision.
We ought to follow this pattern too.
RE: St. Peter was clearly identified as a special Apostle by Jesus. He was the one who was given a new name.
Being given a new name does not make one Supreme over others.
Abraham’s name was changed from Abram. Paul’s name was changed from Saul to Paul. What does that prove?
Jesus gave a special name to James and John (Mark 3:16,17). And God gave special names to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:5,15), Jacob (Gen. 32:28f), and others. Were all these people Supreme to others too?
NO. A change of name could indicate a change of status, a change of role that someone is to play, or even ( as in Jacob’s case ), an event in one’s life.
RE: He was the one who was always mentioned first by all of the Gospel writers.
But he was NOT ALWAYS MENTIONED FIRST by Paul.
In more than one occasion, James was mentioned ahead of Peter.
For instance, When the Apostle Paul visited Jerusalem fourteen years later, he mentioned that there were THREE PILLARS OF THE CHURCH THERE, AND NOT JUST ONE (PETER) AS THE SOLE PILLAR. Those three pillars were James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here, is the fact that JAMES IS MENTIONED FIRST, AND PETER SECOND. (Gal. 2: 1-10).
RE: He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given.
I disagree with you that the keys were given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter.
They were given to ALL the apostles, and
for that matter, the whole church.
What are the keys of the kingdom? The keys are that which unlocks heaven to the sinner. What is it that locks heaven against one? It is sin.
The provision to take away sin, that man might not be shut out of heaven, is the key of the kingdom, and that provision is the gospel of our Lord. Now the privilege and commission to preach the gospel were given to all the apostles, and likewise to the whole church.
The church really exists for no other work than to preach the gospel in all the world; and if a man accepts it, the kingdom of heaven is unlocked to him.
I agree with Origen when he said this :
“Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, Thou art Peter etc., down to the words, prevail against it. But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock
(Allan Menzies, AnteNicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
So, When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be. BTW, Origen is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18 and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church.
RE: He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given. I cannot ignore all of that so that I have an open mind to Protestant eisegesis
I find it really interesting that you would READ INTO Scripture everything that makes Peter Supreme to all other Apostles and then totally ignore verses that indicate otherwise. Yours is the one that really counts as eisegesis.
You ASSUME that Peter is Supreme and then force the Scriptures to meet the assumption instead of letting scripture speak for itself.
Every single verse you ascribe to Peter can in fact be ascribed to Paul which will ridiculously make Paul the Pope.
Both myself and Roman Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we used the kind of reasoning that is used to “prove” Peter to be Pope, we could make a better case that Paul was Pope.
Consider the following :
* Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7). Peter on the other hand, was.
* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.
* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.
* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
* Paul stated on two occasions was not inferior to any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.
* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.
* Peter cited Paul’s letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter’s letters as authority.
* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.
Paul wrote a letter to the Romans when Peter was allegedly the Pope. Why the need to do that when Peter was already there?
* Paul’s labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).
Now if, despite all these facts, we properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing.
Peace be to you too.
I am certain that St. Paul would be appalled at the greater than Peter, greater than Jesus status he has been elevated to by the Paulinists.
The chief difference between Protestants and Catholics is the matter of authority. I'm sure that 99% of Catholics and Protestants would agree on that one point. Where we have the Magisterium that relies on Scripture and Tradition and the active participation of the Holy Spirit Protestants rely only on Scripture and their own reason. While that is an admirable position with respect to constitutional law and politics it is a fools errand with respect to the Revealed Word of God.
When a Protestant encounters a difficulty or mystery that that does not make immediate sense to them they reject it and set about molding Scripture to their reason through self interpretation. When a Catholic encounters a difficulty or mystery we rightly conclude that the problem lies within our own finite and flawed capabilities and seek guidance from the teaching authority of the Church and prayer. With greater scrutiny authority is simply a catch phrase for relative humility and trust.
Pax et bonum.
RE: am certain that St. Paul would be appalled at the greater than Peter, greater than Jesus status he has been elevated to by the Paulinists.
And who has elevated Paul to greater than Jesus or greater than Peter status?
Where in my posts have shown that Paul is other than NOT INFERIOR to Peter?
All I am showing you is that it is ridiculous to use scripture to elevate Peter over all the other apostles when the indication is not there. Just as it is ridiculous to elevate Paul over the others.
Respect Peter, yes, honor him, yes, acknowledge his leadership, yes, but make him as somehow SUPREME and then on that basis, conclude that someone in Rome holds the same Supremacy? NO. That is an unwarranted stretch not supported by scripture or church history.
RE: When a Protestant encounters a difficulty or mystery that that does not make immediate sense to them they reject it and set about molding Scripture to their reason through self interpretation.
But it is not self interpretation as in we do not consult men who have studied the scripture or ignore what respected writers in the past have contributed.
No, it is prayerful, careful study, meditation and reflection, exegeting passages to make sure one gets the write meaning under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
We do not ignore the interpretations of church fathers, BUT WE DO NOT HOLD THEM AS INFALLIBLE.
There is nothing arrogant about it. It is simply obedience to the Lord’s command to Love Him with OUR HEARTS, SOUL and MINDS.
This principle is applied to scripture and SHOULD BE USED TO JUDGE THE TEACHINGS OF MEN (Popes included) AND ANGELS AS WELL. Scripture teaches us to do so and we must obey.
I did not accuse you of that, but it is a persistent message from the devoutly anti-Catholics who frequent these threads therefore it is the context in which we are having this discussion. I find you have a very good ability to disagree without being disagreeable.
“Well, then it would not be hard to show in what way he is, right?”
It’s not hard at all, Webster was once Catholic and has walked away from Christ in the Eucharist(Body, Blood Soul and Divinity) and now he makes money attacking the Catholic Church denying Christ is present in the Eucharist and spinning the writing of the Church Fathers whenever they did not use the exact words that was could have been easily been errors by Philip Schaff in translation purposely to mislead people. I have translated writings of the Early Church Fathers on disk translated from Greek given to me by Kolokotronis (who used to post here on FR) that don’t match Philp Schaff CCEl site.
Webster looks for one or two single instances that don’t match 99% of what the early Church Fathers taught and implies they held beliefs contrary to their consistent beliefs shown in their writings.
I suggest you read about the New Age Philip Schaff
here is some information about him in this article
Don’t be fooled by following the cult of William Webster,dear friend. Webster will have to answer for the evil he is doing.
From the word of the late Bishop Fulton Sheen....
Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven
The devil can be seen using those like Webster who mislead others by saying he is doing the work of God while attacking Christ’s Church and The Most Blessed Sacrament
You seem to be hiding behind links and not directly answering my question.
I want YOU to show me in what way, Webster’s citations are wrong.
BTW, if denying that Christ is being sacrificed in the Eucharist belongs to the tool of the devil, you are effectively condemning EVERYONE who denies it as complicit with the devil ( that would include many FReepers ).
Show me the translated writings that you believe in for instance. Let’s start with Augustine, and yes, you can use the disk that you have and cut and paste for me the passages that show that Augustine believes that Peter is the Pope.
Don’t show me links written by Roman Catholics attacking Webster. DEAL WITH HIS ARGUMENTS.
I don’t intend to be fooled by anyone dear friend, not even from someone as well meaning as you.
I reserve the right ( given to me by God ) to judge arguments for myself.
So yes, let’s start with Augustine as the church father to look at, so that we can limit our area of focus.
RE: The devil can be seen using those like Webster who mislead others by saying he is doing the work of God while attacking Christs Church and The Most Blessed Sacrament
But the devil can also use well meaning people too. You know the adage, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
We can only discern whose side the devils and who side isn’t by looking at the arguments. Start with Augustine then.
In fact, let’s focus on one part of his writings to make it even more specific so that we don’t get overwhelmed by his humongous pages of work -— HIS EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 16 to determine whether Peter is the Rock being referred to.
You can cut and paste the translation you trust.