Could it be...
Posted on 01/18/2015 8:33:58 AM PST by ADSUM
Another great pic. I love it.
Eagle, my dad was a catholic, and he believed this stuff, that if someone dies for their country, they are saved. I did not think a whole lot about it, till I became a Christian, then I figured it was a lie from the pit of Hell, but I had never heard anyone say that except my dad.
Speaking of pure idiocy --- the above sort of commentary fits THAT bill, for you keep aiming that at people here (and their beliefs) who are most certainly not the sort which Ireneus (whom you seem to rely upon) was writing against.
From http://orthodoxwiki.org/Against_Heresies
Do you see the above? Only fragments of the Greek text remain. The Latin translation comes from the better part of 200 years later (which is not exactly a "short time" later).
He was not a well documented or much repeated writer either (or else there would be far many more Greek text copies been made) not in comparison to many others -- until almost a couple of centuries later -- right about when a bishop of Rome began attempt to assert 'authority' of that bishopric alone -- over all other bishops.
Cherry-picking select quotes from that writer simply won't do. Things need be examined more in entirety.
From http://orthodoxwiki.org/Irenaeus_of_Lyons The Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the gospel, and by them we also have learned the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God—as the Lord said to them, 'He who hears you hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me, and Him Who sent Me' [Lk.10:16]. For we learned the plan of our salvation from no other than from those through whom the gospel came to us. The first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For it is not right to say that they preached before they had come to perfect knowledge, as some dare to say, boasting that they are the correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord had risen from the dead, and they were clothed with the power from on high when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were filled with all things and had perfect knowledge. They went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good things that come to us from God, and proclaiming peace from heaven to all men, all and each of them equally being in possession of the gospel of God. -- Against the Heresies, III
I enlarged the particular portions to make them more difficult to ignore. And those portions -- if we are to be relying upon Irenaeus, show much of your own past discourse on this thread to have been very much in error.
Irenaeus himself does not endorse anything near to the concept of singular papacy, and that being inheritable through only Peter, and that going only to the Church of Rome, even though he is often enough trotted out as if he did support that particular aspect.
Perhaps that goes right over the heads of Roman Catholics?
It certainly appear to go over the heads of many, anyway.
Singular papacy was an entirely foreign concept among the Church, yet that starkly rank heresy seems the very thing which you are straining to find support for, insulting each and every soul who raises opposition to that particular twisted version of "Church".
There is still yet much missing of your own coverage of Ireneus.
Allow a genuine scholar (Philip Schaff) to show you; from
[a.d. 120–202.] This history introduces us to the Church in her Western outposts. We reach the banks of the Rhone, where for nearly a century Christian missions have flourished. Between Marseilles and Smyrna there seems to have been a brisk trade, and Polycarp had sent Pothinus into Celtic Gaul at an early date as its evangelist. He had fixed his see at Lyons, when Irenæus joined him as a presbyter, having been his fellow-pupil under Polycarp. There, under the “good Aurelius,” as he is miscalled (a.d. 177), arose the terrible persecution which made “the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne” so memorable. It was during this persecution that Irenæus was sent to Rome with letters of remonstrance against the rising pestilence of heresy; and he was probably the author of the account of the sufferings of the martyrs which is appended to their testimony.[2649] But he had the mortification of finding the Montanist heresy patronized by Eleutherus the Bishop of Rome; and there he met an old friend from the school of Polycarp, who had embraced the Valentinian heresy. We cannot doubt that to this visit we owe the lifelong struggle of Irenæus against the heresies that now came in, like locusts, to devour the harvests of the Gospel. But let it be noted here, that, so far from being “the mother and mistress” of even the Western Churches, Rome herself is a mission of the Greeks; [2650] Southern Gaul is evangelized from Asia Minor, and Lyons checks the heretical tendencies of the Bishop at Rome. Ante-Nicene Christianity, and indeed the Church herself, appears in Greek costume which lasts through the synodical period; and Latin Christianity, when it begins to appear, is African, and not Roman. It is strange that those who have recorded this great historical fact have so little perceived its bearings upon Roman pretensions in the Middle Ages and modern times.[2649] Eusebius, book v. to the twenty-seventh chapter, should be read as an introduction to this author.
[2650] Milman, Hist. Latin Christianity, b. i. pp. 27, 28, and the notes.
Dis you notice that the bishopric of Rome was not beyond falling prey to "heresy" itself, even if but a temporary condition which Irenaeus himself had to combat? There is more too, for there were those in the early Church whom were forced to oppose "pope" Victor also, when that man (the first Roman bishop to do so) attempted to assert himself as having singularly authority over all other bishops. He was corrected in no uncertain terms-- for that. Most of the RCC seem to either not know of these things -- or else not understand them -- if you really want to talk about things going over people's heads.
But I've got to hand it to the apologists for Rome. They are a dedicated group. It's too bad that most everything they touch is tainted by some form of error, or outright falsehood.
Enough with the gratuitous insults.
If not for Schaff (a Protestant) those of Rome would not have had much in the way of English translation for what writings are attributed to Irenaeus --- other than small portions (such as you have quoted) which were "cherry-picked" by those of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century.
It was such slanted cherry-picking of quotes which Schaff and other Protestants went to great effort to correct --- by providing English language access to the fuller record, and hence the fuller truth of the matters...which fuller history often goes against the way those "of Rome" claim things to be -- showing 'Rome' to have long been misrepresenting itself.
It's not that it goes over everyone's head. The problem is the evidence from the earliest beginnings of the Church go 180 degrees opposite direction such concepts as there having been some sort of widely accepted "papacy" at Rome, including from even Irenaeus.
When Irenaeus wrote of "all must agree" with the Church of Rome, he was writing against Gnostic corruptions of Christianity, not of those whom in later centuries would be found opposing later corruptions of the Gospel introduced by the Church of Rome.
There is a small problem too -- with what comes down to us in this day attributed to Irenaeus.
In your previous citation from 3.2.2 he wrote of the Church at Rome being founded by both Peter and Paul...which most likely is not exactly true, as in directly, by their own hands, and by their own presence there been established...for it cannot be, other than them having done so rather remotely -- as in there were those of among the early Church having traveled to Rome, bringing the Gospel to the synagogues which were there in Rome, some years before Peter or Paul went to Rome.
Paul himself, according to what can be pieced together from Scripture and other evidences, having been there first, but not staying, then returning years later, with the last resulting in himself living out the rest of his days there.
Although both of those Apostles were most likely there later in their lives (and each martyred there at Rome) there are traces of the Gospel having been introduced to Rome before either of them arrived there personally in the flesh as it were, but the general understanding which Eusebius later writes about concerning each of them dying for their faith, at Rome, is likely how the concept of the Church at Rome having been founded by both of them made it's way into later description.
Stop right there.
Do you have any idea who's translation of the above you are utilizing?
I ask that, for I doubt that you know...and as far as I can tell, are yourself cribbing from, copy/pasting isolated quotations from RC apologetics pages -- which you do not supply links to.
The Roberts-Donaldson and J.B. Lightfoot & Harmer translations do not say "hold the presidency in love" but instead, "presides in love" which is a bit different, and doesn't carry the "singular papacy for Rome" note, which the cherry-pickers (since the Oxford Movement, at least) indulge themselves in -- at expense of the wider truth of the history of the Church.
Some folks may have bad eyesight...
Could it be... (cue the alien guy) that they've been 'told' VARIOUS versions of the story??
Only what's told NOW is of any consequence.
We've all seen how the "is Peter the Rock?" quotes from Catholic Leaders gets almost totally ignored.
And just where in Scripture is THAT phrase found?
Or is that another fabrication of the Catholic church, as if I have to ask?
Unless you have verifiable proof of any of them saying this, you need to withdraw this comment as it could be construed as libel.
Yes and there is wide spread disagreement between those writers you cling to.
By appealing to the ECFs the rcc has opened itself up to examination through their writings. These have been found to be contradictory on many topics near and dear to the rcc. Notably the papacy and Mary.
... why take it selectively and ignore Luke 7:50?
Catholics IGNORE these very words of the Queen of Heaven!
Luke 1 46
And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, 47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.
• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's 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 , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
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. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
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:.
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and 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.'
“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.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Welcome to the brave OLD world of Catholic leaders...
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Welcome to the brave NEW(?) world of Catholic priests...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Say!!
I've just read some QUOTES from these famous folks!!!
Oh; little man; we surely can!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0
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.