Catholics, Protestants and the Bible

Almost always, it begins with a warm invitation, from nice people. You work with them. They live on either side of you. They are the parents of your children's friends. Most of the millions of Catholics who have defected to one form of Protestantism or other in the last thirty years did not intend to apostatize, when they agreed to "Come go to church with us!"

The individual Catholic frequently does not recognize the profound implications of the invitation. What is being proposed is a grave sin against faith, apostasy, exceeding in moral weight adultery, because faith is a gift received directly from God Himself. Nor does he realize what he is being asked: Does he take his faith seriously? Is he willing to give it up? Does he think the Catholic Church and the holy religion established by the Son of God no better than one founded sixteen centuries later by a man?

The process cannot be set in motion without the Catholic's cooperation. He must see a positive response to the friendly overture as the decisive step on the road that leads to loss of the Faith. Even one who senses danger may, all the same, fear giving offense, should he refer to the defects of false religions: "Exchange Christ, for Luther? The Church of the martyrs for some sect of the Protestant Reformation?" So most of us try something like the following: "I am a Catholic. I know what I have, I treasure the Faith, and I would never leave the Church."

Experience has shown that this will not end the matter; often, it will not even end the conversation. Why? Because the response is going to be, "But the Church is all believers in every church!" The Catholic has just collided with an invisible force: Protestant oral tradition.

This provisional answer-which the Protestant does not even believe himself, although, while he is saying it, he thinks he does-is a dogmatic decree from this infallible Protestant magisterium, which furnishes whatever is needed at any given moment to attack Catholic teaching. It will be followed by a conversation which, if put in graphic form, would resemble a bramble bush.

This oral tradition is a manufactured, unbiblical body of teaching, and it is passed on from one generation to the next. Its basic content; however kaleidoscopic and contradictory, is identifiable because it is unvarying. The essentials consist of what the Reformers denied, what they invented, and what they said the Bible says, mingled with the slanders and calumnies of the Church and of Catholics used by the Reformers to justify the establishment of a religion opposed to the one Christ founded. This body of inconsistencies and non sequiturs is the only thing each and every Protestant believes, whatever "denomination," a euphemism for "sect;" claims him at the moment

While Protestantism officially denies any obligation to accept Revelation, it guarantees Protestant adherence to the negatives of Protestantism by means of this unacknowledged magisterium. But because the very existence of an oral tradition in Protestantism is unsuspected, its deficiencies as a body of false, man-made dogmas which replaces the biblical teaching and Apostolic Tradition preserved by the Church escape notice.

What is actually written in Holy Scripture is never permitted to supplant dogmas decreed by the oral tradition. But this fact is similarly hidden behind the phrases, taken from the oral tradition, in which the Protestant continually proclaims his unshakable attachment to "the Word of God."

The control over the Protestant exercised by that tradition is a secret, even to him. Its operation is protective and wholly negative. It protects Protestant dogma by preventing the Protestant from believing anything the Reformers denied. It is wholly negative in that while the Protestant Bible reader is indoctrinated and remains immersed in error, he is systematically trained to reject only one thing: the truth. He is free to accept only those few doctrines left after the ravages of the Reformation, e.g., the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth of Christ.' But it is not the things he believes which define his identity as a Protestant, but rather those revealed truths he rejects.

The oral tradition dictates the terms and direction in which any discourse between its adherents and Catholics will unfold. Thus, in his contacts with Catholics, the Protestant speaks only of what he does not believe, and why. He does not believe what all Christendom believed for fifteen centuries: the divine institution of a visible Church founded on Peter and his successors, who, acting in his official capacity as head of the Church, is guaranteed not to mislead us, with a separate, sacrificing priesthood and seven sacraments, through which flows the sanctifying grace which enables us to share in the life of God, and eventually, enter heaven. The repudiation of these truths is what makes him a Protestant, and this, his list of denials, is what he wishes to share with the Catholic. His hope is that the Catholic may be brought not to believe what he does not believe.

Because of the barely-concealed but broad and enduring Gnostic streak in Protestantism, the Protestant recoils from the flesh, imagining that he receives his doctrines from what he calls "the Spirit," all the while obeying Luther, and seeking support for Protestant denials of Revelation by quoting other revolutionaries who repudiated truths revealed by God.

The inventions of the Reformers are further safeguarded from exposure because of the Protestant's inability to distinguish what the Bible says from what these 16th-century revolutionaries, whose qualifications as religious leaders consisted largely of hatred of the Catholic Church, said it says. Luther claimed that his dogmas came from Holy Scripture, and since he is falsely portrayed in Protestant¬ism as the very one who "restored the Bible to the people," no one bothers to look and see whether the claim is true.

The Protestant Reformation had its birth and inspiration in Holy Scripture.
Protestantism rests its case upon the Bible.
It has a Bible Christianity.
Its final court of appeal is the Holy Scriptures . . .
No man or institution, no matter how great, can supersede the Word. For Protestants it is the Living Word.'

The first four statements above will be seen in their true light as we move through the following pages. To the first of the italicized assertions, Catholics answer: "Oh, yes, it can." Protestants consistently, habitually, and, wherever and whenever Protestant dogma is threatened, invariably allow their oral tradition to "supersede the Word." And to the second, we say, "Oh, no, it is not." It is Luther's, and/or occasionally some other Reformer's, word which is living; where Protestant dogma is concerned, it is the Bible which is a dead letter. This unexamined myth, that Protestantism is based on the Bible, so thoroughly deceives the Protestant that when he is reciting the dogmas of his oral tradition, he thinks he is quoting Holy Scripture, which he has infallibly interpreted through the guidance of the Holy Ghost

Therefore Protestants, wholly unaware of the oral tradition to which they are in thrall, regularly denounce Tradition in favor of the written Word. Moreover, they oppose, they tell us, any and all authority in matters of religion. They do not suspect that it is they themselves, and not, as they have been taught, Catholics, who scorn Holy Scripture.

The true role of the Bible in Protestantism remains a well kept secret It is a slave to the oral tradition. Those beliefs peculiar to Protestantism cannot be found in Holy Scripture. They are imparted solely by means of their oral tradition. The Bible is forced, whenever possible, to furnish support. It is never permitted to contradict the Reformers. The Catholic who accepts Protestant myths at face value, and believes that "Protestants know the Bible," is as much deceived as the Protestant is. An exposition of Protestant oral tradition will reveal the extent of the Protestant's knowledge of Holy Scripture, and the use he makes of it.

The presentation of Protestant tenets in the following pages will unveil the source of Protestant beliefs. The l6th-century roots, the contradictions, the lack of biblical foundation, and the negative terms in which Protestant dogmas are framed betray the hidden presence of the oral tradition. The negative premise is sometimes disguised: "Faith alone" is a repudiation of everything else. The "all sufficiency of Scripture for faith and life" is a repudiation of Christ's right to found a teaching Church and His right to delegate His own authority, plus a rejection of any authority but the hidden authority in Protestantism, perceived as the speaker's own. It is a dismissal of the sacraments, a dismissal of sanctifying grace. It is a denial of man's need for sanctification. It is a rejection of all, in short, which the Reformers rejected. It is rebellion dressed up and made to sound pious.

First, the Belief, Then the Written Reminder
As I set forth in the following pages texts from Holy Scripture in support of Catholic doctrine and practices, the question might well arise: How do we know that those in the Primitive Church read the Bible text the way the Catholic Church interprets it? The answer is that there was no text to read. First there was the belief, taught orally. And even as the Primitive Church grew, the writing came in only gradually. The Church, whose human representatives spoke for her, had the authority; they instructed and directed the faithful. The first statement below is Our Lord's:
And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Mt 18:17); Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence) (Phil 2:12); Obey your prelates, and be subject to them (Heb 13:17, falsified in the KJV).

What do Catholics mean when they say, "the Church"? According to St Robert Bellarmine, the Church is the visible society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice, and the same seven sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him. Another definition says that the Church is comprised of the living faithful, united under an earthly head, who is the Vicar of Christ, who Himself remains the cornerstone (Ps 86:5). It is the Body of Christ, who is the head of the Church (Eph 5:23), which completes and continues Christ's mission (Col 1:24).

During the very time her bishops were committing to paper the writing which we call the New Testament, as confirmed by that handy history of the apostolic age, the New Testament itself, the Church was a functioning organism. Surviving documents of historians and the Church Fathers testify to the one Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the truth is constantly under attack.

How shall we respond to the well-meaning Protestant's declaration that "the Church is all believers in every church"? It demands, as an answer, a question: "Why, then, should I go to a Protestant sect of your choosing? I am a believer, and therefore, according to the Protestant definition, I am a member of the Church."

On the hidden prompting from the Protestant tradition, this response will be rejected at once. The rejoinder that the Church is all believers was only temporarily useful, to be discarded and forgotten as he proceeds to his next point. The Protestant will now solemnly assure you that one church is as good as another. The logical answer here would be: "That being true, you surely will have no objection if I continue to attend my own?"

Of course, he has an objection. He only says this, that one church is as good as another, but he wishes the Catholic to join him in Protestant error precisely because of his conviction that the Church is invisible, is made up of all believers in every Protestant church, and that it is actually one Protestant church which, in his estimation, is-more or less-as good as another, although his enthusiasm centers on the one he attends at the moment And if you point out to him that no church founded by a creature can possibly be equal to one founded by the Son of God, he will not be listening, or he will not be impressed with this simple statement of truth. The Catholic will feel himself falling through a series of trap doors, as solid ground gives way time after time. There is always another step, another hidden contradiction, another unspoken qualification: "One church is as good as another ... except the Catholic Church."

As promised (by God's grace). Let me know of more of such.

Re Catholics, Protestants and the Bible

Note that the author of this exceedingly poor polemic is evidently a lay women, “Pauline Zingleman,” a wannebe apologist whose 2 books have no Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and she seems to have given up writing books after 1995. Or perhaps finding a publisher.

• The individual Catholic frequently does not recognize the profound implications of the invitation. What is being proposed is a grave sin against faith, apostasy, exceeding in moral weight adultery, because faith is a gift received directly from God Himself...The process cannot be set in motion without the Catholic's cooperation.

Yet the Vatican's DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM states, 108. “Where appropriate, Catholics should be encouraged, in accordance with the Church's norms, to join in prayer with Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.” 118. “In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests..” .”..Before the whole world, let all Christians profess their faith in God, one and three, in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord.” 161 “When Christians live and pray together in the way described in Chapter IV, they are giving witness to the faith which they share and to their baptism,.. "In this unity in mission, which is decided principally by Christ himself, all Christians must find what already unites them even before their full communion is achieved." And thus Fr. John Trigilio on 6/11/2005 states, Catholics MAY attend Protestant services and may sing, pray, etc. but they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ever receive communion in a non-Catholic church. — http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441348&Pg=Forum2&Pgnu=1&recnu=2

Yet the author Pauline here treats all Protestants with scornful contempt. Thus she has a house divided, and preaches a church which itself has different versions claiming to represent one true faith, while her apologists use a definition of Protestantism which is so broad that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 through it. Yet evangelicals, who yet are far more unified in core values and beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome, do not promote a particular church as the one true one — while not holding that all churches are valid or equally good — but generally for a basic faith and unity due to a shared Scriptural supernatural conversion and relationship with the one Lord God and Father by the one Spirit through faith in the one gospel, which is greater than their differences among those who walk in that Spirit.

For the RC alternative to the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture being the supreme standard for Truth as the wholly inspired and accurate and sufficient (in formal and material aspects combined) Word of God, is sola ecclesia, that the Roman Church is the supreme autocratic authority, as Scripture, tradition and history only validly consists of and means what she says. But which means that, unlike Scripture, with men having the last word then she can essentially reinvent herself via interpretation, and which also fosters uncritically following exalted men. For RCs are not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences, as evangelicals are to, for to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. Under which "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

Which in one century this can mean being compelled to exterminate all those whom Rome judges to be “heretics,” and being forbidden to engage in public debate with the same, while in another it can mean affirming such as brethren, and with leaders taking part in Protestant services.

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure,..that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church... — Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

“We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”

“...when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.” [who themselves needed due authorization].” - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2010 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI will visit the Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Rome on March 14 for an ecumenical celebration.

• "Exchange Christ, for Luther?

Which is an absurd false dilemma, as Luther did not deny the Trinity, while Protestants hardly can be said to follow him as if were a pope (most are quite ignorant of him), and in fact Luther was far more Catholic even after his break with Rome than most Protestants and especially evangelicals are. Even as to rejecting his doubts on James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation (which were ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible, which also contained the apocryphal books, if separately.

• the response is going to be, "But the Church is all believers in every church!"

Which, rather than being unScriptural, is clear teaching in Scripture, as only the body of Christ 100% consists of true believers, which is not the case with its visible bodies in which these believers express their faith as do tares. When the Spirit tells us that “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it,” (Ephesians 5:25) and “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit,” (1 Corinthians 12:13) then it is not only referring to one particular church. Yet which is not opposed to the visible bodies in which these believers are to exist. As in the OT, the true people of God existed as a general body, under leaders but not an infallible magisterium. By just presuming the latter, let alone what flowed from it, Rome has disqualified herself as being the one true church, and compelled division. (1Co. 11:19)

Christianity exists as one general nation, with various tribes but manifest by general core beliefs, resulting in evangelicals being most targeted as a problem by the liberal world. Meanwhile Catholicism with Rome and her sects, and the EOs (with her significant dissent) compete with each other, as well as with sola ecclesia cults, for the title of one true church.

Moreover, as seen in the Lord's word to the churches in Rv. 2 and 3, the churches were quite diverse, and no mention is made of a pope to them. Nor does Scripture teach that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church. Or record any apostolic successors, like for James (Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was elected to maintain the original 12. (Rv. 21:14) Nor did they elect any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

The Catholic has just collided with an invisible force: Protestant oral tradition.

Here the sophist Pauline resorts to diverting attention away from the material basis for unScriptural teaching of his church, by going on the offensive in charging Protestantism with the fallacious charge of being based upon the “invisible force” of “oral tradition.” It is indeed basically an invisible force, for while there are “traditions” in Protestantism (weddings, etc.) the basis for any doctrines of required assent must be that of manifest Scriptural warrant. The established 66 book canon of Scripture is consistent with souls recognizing both men and writings as being of God, as is manifest in Scripture.

Other Roman Catholic apologists themselves attest to this, for when they are not vainly charging Protestants with following Luther as a pope, they charge them with division because their faith is based upon what they individually see in Scripture, and as excluding the magisterial office, and of requiring that all doctrine must be explicitly taught in Scripture, and that this is the only source they are to use. All which are strawmen which testify to the ignorance or desperation of dishonestly of such RC apologists.

• This provisional answer-which the Protestant does not even believe himself, although, while he is saying it, he thinks he does-is a dogmatic decree from this infallible Protestant magisterium, which furnishes whatever is needed at any given moment to attack Catholic teaching.

Which is increasingly ludicrous, as no Protestant can claim to possess the charism of infallibility, which is cultic for man, while the veracity of their claims must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, or evidence as regards what they claim outside Scripture.

• This oral tradition is a manufactured, unbiblical body of teaching, and it is passed on from one generation to the next...whatever "denomination," a euphemism for "sect;" claims him at the moment

Which is more Roman recourse to argument by assertion, as in reality those who hold most strongly to the most basic distinctive Truth of the Reformation described above have overall been the strongest defenders of core Truths, including ones they hold in common with Catholics. Moreover, it is churches who are closest to Rome that are the most changeable and liberal in doctrine.

• The control over the Protestant exercised by that tradition is a secret, even to him. Its operation is protective and wholly negative. It protects Protestant dogma by preventing the Protestant from believing anything the Reformers denied. It is wholly negative in that while the Protestant Bible reader is indoctrinated and remains immersed in error, he is systematically trained to reject only one thing: the truth.

It is secret because it is a figment of Pauline's imagination or a product of her dishonest creative writing, as in fact, consistent with the fundamental premise of the supremacy of Scripture, evangelicals overall both affirm core Scriptural truths which Rome also professes, while rejecting things which Reformers held, as reformation is not the work of one day or two, but must continue. And RC apologists actually criticize Protestants for not being trained/indoctrinated, and appeal to them since they are not but can be persuaded by evidence, as RCs are not to be. But poor Pauline is much a papist by herself in her scornful extremism.

• He is free to accept only those few doctrines left after the ravages of the Reformation, e.g., the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth of Christ.

Which is more absurdity, as not only does the Apostle' Creed see overall assent in historical Protestantism, but many more Truths, while one of the most typical charges by Roman Catholic apologists that the Protestant is free to believe anything!

• the Protestant speaks only of what he does not believe, and why

More lying or inexcusable ignorance, as the evangelical world far more abounds with classic commentaries supporting what is historically believed, as well as how to live it out. Concerning practical application, the extensive classic Matthew Henry's complete commentary is alone enough to refute the claims

• He does not believe what all Christendom believed for fifteen centuries: the divine institution of a visible Church founded on Peter and his successors, who, acting in his official capacity as head of the Church, is guaranteed not to mislead us, with a separate, sacrificing priesthood and seven sacraments, through which flows the sanctifying grace which enables us to share in the life of God, and eventually, enter heaven.

Rather, because the basis for Truth for the evangelical is not oral tradition as charged, but is instead the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then it rejects the accretions of tradition lists above. For in FACT there simply is no perpetually infallible papal office in Scripture (which even the tradition-intensive EOs reject), nor is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility seen or promised or necessary in Scripture for the discernment and preservation of Truth and faith. With Scripture being the supreme standard, as is <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial ">abundantly evidenced.</a>

And which does not teach an infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, or a separate, sacrificing priesthood, as instead what were ordained were presbuteros (senior/elder)/episkopos (superintendent/overseer), these denoting one office, (Titus 1:5-7) and which are NEVER called “hiereus” (priests) by the Holy Spirit, with the only sacrificing priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church being that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). See here.

And instead of dispensing bread or transubstantiated flesh and blood as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7; Acts 15:7-9)

Moreover, they are to baptize and take part in the Lord's supper, ordain pastors, anoint the sick, confess faults to each others, etc.

• Because of the barely-concealed but broad and enduring Gnostic streak in Protestantism, the Protestant recoils from the flesh, imagining that he receives his doctrines from what he calls "the Spirit," all the while obeying Luther,

Which is more absurd nonsense, as shown above. Pauline seems to think the more she can repeat her assertions then the more credibility they gain. Luther was actually closer to the Catholic conception of the Lord's Supper than Protestants overall today, while it is Rome which channels amorphous oral tradition into doctrine. Listen to Ratzinger explain the Assumption, which is lacking in early evidence:

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…

But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

• Protestants consistently, habitually, and, wherever and whenever Protestant dogma is threatened, invariably allow their oral tradition to "supersede the Word."

Which is more vain repetitive Roman rhetoric, bombastic arguments by bare assertion, while the reality is that because the veracity of Protestant doctrine must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then the repetitive attacking the character of Luther has been in vain, and entire RC web sites have been devoted to compelling Scripture to support Rome in response to evangelicals. As that was the basis for RC doctrine, while in reality the goal of this appeal is to covert souls into implicitly assenting to what Rome promulgates as if she was Scripture.

• It is Luther's, and/or occasionally some other Reformer's, word which is living; where Protestant dogma is concerned, it is the Bible which is a dead letter.

Which is more ignorant or brainwashed nonsense or dishonesty, as explained before. No class of people personally reads the Bible more than evangelicals, those which hold most strongly to the most basic Protestant distinctive of the supremacy of Scripture, and which people show they are willing to seek to “prove all things” that are taught by that source. Which is what RC apologists criticize as a basis for assurance of Truth.

• The true role of the Bible in Protestantism remains a well kept secret It is a slave to the oral tradition.

More repetitive nonsense, no matter how comforting it is to Pauline and other papists.

• Those beliefs peculiar to Protestantism cannot be found in Holy Scripture. They are imparted solely by means of their oral tradition. The Bible is forced, whenever possible, to furnish support. It is never permitted to contradict the Reformers.

Another vain assertion, while instead the sad reality is more like, “those beliefs peculiar to Catholicism cannot be found in Holy Scripture. They are imparted solely by means of their oral tradition. The Bible is forced, whenever possible, to furnish support. It is never permitted to contradict the magisterium.” See here.

• The negative premise is sometimes disguised: "Faith alone" is a repudiation of everything else.

Another strawman, as sola fide refers to the faith itself which effects obedience is what actually appropriates justification, and thus one is accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6) on His account, not his own merits. And thus Westminster (Chapter 11.2, Part Two) states, “faith is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces,” and like other reformers, in his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, “a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

• The "all sufficiency of Scripture for faith and life" is a repudiation of Christ's right to found a teaching Church and His right to delegate His own authority, plus a rejection of any authority but the hidden authority in Protestantism, perceived as the speaker's own.

Another strawman, as Westminster actually affirms: "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm) For Scripture being supreme and sufficient as the standard for Truth and supplying it does not mean it alone is so formally sufficient so that it has a place in the believers life, but that is provides the Truth such as which validates and defines the teaching office, the use of reason, the witness of the Spirit, etc.

• It is a dismissal of the sacraments, a dismissal of sanctifying grace. It is a denial of man's need for sanctification. It is a rejection of all, in short, which the Reformers rejected.

But all of which the Reformers did not reject. Even after 1518 Luther was “quite clear that it is in and through the public performance of the sacramental signs in the visible Church that grace is bestowed on those who believe” — http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/004-the-catholic-luther). Thus Protestants are not following “tradition” when they reject this means, and not all do. In addition, all are to uphold the need for grace and further sanctification, and exhortations to which abound in Protestantism.

• As I set forth in the following pages texts from Holy Scripture in support of Catholic doctrine and practices, the question might well arise: How do we know that those in the Primitive Church read the Bible text the way the Catholic Church interprets it? The answer is that there was no text to read. First there was the belief, taught orally

Which is absolutely absurd, and testifies to either more Catholic ignorance or the superfluous status afforded Scripture in the foundation of the church, or careless apologetics. For in reality, contrary to the RC magisterial model, in which the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture and recipients of Divine promises are the infallible authority to be followed, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p><p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Thus the oral preaching was subject to examination by the established word of God, the Scriptures, as the noble Bereans exampled. (Acts 17:11)

• The Church, whose human representatives spoke for her, had the authority; they instructed and directed the faithful. The first statement below is Our Lord's: And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Mt 18:17);

And which here actually refers to personal disputes, and is nothing new, as this binding and loosing was also given to the OT magisterial authority in cases brought to it for judgment, (Dt. 17:8-13; cf. Mt. 18:15-20) disobedience to which was a capital offense. And which in the NT church in temporal matters is to be a wise man among the brethren. (1Cor. 6:1-4) And fathers and husbands are given some binding and loosing power in regards to daughters and wives respectively. (Num 30:3-7) Even valid civil authorities have a power to bind and loose, physically. (Rm. 13:1-7) .

Moreover, in spiritual matters the power to bind and loose can also be exercised by the righteous laity of fervent prayer (lacking with me): “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:19) “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.” (James 5:16-18)

James is teaching that any righteous man can be like Elias who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years, and then loosed them again.

• Obey your prelates, and be subject to them (Heb 13:17, falsified in the KJV).

Another bare assertion, while in fact there is no real difference between her DRB (Obey your prelates and be subject to them) and the KJV here (Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves). There is no distinctive word for “prelates” versus rulers” as the Greek actually just says “Obey rulers/governors [hēgeomai] you and submit for he/they watch for your souls.

• What do Catholics mean when they say, "the Church"? According to St Robert Bellarmine, the Church is the visible society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice, and the same seven sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

Which testifies to RCs being the ones following oral tradition, not Protestants. As again the NT manifestly was not as Bellarmine describes. No supreme infallible head whom all the church looked to in Rome; no separate class of believers distinctively titled “priests,” offering up transubstantiated flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sins, to be literally consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life, around which sacrament all else revolved. No distinction in titles between presbuteros and episkopos, etc.

• During the very time her bishops were committing to paper the writing which we call the New Testament, as confirmed by that handy history of the apostolic age, the New Testament itself, the Church was a functioning organism.

Which testifies against Rome, while the NT was not a project of the magisterium, as inferred here, as it was not until 1400 years after the last book was penned, and after the death of Luther, that Rome provided an infallible, indisputable canon of the Bible. See here.

• Surviving documents of historians and the Church Fathers testify to the one Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the truth is constantly under attack.

More propaganda that the willingly deceived reiterate, while in reality even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against this propaganda, which in time past included forgeries to say what Scripture will not. The often claimed and “vowed “unanimous consent” of the fathers is far from “unanimous,” while the EOs even deny papal infallibility and degree of power, among other things, and the sects and schism in Roman Catholicism testify to her redefinition of doctrines.

Then you have the one true identifiable church in times before the Reformation:

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

And behold the unifying modern magisterium. As one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

• How shall we respond to the well-meaning Protestant's declaration that "the Church is all believers in every church"? It demands, as an answer, a question: "Why, then, should I go to a Protestant sect of your choosing? I am a believer, and therefore, according to the Protestant definition, I am a member of the Church." The Protestant will now solemnly assure you that one church is as good as another. The logical answer here would be: "That being true, you surely will have no objection if I continue to attend my own?"

What an absurd argument. As said before, the Church as the body of Christ, which is the one the Lord bought with His own sinless shed blood, does indeed consist of all believers, and only believers, but which is not contrary to the visible church in which they express their faith, as do tares.

And it certainly does not mean all churches are equal, which is why the modern evangelical movement arose.

• ...his conviction that the Church is invisible, is made up of all believers in every Protestant church, and that it is actually one Protestant church which, in his estimation, is-more or less-as good as another,

More absurdity from a strawman.

• .And if you point out to him that no church founded by a creature can possibly be equal to one founded by the Son of God,

Which is simply begging the question again, which presumption is what this attempted polemic proceeds from. And itself proceeds from the RC basis for your assurance of truth, which is that of the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

. The RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Which effectively nukes the church. All for now.

Whatever denomination you choose matters little. Religion and division does not come from God. Those are inventions of man, often under the influence of the god of this world, or the result of the strife and confusion he sows. All that matters is that you are dead to sin, and alive IN CHRIST. The only way that happens is to hear and believe God’s Word. It was that way at the beginning, and will continue until Jesus comes for his Body.

You CANNOT have faith in a denomination, church, pastor, pope, cardinal, or even a blue jay. Faith ONLY comes from hearing God’s Word, and receiving the revelation that comes from that same Living Word in your spirit. Faith must be founded on God’s Truth, not the reasoning of men or the ceremonies of the religious.

Jesus is the Head of the Body, and ONLY HEAD of the Church. The denominational label is insignificant. The Holy Spirit is given to Believers as a Guide and Comforter. Along with God’s Word, any Believer can know and believe God’s Truth.

Had the early churches held to God’s Word, and not strayed into religion, there might just be one single, unified fellowship. But when you remove the Spirit and the Truth, add a spoonful of Jewish tradition, sprinkle in some Greek philosophy, add two big scoops of pagan mythology, and stir in a few cups of imperial pomp, you end up with something far different than the revelation God gave Paul of the Body of Christ. The devolution away from the Truth was happening while Paul was still writing his letters.

2 Timothy 1:13-15 (AMP)
13 Hold fast and follow the pattern of wholesome and sound teaching which you have heard from me, in [all] the faith and love which are [for us] in Christ Jesus.
14 Guard and keep [with the greatest care] the precious and excellently adapted [Truth] which has been entrusted [to you], by the [help of the] Holy Spirit Who makes His home in us.
15 You already know that all who are in Asia turned away and forsook me, Phygelus and Hermogenes among them.

The revelation God gave Paul was so different, so perfect, and so sublime in its divine simplicity that the religious had to alter it. The idea that an individual could have intimate fellowship directly with their Heavenly Father was disastrous for the religious ruling class, so it had to be undermined. The revelation of the Mystery, the Body of Christ, was set aside first. It was replaced by schisms and sects. Next, the Truth concerning the Lord’s return for his Body was set aside, and a hundred different theories on the End Times emerged, many fueled by antisemitism, or just plain ignorance of God’s Word. Finally, justification by faith through God’s Grace was forgotten. In its place the religious demanded works, ceremonies, and all sorts of things based on human merit, preventing people from having assurance in Christ, and enjoying the certainty of their place in God’s family. Church membership was assured through fear of hell and intimidation. Doctrinal purity enforced through threat of torture or death. Heresy hunting became a profitable enterprise, along with merchandising hope. Paul’s revelation was almost completely lost to humanity.

Paul frequently wrote against this in his day. As he explained to Timothy, what was needful - preach the Word, while warning of those that stray from the Truth, and turn to fables. That is exactly what occurred throughout Christendom. God always maintains a small remnant of Believers, people who do love Him and study His Word. But the world was ruled by the religious, and by their fruit, you know what was in their heart.

2 Timothy 2:18 (KJV)
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

2 Timothy 3:8 (KJV)
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV)
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

As the Word was translated and made more widely available, people began to read it, and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Brave Believers stood up and questioned what was being taught, many gave their lives for the Truth. Power is intoxicating, so there was much resistance to anyone questioning the dominant religion of the day. But finally, after much bloodshed on all sides, the split was official. The greatest gift that emerged from the reformation was not more division, but the extensive translation and distribution of God’s Word to the people of all nations. Now they could read Paul’s letters and see that they were dead to sin and alive in Christ. They knew that God was not some distant deity who needed to be approached through some priest, pastor, or religion. He was their Heavenly Father, dwelling inside them and available all the time. They were no longer in religious bondage, held captive by the elements and rudiments of the world, but made alive in Christ and seated in Heavenly places. They did not need to earn God’s Love, they experienced it because His love is shed abroad in the hearts of Believers. The Truth made them FREE! Once you experience liberty in Christ, political freedom is a natural extension.

Similar cycles repeat in protestant churches. Some error was ignorantly carried with them when they split from Rome, or other denominations. Instead of holding exclusively to God’s Word and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, some have turned to social preaching or the reasoning of man. It should be no surprise, the Jews left Egyptian bondage, but they carried inside them Egypt’s religious traditions - allowing the golden calf to manifest in the wilderness and turning to idolatry in the very presence of their Creator who had just miraculously rescued them. You can take the people out of religion, but its so much harder to take the religion out of the people.

No matter where you find yourself in fellowship, you need to be vigilant. I visited a denominational church on Sunday. The minister has multiple degrees from all the right schools, and is a respected, published theologian. In a discussion on Job, he made the remark that God made a wager with Satan over Job. At first I thought he was being flippant, but this was what he really believed. If you don’t open the Bible and study it for yourself, and instead rely exclusively on theologians, you will end up in a religious ditch. I was disappointed any preacher would have such a poor understanding of Job, and even worse, such low regard for his Heavenly Father.

Find a good church, and if so inclined, a good denomination. But make sure you are not relying on them solely for your spiritual growth. That denomination, priest, pastor, or evangelist, is human. They make mistakes.

There is great folly in this, “my denomination can beat up yours” mentality. Believers are called to Spiritual unity, and peace, but not necessarily doctrinal unity. Stick to God’s Word, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you. That is the only place you can be certain of the Truth. God promises to place everyone in the Body where HE pleases. Let God be God. Yield to His Will and His Wisdom.

Ephesians 4:1-6 (KJV)
1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Matthew 16:18 is impossible to overcome as well.

Oh?

Tell that to Great Catholic Leaders who MIGHT just KNOW a little bit more than anonymous FR posters!

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.

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.