Martin Luther: Definitely Not a Jew - The Protestant Reformation and Anti-Semitism

Tablet Magazine ^ | October 31, 2017 | Verónica Zaragovia

[CondoleezzaProtege]

On Oct. 31, 1517, Luther nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the wooden doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. In his theses, Luther criticized the pope and Catholic Church practices like the selling of indulgences for redemption.

But Luther wrote more than just the 95 Theses. He’s also the author of a corpus of virulent anti-Jewish writings. Over the next 30 years, as Protestantism took root, Luther evolved from being tolerant of Jews, hopeful they could become good Christians, to being disgusted with them. He described Jews as blasphemous, contaminators and murderers who should be expelled by Protestant authorities.

In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood, and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them…”

Others ask whether this is an anachronistic reading of history. Luther certainly was not the only one of his time to bash Jews. Plus, Luther also attacked Turks, Islam, and the papacy.

“This is precisely the opportunity to ask those kinds of questions,” said Dean Bell, professor of history at Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago.

Luther didn’t start off writing so spitefully of Jews. In 1523 he wrote the essay “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” hopeful that Jews would see the ties between the Old Testament and Jesus’ doctrines...

About 20 years later, though, he had lost sympathy. “Even now they cannot give up their inane raving boast that they are the chosen people of God, after they have been dispersed and rejected for 1,500 years!”

In 2015, the German Protestant Church expressed official guilt over Luther’s Jew hate.

[af_vet_1981]

... the Church at Rome being the Roman Catholic church ...

It is the historical record, and not just at Rome, but also at the other churches in the Mediterranean and Near East. The alternative, that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church disappeared from the face of the earth and new religious movements started, not by prophets, not by apostles, but by dissimilar rebels in the 16th Century, is contrary to the scriptures. There must be an unbroken historical connection from the First Century until this day. The Jews have that.

[daniel1212]

It is the historical record, and not just at Rome, but also at the other churches in the Mediterranean and Near East. The alternative, that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church disappeared from the face of the earth and new religious movements started, not by prophets, not by apostles, but by dissimilar rebels in the 16th Century, is contrary to the scriptures. There must be an unbroken historical connection from the First Century until this day. The Jews have that.

So you just ignore what already refuted you and want to waste my time with more of your mantra? Besides the uninspired history of men attesting contrary to Rome , the most reliable substantive historical record simply does not manifest Catholic distinctives , and while some simple humble souls yet saw thru the smoke enough to find salvation, and thus the one true church prevailed - that being the body of Christ since it only and always consistent 100% of true believers - the church of Rome became the most manifest deformation of the NT church in the light of the inspired record of that church.

The Reformation did not start a new church, but was a partial and necessary reformation of the faith once delivered. And whlie it did not begin with apostles, and Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) the movement did begin with prophet-type believers in the sense of forth-telling (John the Baptist did not do miracles himself or prophecy) in facing down hardened men, (cf. Ezekiel 3:4-9) with Scripture being their authority.

As regards "an unbroken historical connection from the First Century until this day. The Jews have that," for Rome to claim that takes some finesse of the word "unbroken," while even that does not mean such cannot be dissent against, and or perpetually possess ensured magisterial infallibility. If that was the case, 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, versus following itinerant preachers! Thank God they did the latter, contrary to the Catholic premise.

But I so much as warned you not to do more damage to your church with your specious cultic attempts to defend your unholy amalgam, which on doctrine alone cannot be the NT church, but it appears you are compelled to do the latter.

Here is a new thread on the church you would have us conservative evangelicals join, and join you as brethren with Ted Kennedy Catholics along with cultic defenders. No thank you. Cardinal Burke: ‘Very Grave Problem of Homosexual Culture in the Church

[af_vet_1981]

The Reformation did not start a new church,

It started new faith communities that went in different directions without apostles or prophets. As posted earlier, it was a rebellion.

[daniel1212]

And neither we nor I claim to have been or are “holier than thou,” or looking down in pride, but want to be part of fellowships which are sound in doctrine and seek to be what Christ wants us to be and do. Which leads us away from Rome as well as liberal Prot communities.

[af_vet_1981]

1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, ...

They did; the authority of the seat of Moses was taken from the former rulers of Israel and given to the Apostle(s). There was one holy catholic and apostolic Church. That is why there has to be an unbroken chain from the First Century until now; the rebellion in the 16th Century has neither the historicity nor the authority.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses seventeen to nineteen ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[daniel1212]

It started new faith communities that went in different directions without apostles or prophets.

You mean Rome is a different different community, being manifestly not the NT church of apostles or prophets, no matter how much you imagine linkage back to the 1st c., church legitimizes it.

As posted earlier, it was a rebellion.

The NT church began in rebellion, as did the USA, in both cases against corruption, as did the Reformation, against a church of pseudo-apostles and pope-prophets, who today are in manifest illicit rebellion to Scripture and its church. .

[daniel1212]

1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, ...

They did; the authority of the seat of Moses was taken from the former rulers of Israel and given to the Apostle(s).

PLAINLY WRONG! The NT church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, as they followed an itinerant Preacher and His band whom those who sat in the seat of Moses rejected.

But who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not on the basis of self-acclaimed ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), which is the basis for Catholic assurance.

Rome has no more claim, to authority overall than claimed descendants of Scribes and Pharisees have.

Meanwhile, even Catholic scholarship, among others, provides testimony against your propaganda .

[af_vet_1981]

The NT church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, as they followed an itinerant Preacher and His band whom those who sat in the seat of Moses rejected.

1. He was not an itinerant Preacher. He was a Rabbi, the Son of God, and the King of Israel.
2. The Church was built by the Messiah Himself and He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth to His chosen Apostle, Simon Bar Jonah/Cephas/Peter.
3. The Messiah warned that seat of Moses would be taken from the hypocrites and given to a nation rendering the fruits in their season to our Father who is in heaven.
4. The Messiah affirmed the authority of the seat of Moses, while warning against hypocrisy.
5. The Church was founded by the Messiah Himself as the chief cornerstone, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

...

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

...

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

...

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

...

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

John, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses forty five to forty nine ,
Matthew, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses eighteen to nineteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty one, Protestant verses forty two to forty five,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty three, Protestant verses one to three,
Ephesians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses eleven to twenty two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Mr Rogers]

“At the same time, his writings show that he was not a saintly person. He definitely had a mean, vulgar streak.”

Most people of the time did. The writings of Sir Thomas More (A Man for All Seasons) concerning William Tyndale are filled with bitterness and hatred.

[daniel1212]

He was not an itinerant Preacher. He was a Rabbi, the Son of God, and the King of Israel.

Try to consider context: that of the judgment of the historical magisterium, which in the Catholic model for ascertaining validity, are the infallible authorities. In which the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation are the sure interpreters of it (and one cannot even discover its contexts apartr from faith in this intermediator). But the NT church began contrary to the Catholic model.

The Church was built by the Messiah Himself

A invalid rebel according to those who sat in the seat of the historical magisterium

He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven

Which key is the gospel, and which was given to all the apostles and believers,

and the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth to His chosen Apostle, Simon Bar Jonah/Cephas/Peter.

Which was given to all the apostles and believers,

The power of binding loosing, like that of "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do," (John 14:13,14) is not an autocratic power, one that can add to the word of God such as inventing ordained church offices, but such is subject to the will of God, and conformity with Scripture. This applies to the church and it also did to the Scribes and Pharisees. Who, though they sat in the seat of Moses, were reproved by the Lord from Scripture for teaching as doctrines the traditions of men. Based on Catholic logic, they had that power, however, the Lord makes it clear they were not above Scripture. (Mark 7:2-16)

The power of binding loosing actually flows from the OT, judicially to bind or loose one from guilt, (Dt. 17:8-13) and even civil courts have that power (Matthew 18:34) as well as husbands or fathers to bind or loose a wife or daughter to her vow. (Numbers 30:1-15) Yet formal judicial actions by the church are executed under leadership, not autocratically but in union with all the church. (Matthew 18:16-18; which text in context deals with personal disputes). The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5. Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

But as seen in Matthew 18:19-20 and James 5:16-18, the spiritual power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but as many of Elijah-type righteousness and fervent prayer (Elijah bound and loosed the heavens), though that is sadly not me.

The Messiah warned that seat of Moses would be taken from the hypocrites and given to a nation rendering the fruits in their season to our Father who is in heaven.

But if historical magisterial linkage validates invalidates dissent, as RCs argue for their magisterium, then followers of Jesus of Nazareth were wrong.

However, if the common souls were correct to hold John to be a prophet indeed, and Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah based on Scriptural substantiation, contrary to the judgment of the historical magisterium, then we also can be correct in ascertaining what is of God and what is not, based on the weight Scriptural substantiation.

The Messiah affirmed the authority of the seat of Moses, while warning against hypocrisy.

We do likewise. And require submission to all valid authority over us, including civil powers. But not as precluding warranted Scriptural dissent. Nor to foreign powers, not matter how much said powers assert they cannot err. Rome is such, and to whom we owe no allegiance.

The Church was founded by the Messiah Himself as the chief cornerstone, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Which is another specious claim based on isolationist eisegesis. .

For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

Then you have Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church. Including falsified history

The RCs imagine they are presenting a valid polemic testifies to their indoctrination in propaganda. Or perhaps a tactic to waste our time.

[Elsie]

It started new faith communities that went in different directions without apostles or prophets.

HMMMmmm…

He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.

[Elsie]

Still don't get it; do you; after many rebukes from Early Church fathers...

---

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.

[Elsie]

He gave some to be bishops, cardinals, popes.

Oh; wait....

[af_vet_1981]

Which key is the gospel, and which was given to all the apostles and believers,

I do not find that view plausible.

The Messiah specifically said He would give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to the Apostle Peter. He did not say the key is the gospel. The key to the kingdom of David symbolizes power and authority invested in stewards under a king. For example, the Kingdom promised to David and his seed forever. Shebna was a steward of King David. He was replaced by Hilkiah because of poor performance and the key of the house of David was invested in Hilkiah. Similarly, King Messiah chose the Apostle Peter as his steward and gave him, and the apostles in unity, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with the power and authority to bind and loose.

And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

...

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

...

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Second Samuel, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses sixteen to seventeen ,
Isaiah, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses twenty to twenty two ,
Revelation, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verse seven ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[HarleyD]

What Luther stated about the Jews pales in comparison to what the Catholics did to the Waldensians. You may wish to read this at:

A History of the Waldensians

Shall we talk about the Catholic led crusades into the Holy Land to take it back from the evil Muslims while were at it?

It would pay you to remember that Luther came out of the Catholic Church. Any biases he might have had were undoubtedly part of the Church.

[daniel1212]

I do not find that view plausible. The Messiah specifically said He would give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to the Apostle Peter. He did not say the key is the gospel.

Of course you do not see what Scripture teaches, which is consistent with the fact that . RCs must support their elitist church, and not go wherever the Scriptural truth leads. However, just how does one enter the kingdom of God in the only inspired record of the NT church? By coming to Peter and popes as a king and petitioning him to open the gates to Heaven, or by believing the gospel he preached, that of repentance and faith which purifies the heart and effects obedience? Only the latter. Peter was the first to use the key or keys, whichever you prefer ("kleis" is singular in Luk_11:52, Rev_3:7, Rev_20:1)

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: (Colossians 1:13)

The key to the kingdom of David symbolizes power and authority invested in stewards under a king. For example, the Kingdom promised to David and his seed forever. Shebna was a steward of King David. He was replaced by Hilkiah because of poor performance and the key of the house of David was invested in Hilkiah.

And just where is this infallibly defined as meaning this? If it is not, then even for a RC its meaning is not certain. And to the contrary, if Peter was the kind of royal steward of Is. 22 then we would see this manifested in Acts and the church epistles and Revelation. Yet we simply do not see Peter manifested in Scripture as a David to whom the church looked to as its infallible head reigning over all, or having a perpetuated supreme office. The Peter of Scripture is simply not your Peter , and even Catholic researchers testify against your Peter being your royal head.

As for Is. 22, Nowhere does the Holy Spirit invoke Is. 22 this as pertaining to Peter, and not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36:22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually states:

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)

Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency.

Yet if we are looking for a future fulfillmen, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)

Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over the function of Lordship from the Father: Acts 2.

Thus if this prophecy corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, who shall one day delivered the kingdom to the Father as functional head, after he, not Peter, has put all His enemies under His feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Which is Christ, and Peter is not even named in all of Revelation, even in its letters to the churches, nor in any epistle is there any command given to submit to him as the universal head, while the only key used by Peter to open the kingdom of Heaven to souls is the gospel of grace thru faith that he preached.

[HarleyD]

John 13:21-26 After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side, so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

Let's remember that John interceded for (Pope) Peter to Jesus. :O)

[daniel1212]

John 13:21-26 After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side, so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Let's remember that John interceded for (Pope) Peter to Jesus. :O)

And the chief shepherd on earth led souls astray in Gal, 2. Not that i hold a candle to overall Spirit-filled holy Peter.

[af_vet_1981]

However, just how does one enter the kingdom of God in the only inspired record of the NT church? By coming to Peter and popes as a king and petitioning him to open the gates to Heaven, or by believing the gospel he preached, that of repentance and faith which purifies the heart and effects obedience?

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

John, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses forty seven to fifty nine ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[daniel1212]

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Once again, you are merely providing opportunity for parroted Catholic polemics to be exposed as spurious, and the the fallacy of isolationist eisegesis.

NOWHERE are souls shown obtaining spiritual life by taking part in the Lord's supper, or preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration in the only wholly inspired substantive record of how the NT church understood the gospels, nor is it described as being spiritual food.

In contrast, what the most ancient records shows and preaches is that it is by believing s the gospel message that how souls obtain spiritual life, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and which word is taught as being spiritual nourishment , being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)

Moreover, if Catholics really took Jn 6:53,54 literally and as a imperative requirement just like other "verily, verily" statements, then they must exclude baptized Prots who deny Catholic Eucharistic theology (with its non-existent transubstanted bread and wine) as being Christians in whom Christ dwells. Contrary to V2.

More here , by God's grace.