Posted on 08/31/2013 3:38:44 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Full interview (roughly one hour) with former Roman Catholic priests Richard Bennett (website: http://www.BEREANBEACON.ORG) & Bartholomew Brewer, Ph.D, author of "Pilgrimage from Rome - A Testimony" (website: http://www.MTC.COM) and former nun Rocio Zwirner give glory to God for their exodus from the Roman Catholic Church & into the glorious grace of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Description from youtube)
Not so fast...from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=donation+of+constantine, we learn:
In the eighth century, Constantine was known primarily through the account of him in the legend of Pope Sylvester. In this he was incorrectly portrayed as an emperor who had persecuted Christianity until struck down with leprosy. On rejecting the suggestion of his pagan priests that he bathe in the blood of sacrificed babies, he had a vision of Saints Peter and Paul telling him to find Bishop Sylvester, who cured, healed and baptized him. Onto this core narrative was grafted the claim that when Constantine subsequently decided to leave for the East, out of gratitude he entrusted Pope Sylvester with a set of imperial regalia, including a crown, and with the authority for himself and his successors to appoint an emperor in the West should circumstances ever require it. (Roger Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” New York: Basic Books (2009) 148-149)
Derek Wilson, in his biography of Charlemagne, is a bit more descriptive:
We decree that the sacred See of Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted even above our Empire and earthly throne … as over all churches of God in all the world … We convey to Sylvester, universal Pope, both our palace and likewise all provinces and palaces and districts of the city of Rome and Italy and of the regions of the west.
In other words, papal territory had for centuries been an independent state and had ever been part of the [French] exarchate. The so-called Donation of Constantine was a thoroughgoing forgery, made for a specific purpose, at a particular place and time. It was the means chosen to achieve a specific end in a desperate situation, and it doubtless did not occur to the criminals who created it that it would be used to excuse a millennium of political intrigue, wars and carnage. (Derek Wilson, “Charlemagne” New York: Doubleday (2006) 23-24).
The document itself, a complete fabrication, was used to twist the arms of kings in that day and for many centuries beyond. It set up the tensions -- an untenable situation, really, that made the “break” of the Reformation so much more dramatic.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy.” We can see some of the further “fruit” of that document also in, for example, the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, in which another pope is still emphasizing his superiority over another French king. (In this document, Boniface VIII proclaims that “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”)
In fact, the legend behind this document is quite a bit older than the eighth century. As I’ve noted, there were a tremendous number of legendary documents and forgeries cropping up around first of all, the person of Peter in the second century, and later around the office of Bishops of Rome after the time of Constantine. Among these was a document known as The Acts of Sylvester. Shotwell and Loomis briefly describe this document, “originating, as they probably do, before the period of our study is over, and making bold capital for the Roman See out of the renown of the Great Constantine by ascribing that emperor’s bodily healing and religious conversion of the agency of the Roman bishop Sylvester. Ignored at first by every reputable historian, this fable made its way, gathering volume as it went, re-enforced eventually by a forged Donation, until it had imposed upon all Europe the conception of Silvester as the potent influence behind Constantine’s most striking measures and of Constantine himself as the dutiful servant of the See of Peter.”
This “Acts of Sylvester,” they classified, as among “the apocryphal achievements of the early bishops, the spurious acts, miracles and decrees attributed to them, invented apparently, as the apocryphal Acts of Peter were invented, to enhance the popular reverence for the supposititious doer.”
As Wilson had noted about the Donation, the exact circumstances of the creation of this legend is unknown. But not only was it a “complete lie,” but as Reymond noted, it was one of the with many inventions, fictions, and forgeries, that not only became dogma, but which then was “foisted upon the world” in the service of the insatiable Roman quest for power.
Sounds like deception to me.
“What does “can no longer marry” mean to you?”
It means that they have chosen to no longer marry. It’s completely voluntary. They have at least 7 years of seminary life to think about it and often many years before that.
“Please don’t try to insult our intelligence by suggesting that the RCC doesn’t disallow those who have been ordained to get married.”
It doesn’t. I can marry or I can be ordained if I am accepted into a seminary and the bishop decides to ordain me. The choice to pursue either one is entirely mine. No one can make me do either one.
“It’s rather plain that they don’t.”
It’s rather plain that they choose. I know plenty of people who made the choice. The choice was entirely theirs.
Vladimir! Do you really think i was arguing Manning was denying his church had antiquity, and that instead it was not obvious that "in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity" was referring to the sense in which he stated it? If i had only quoted the former, and not "It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness," and to the Reformers argument rejecting the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, etc., all of which i was careful to include (rather than engaging in "deceptive editing)," then you would have a case, but as it is, such fomenting slander makes one look like another over zealous reactionary.
Nope. Ignorance. Again, the document was not made by anyone in the papal court. Therefore, it was something found, something given to them years after the forgery was made. Citing a popular historian like Wilson - who can only rely on those who know better or ignore their research - isn’t going to help your case.
“Vladimir! Do you really think i was arguing Manning was denying his church had antiquity,...”
Why did you cut the first sentence from the passage? State the exact reason you did so.
Yet folks still blame you.
It DOES get aggravatin'; don't it!
They've got Peter!
Oh...WAIT!!!
Yeah; do it NOW!
Before it gets to be 769 replies long!
The point is that Rome made good use of them, and today modern research is troubling the traditional view/spin.
The stupidity of Protestant anti-Catholics doesn’t aggravate me. I expect it. Dealing with it as long as I have here at FR has really helped me develop a lot of respect for those who deal with people with mental illnesses. Protestant anti-Catholic hate, the misrepresentations, the deceptions, the quoting out of context, the outright lies - it’s all to be expected. It’s all they have. It’s all they can use.
It’s just as Newman said, Protestants have to lie.
Well; as the Church LAdy says...
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
Public scandal? Only to MIS-informed anti-Catholics like you.
Even many Protestants admit Peter was the Rock:
The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are
taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
(Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).
William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature
at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on
you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said,
“And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”
Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I
accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According
to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)
Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of
the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H.
J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree,
as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the
Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical
Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW:
Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock”
respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry.
Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most
probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”),
since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The P e s h i t t a
(written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction
between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between
petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek
the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1984), 368.)
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’
follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of
this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which
Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against
extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would
have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV
Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994),
78.)
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the
Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal.
ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . .
The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc.
(Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew,
vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and
on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra
would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or
fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is
almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros
being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has
no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and
masculine petros in Greek]. The Pe****ta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are
kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time
of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on
this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in
French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we
could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
(Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886),
355-356.)
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the
Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately
preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies
himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood
as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this,
whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in
Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote
confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet
stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock
(Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession
of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
(“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1989), 742.)
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s
nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been
called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’
declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the
Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you
are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following
immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16
applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros)
and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus
is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American
Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)
David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic
tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus
will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of
the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in
person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias,
and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
(“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The
new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will,
by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
(The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1961), 93.)
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to
petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the
same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon
which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been
made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession
itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice
against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
(“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books,
1995), 470.)
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=517299.0;wap2
Yup...
He's ALWAYs sayin' sumpin'!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9_8YxDQYCo
MAny Catholics say crazy stuff too.
Shall we listen to them to make an argument; or the Scriptures?
Time for Breakfast. See y’all later...
(No - no cereal for me today...)
More precisely, she rests upon her esoteric understanding of antiquity. Rome dismisses any claims that any of its doctrines are not according to Scripture, and history and tradition, by claiming only she can rightly interpret them.
Remember that while RCAs debate Scripture in seeking to support their traditions, yet they are not to engage in objective examination to determine the truth, and conclusions contrary to Rome that are derived by this means are disallowed, as the only interpretation of Scripture (or tradition and history) that is allowed to have authority is that which Rome gives.
Scripture is not the basis for their assurance of the veracity of such, but the premise of Rome's veracity is, and their goal is to bring you to forsake Scripture as your supreme standard, and instead submit to Rome regardless of the lack of Scriptural substantiation.
“MAny Catholics say crazy stuff too.”
So it’s crazy that they agree with the Bible?
“Shall we listen to them to make an argument; or the Scriptures?”
The Scriptures say Peter is the Rock.
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.