Pages

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Why the Protestant Petros/petra argument is a joke.

A Catholic apologist named Sean showed me some good insights about the Petros-petra debate from Matthew 16:18. If you have never heard the Protestant claim, it's basically that when Jesus says "You are Peter [Petros] and upon this Rock [petra]" the Greek word Petros means "little pebble" while petra means "big rock". Thus, the Protestant is arguing that Jesus was not identifying Peter with "Rock," but rather contrasting Peter's littleness with the bigness of the Rock (i.e. Jesus). But this argument is simply ridiculous and desperate, and many Protestant scholars have rightly rejected it as well. 

The best place to begin tackling this objection is to look at how the Bible uses the term petros. The term petros appears 162 times in the New Testament, with all 162 of those times referring to the Apostle Peter. This is very significant, because just from this data there is no Biblical basis at all that petros ever means "little pebble". In fact, the term petros is simply never used in the NT as a generic term for any rock of any specific size. 

So where did the notion that Peter means "little pebble" even come from if not the Bible? Protestant detractors apparently dug up this distinction from a long outdated form of Greek that wasn't even in use at the time of the Apostles (i.e. not Biblical Greek). This detail alone makes the Protestant argument extremely dubious and invalid.

The next term to consider is the Greek term petra. This term is used 16 times in the New Testament, signifying not just "big rock," but something more akin to bedrock, the firmest foundation (Lk 6:48-49). This is significant because it would entail that when Jesus identified Peter as petra, Jesus was not just speaking of a big rock, but rather that Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built. This rendering makes far more sense than the Protestant reading of Peter being called a "little pebble," which is actually an insult to Peter after he just professed Jesus to be the Son of God!

The last term to consider is the Greek term lithos, which has a generic meaning of "stone" and is used 60 times in the New Testament. It can refer to small stones that fit in your hand (Mt 7:9; Lk 22:41; Jn 8:59), large rocks the size of boulders (Mt 28:2; Mk 9:42), and even large stone-cut bricks used to build buildings (Mk 13:1-2). Interestingly, the term lithos is also used metaphorically to refer to Jesus (1 Peter 2:6-8), but Protestants would never say that just because lithos is sometimes used to mean "small stone" that Jesus is a "small stone"! Thus, even if petros could mean "little pebble" does not mean we absolutely should take it to mean that when referring to Peter. And if the Protestant thesis were true, we would better expect Jesus to have said to Peter, "You are lithos, and upon this petra," which Jesus didn't do.

The amusing thing is that though Jesus is described as stone and foundation, these same Greek terms apply to Peter as well (1 Peter 2:5; Rev 21:14). So really, there is no good reason why Petros does not mean petra, especially when both are mentioned in the same breath in Matthew 16:18. The only reason why the word ending is different is because petra is a feminine noun, which must be modified to the masculine to fit with the fact Peter was a male. Without that modification, it would be like naming a man Billie (a female name) rather than Billy. And given that Jesus is speaking of Himself as the Builder, "upon this Rock I will build," shows that Jesus is not the referent to Rock here, further strengthening the link between Petros and petra.

To better help Catholics see just how significant this is, they need to know that translating Peter as simply "Rock" actually loses a lot of its force. That's because what Jesus is saying is more akin to "You are Bedrock, and upon this bedrock I will build by Church," or another option, "You are Foundation, and upon this foundation I will build my Church." This brings out the metaphor a lot better and helps people see what Jesus was getting at.

215 comments:

1 – 200 of 215   Newer›   Newest»
cwdlaw223 said...

I'm not surprised because that's what progressives do. They change language to suit their agenda. Sad, but it will continue to happen as long as man is on their earth. Man wants the world to conform to him.

Harry Reid would be proud of the the Protestant understanding of these words.

BTW - Nancy Pelosi is NOT a Catholic. You can't reject major Church teaching and call yourself a Catholic. She has excommunicated herself and hopefully her Bishop requires public penance if she repents.

Anonymous said...

Nick,
What should I make of Eph 2:20---" having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,.."?
If "Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built" why doesn't Eph 2:20 say this? Why does Eph 2:20 say that the apostles (not just Peter) but all apostles with the prophets are the foundation?

You also have the problem with Peter who never claims to be sole foundation of the church and that no apostle attributes such a thing to him.

Ralph

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

You ask questions as though scripture was designed to answer every single question that man can answer and it's easily interpreted.

Where does scripture sy that it can answer every question? Where does it say that it's easily interpreted? Where does scripture say what it should be and/or that you can only use scripture?


Tradition itself demonstrates Peter's primacy.

I think a better question for you to ask is why don't you have a physical Church on this earth that you can trace back to the Apostles.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Nick,
What should I make of Eph 2:20---" having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,.."?
If "Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built" why doesn't Eph 2:20 say this? Why does Eph 2:20 say that the apostles (not just Peter) but all apostles with the prophets are the foundation?

You also have the problem with Peter who never claims to be sole foundation of the church and that no apostle attributes such a thing to him.
=====


Actually Ralph not a problem at all. If it is a problem then it is your problem as well, for no apostle ever attributed to Luke that he wrote acts or the book of Luke. And should I point out that Luke isn't an apostle?

Hapax Paradidomi said...

If scripture being silent on something is a problem for us, then that makes it a problem for you.

Nick said...

Ralph,

That's a non issue. The fact Jesus is called the chief cornerstone shows there are distinctions in the foundation. Notice how I quoted Rev 21:4 which mentions "twelve foundations," which is obviously metaphorical in at least two ways.

cwdlaw223 said...

Hapax -

I believe the silence of scriputre isn't as problematic for the Catholic position because of Holy Tradition. Silence is a major problem for Protestants because they have no holy tradition.

Good point though.

Anonymous said...

Nick,
It is not a non-issue. Rather it shows how the NT church understood what the foundation of the church was. It never gave any prominence to Peter the man being the foundation of the church.

Not sure what Rev 214 has to do with this. Its not even about foundations.

Ralph

Hapax Paradidomi said...

cwdlaw223 said...
Hapax -

I believe the silence of scriputre isn't as problematic for the Catholic position because of Holy Tradition. Silence is a major problem for Protestants because they have no holy tradition.
====
Yes I agree it is not problematic for us. Just framing the argument with the same thinking that Ralph is using.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Nick,
It is not a non-issue. Rather it shows how the NT church understood what the foundation of the church was. It never gave any prominence to Peter the man being the foundation of the church.

=====
Ralph I hope you won't keep repeating this argument while ignoring the fact that you don't have explicit text for everything you believe and in some cases you don't even have text at all. Can we be fair here?

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
What doctrines do you think I believe in that are not explicit in Scripture? Can you give me a couple of examples?

Ralph

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Nick,
It is not a non-issue. Rather it shows how the NT church understood what the foundation of the church was. It never gave any prominence to Peter the man being the foundation of the church.
=====
To make my point further, Ephesians is not the end all on what is meant by foundation. To illustrate my point, Ephesians 2:20 says that Jesus is the cornerstone and then refers to the foundation of the apostles. Do we take this verse as the end all on what Jesus is? I.e., he is the cornerstone while the apostles are the foundation? Or can we understand that not everything, that could be said about the concept of foundation, is said here?

Now let's look at your reasoning: Peter cannot be the rock because A) This verse does not say he is the foundation and B) Instead it says all of the apostles are the foundation.

Now let's apply that same filter to Jesus and how he is referred to in the same verse.

A) The verse does not say Jesus is the foundation. B) Instead it says all of the apostles are the foundation. Ergo, by your reasoning, Jesus cannot be the foundation.

Just as you argue that Jesus is the foundation, even though that verse says that ALL the apostles are, so we argue that Peter is the foundation even though that verse says that ALL the apostles are.

Why do we do that? Because we are taking in the whole of what scripture says on the matter. It calls Jesus the foundation, his teaching the foundation, the teaching of the apostles is called the foundation. So with that said, we understand that the concept of the foundation can apply to the teaching as well as to the person and IS NOT limited to just one person or that all persons are equally the foundation.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
What doctrines do you think I believe in that are not explicit in Scripture? Can you give me a couple of examples?

Ralph
========
Well if you are a protestant then you, like many other protestants, would agree that Sola Scriptura is not explicitly taught in the scripture. In fact protestants often define sola scriptura along the lines that all teachings on faith and morals must be found explicitly OR IMPLICITLY in scripture. Do you now subscribe to that definition?

Hapax Paradidomi said...

BTW Should be Do you NOT subscribe to that definition?.


Also some protestants actually go so far as to deny that sola scriptura was even practiced by the apostles.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
Where does the Scripture say--"Jesus the foundation, his teaching the foundation, the teaching of the apostles is called the foundation"? Book, chapter and verse please.

What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
Where does the Scripture say--"Jesus the foundation,
=====
1 Corinthians 3:11 says Jesus is the foundation

his teaching the foundation,
=====
Matthew 7:24 putting the words of Jesus into practice == wise man building on the rock.

the teaching of the apostles is called the foundation"?
=====
1 Corinthians 3:11 by implication, the teaching of the apostles.

Book, chapter and verse please.
======


What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?
======
I don't have a definition of sola scripture. But depending on which protestant you talk to, you will get various definitions. The one that I am most familiar with is 'scripture is the sole infallible authority in matters of faith and morals' and this is further explained as 'not teaching is binding on the christians conscience unless it can be found in the bible.' Plus I have already given you other stuff regarding the topic of Sola Scriptura. Regardless of which view you hold, there is no EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT definition to be found in scripture for sola scriptura.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
I would agree there is no definition of Sola Scriptura in Scripture. What we do know about Scripture is that it alone is inspired-inerrant. It alone is the Word of God.
What follows from this is that there is no higher or equal authority to the Scripture. That is why its teachings are binding. Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding. Eating meat on Friday during lent is an example of a teaching-practice that is not apostolic and thereby not binding. Other doctrines of your church such as the Marian dogmas would be not binding nor apostolic.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

I would agree there is no definition of Sola Scriptura in Scripture. What we do know about Scripture is that it alone is inspired-inerrant. It alone is the Word of God.
=====
Actually if you are basing your argument on scripture, then you would need to know a quite bit more than that. For instance we know that the word of God was first delivered orally which would mean that scripture is not alone inspired or alone the Word of God. If that is the case then you exclude any oral teaching givin by the prophets and the apostles and you infact have excluded Jesus himself who is called the Word of God.

=====
What follows from this is that there is no higher or equal authority to the Scripture.
=====
The word of God is the highest authority. Scripture tells us that the word of God carried the same highest authority weather it was written or oral.

=====
That is why its teachings are binding. Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding. Eating meat on Friday during lent is an example of a teaching-practice that is not apostolic and thereby not binding. Other doctrines of your church such as the Marian dogmas would be not binding nor apostolic.
=====

Scripture does not tell you what books are scripture, therefor by your reasoning it follows that the canon of scripture is not binding. Since no apostle called the book of Jude scripture, since Jude never claimed it to be scripture, you have every reason to drop it from your canon and no reason to insist it stay.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

I would agree there is no definition of Sola Scriptura in Scripture. What we do know about Scripture is that it alone is inspired-inerrant. It alone is the Word of God.
=====
And this simply proves my point that you are playing by a double standard. You expect us to have everything we believe stated explicitly in scripture while allowing for yourself to have it implicitly or not at all stated.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
I agree there was a time when the Word was spoken orally either by a prophet, apostle or the Lord Christ Himself. Those times are now gone and all we have are the written Scriptures. Only the written Scripture alone today is the inspired-inerrant Word of God. This means as I have said before that the Scripture is the highest authority in the church. No church body or pope is equal to the Scripture.

Christ used the church of the 4th century to determine what the NT canon was to be. They used various tests to determine this. The church did not make Scripture inspired-inerrant. Only God can do that.


Hapax Paradidomi said...

I agree there was a time when the Word was spoken orally either by a prophet, apostle or the Lord Christ Himself. Those times are now gone and all we have are the written Scriptures. Only the written Scripture alone today is the inspired-inerrant Word of God. This means as I have said before that the Scripture is the highest authority in the church. No church body or pope is equal to the Scripture.

=====
Did you not say "Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding. "

Scripture never says that there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority. So you violate your own principle.

Just in case this point is being lost on you I will restate it : If sola scriptura was not true for the apostles, then it, by your own principle, is not binding.

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

Since you're speaking of the Bible during the Fourth Century, what right do you have to rip 7 books from the New Testament? There is no Protestant Bible in history.

Let me guess, prayers to the dead are unbbiblical in your world because there aren't in your bible? Prayers to the dead were prevalent in Jewish culture and specifically found in II Macabees. Of course, if you start removing books you can then claim that the practice is unbiblical. If you can't translate the Greek properly you can claim something is unbiblical.

Why do you believe that Christ is not part of his Church HERE AND NOW? He's just dead and gone and not part of the eternal now?

You hold a view of scripture that is not held in history or in scripture itself and yet you won't admit that blatant epistemological error in your thinking.

Scripture was never intended to be without a physical Church on this earth?

How do you deal with the fact that the Mass preceded most of the NT? I can only presume from your style of exegesis that you believe the Mass is an abomination even though history proves it was everything to the early Christians (and Catholics today),

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

What exactly do you mean that the Church is not equal with Scripture? I suspect the reason you believe that the Church is not co-equal with Scripture is because you don't believe that Christ created a physical Church on this planet that exists today and is guided by the Holy Spirit despite explicit claims to the contrary in scripture. That's the only way that someone could wrongly conclude that something is in front of the physical Church of Christ that was created by Christ to guide us.

Nobody in history believed such heresy because they knew that Rome was what it claimed to be which is the Church created by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
Scripture does not need to say "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority."

This does not in the least change the idea that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant Word of God. It follows from the necessity of the case that something that is inspired-inerrant by definition is the highest authority in the church. This is based on the nature of the Scripture itself.

Did the apostles consider anything else to be inspired-inerrant Word of God?

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
Who "ripped" 7 books out of the Bible in the 4th century?

Are you referring to the 7 deuterocanonical books that were not considered inspired-inerrant Scripture until Trent?

Michael Taylor said...

Nick and other RCs,

There's much in this blog article with which I would agree, but it is overlooking some crucial factors about petros and petra that Sean (Nick's RC apologist friend) did not mention and perhaps may not even be aware of.

I've spend quite a bit of time and study on this issue and have a series of 14 articles on almost every facet of this debate. Interested parties can go here: http://fallibility.blogspot.com/p/roman-catholicism.html and start at the first in the series.

Without going point-by-point through Nick's article, I'd simply say that almost everything, if not everything is covered (and refuted) in my series, but of course, I'm the one who wrote it, so what else would I say?

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

You shouldn't need 14 articles to point out the obvious like Nick did in this case (and many others). You quibble over words which is contrary to scripture. Protestanism doesn't naturally flow from scripture and is contrived.

Where is your evidence of Calvinism (or anything remotely close) being practiced before the Reformation? Please don't quote people who lived and died as Catholics and believing in the beauty of the Mass (I know that you know Calvin called the Mass an abomination). That's disingenuous and ridiculous. To be a Calvinist is to reject sacerdotalism. (Augustine and Aquinas were sacerdotal to the core).

What body of believers and/or name of a church that was practicing a non-sacerdotal form of Christianity before the Reformation?



Michael Taylor said...

Nick wrote: A Catholic apologist named Sean showed me some good insights about the Petros-petra debate from Matthew 16:18. If you have never heard the Protestant claim, it's basically that when Jesus says "You are Peter [Petros] and upon this Rock [petra]" the Greek word Petros means "little pebble" while petra means "big rock". Thus, the Protestant is arguing that Jesus was not identifying Peter with "Rock," but rather contrasting Peter's littleness with the bigness of the Rock (i.e. Jesus). But this argument is simply ridiculous and desperate, and many Protestant scholars have rightly rejected it as well.

Reply: I think this is *a* Protestant response, not *the* response. I agree that "size" is almost certainly not the issue here as petros/petra could be used interchangeably of rocks of various sizes. That said, it is true that petros more often refers to free-standing stones while petra more often refers to more massive rocks. It is, however, impossible to know whether Matthew and/or Jesus was conscious of that distinction, and therefore impossible to make this particular objection stick, which is why most Protestants have abandoned it.

That said, there still very well may be an intended contrast between Peter (the Petros) and the petra that has nothing to do with "size." The mere fact that two words are used rather than one opens up this possibility, especially when Petros could have been used in both places.

If--as many modern commentators argue--both petra/petros are roughly synonymous, then we must ask why "petra" was used at all to refer to Peter since it is a feminine noun. IF Peter is the referent for both "rocks," then it would have been far easier to simply say, "You are petros [nominative, masculine, singular] and upon this petroi [dative, singular, masculine] I will build my church.

In other words, why use "petra" at all, unless something or someone other than Peter is in view?

So while I agree with you Nick that the version of Protestant argument you present isn't solid, I would simply remind you that there are other more nuanced versions of this argument that do make quite a bit of sense, when given the chance.

Michael Taylor said...

Nick wrote>>The best place to begin tackling this objection is to look at how the Bible uses the term petros. The term petros appears 162 times in the New Testament, with all 162 of those times referring to the Apostle Peter. This is very significant, because just from this data there is no Biblical basis at all that petros ever means "little pebble". In fact, the term petros is simply never used in the NT as a generic term for any rock of any specific size.

So where did the notion that Peter means "little pebble" even come from if not the Bible? Protestant detractors apparently dug up this distinction from a long outdated form of Greek that wasn't even in use at the time of the Apostles (i.e. not Biblical Greek). This detail alone makes the Protestant argument extremely dubious and invalid.<<

Reply: To be fair, Nick, most Protestants simply parrot what other Protestants have said before them, especially scholars. While it is true that in non Koine Greek petros and petra were more distinct, it simply is *not* the case that those distinctions disappeared in Koine. What we find is that petros *more often* refers to free standing stones while petra *more often* refers to larger rocks. But we also find that both petros and petra can be used with reverse meanings, and by the same author within the very same works, which means that the two terms, for all intents and purposes, are virtually synonymous and were so by the time Matthew composed his Gospel in Koine Greek.

It is, however, not impossible that Matthew and/or Jesus used the terms in order to draw a contrast between them--not in terms of their size, but rather in terms of their function or even their referent.

Unfortunately word-analysis alone can only go so far. It has to be joined with a contextual exegesis and the overall picture of Peter as Matthew presents him to us. When we do that, I think a very good case can be made for seeing someone or something other than Peter as "this rock."

Michael Taylor said...

Nick wrote>>The next term to consider is the Greek term petra. This term is used 16 times in the New Testament, signifying not just "big rock," but something more akin to bedrock, the firmest foundation (Lk 6:48-49). This is significant because it would entail that when Jesus identified Peter as petra, Jesus was not just speaking of a big rock, but rather that Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built. This rendering makes far more sense than the Protestant reading of Peter being called a "little pebble," which is actually an insult to Peter after he just professed Jesus to be the Son of God!<<

Reply: A couple of problems here. First, it begs the question to say that Jesus identified Peter as "this petra" because that has yet to be established. This history of interpretation of this verse (long before there were Protestants) is about evenly divided between those who saw Peter's confession as "this rock" and those who thought it was Peter himself, with another group who thought it was Christ. Origin thought it was all three, and even said that individual Christians were "this rock." So there was quite a bit of diversity of opinion in the catholic (small c) tradition.

As for calling Peter a little rock or a chip off the old block, I don't see why that would be insulting. Certainly Peter's having confessed that Christ is the Son of God does not thereby grant him some special prerogative, given that Peter is saying nothing different than every other disciple already confessed two chapters earlier (see Matthew 14:33)!

Michael Taylor said...

Nick wrote>>The last term to consider is the Greek term lithos, which has a generic meaning of "stone" and is used 60 times in the New Testament. It can refer to small stones that fit in your hand (Mt 7:9; Lk 22:41; Jn 8:59), large rocks the size of boulders (Mt 28:2; Mk 9:42), and even large stone-cut bricks used to build buildings (Mk 13:1-2). Interestingly, the term lithos is also used metaphorically to refer to Jesus (1 Peter 2:6-8), but Protestants would never say that just because lithos is sometimes used to mean "small stone" that Jesus is a "small stone"! Thus, even if petros could mean "little pebble" does not mean we absolutely should take it to mean that when referring to Peter. And if the Protestant thesis were true, we would better expect Jesus to have said to Peter, "You are lithos, and upon this petra," which Jesus didn't do.<<

Reply: This only proves my point that "size" isn't the issue here. More likely, "lithos" was not used because it *rarely* corresponds to Aramaic *kepha* from which the transliterated name "Cephas" comes.
No one disputes that "Petros" ( a masculine, singular noun that means "rock") is the Greek translation of Aramaic "Kepha" (a masculine, singular noun).

But what we do not know is that "Petra" also corresponds to "Kepha" since Aramaic "Minra" is equally probable. Unfortunately, we have no access to the written or spoken Aramaic that Jesus spoke during this scene, though clearly we know that Peter was often called "Kepha" given the presence of "Cephas" throughout the NT.

And even if we could verify that "Kepha" stands behind both Petros and Petra, we still cannot be certain that they both refer to Peter. But that requires a longer explanation than is possible in a com-box. (I'd refer you to my blog where I go into these issues in detail.)

Michael Taylor said...

Nick wrote>>The amusing thing is that though Jesus is described as stone and foundation, these same Greek terms apply to Peter as well (1 Peter 2:5; Rev 21:14). So really, there is no good reason why Petros does not mean petra, especially when both are mentioned in the same breath in Matthew 16:18. The only reason why the word ending is different is because petra is a feminine noun, which must be modified to the masculine to fit with the fact Peter was a male. Without that modification, it would be like naming a man Billie (a female name) rather than Billy. And given that Jesus is speaking of Himself as the Builder, "upon this Rock I will build," shows that Jesus is not the referent to Rock here, further strengthening the link between Petros and petra.<<

Several problems here. First, while Petros and petra are in close proximity, it is not so clear from the syntax that they are "in the same breath," since Jesus switches to what is known as "indirect discourse." Students of Greek (such as yours truly) know that indirect discourse is a technique that is often used to make contrasts or distance the speaker from the person to whom he is speaking. "This rock" is in indirect discourse and therefore we cannot be certain that Peter is the referent at all. Had Jesus said, "You are Petros and upon you, Petros, I will build my church," we would not be having this discussion to day. But by switching to indirect discourse, "this rock" may very well point to someone or something other than Peter, hence all those church Fathers who drew precisely that conclusion.

Further, the explanation that Matthew was "forced" to switch from petra to Petros (to avoid gender disagreement) begs the question in that it presupposes that Matthew would have called Simon "petra" if he could have, but was forced by grammatical rule, to change to petros, which already happened to be a word which meant rock. In reply, we can tip that entire argument on its head and argue just the opposite. Matthew chose Petros to represent "Kepha" and then, for some reason, switched to "petra," though he didn't have to, since he could have simply said "this petros" (which would be petroi [dative] in Greek).

Lastly, Jesus could still be referring to himself if "this rock" is self-referential. It isn't hard to imagine Jesus beating his chest or even pointing to himself when he said those words, especially if he's drawing a contrast to Peter, which is suggested by the use of two different words for rock, the switch to indirect discourse, the possible use of adversative kai (usually translated "and" but sometimes "but" especially in Matthew, e.g., 1:25) and the overall portrait of Peter in Matthew who is frequently portrayed in scenes in which his weakness magnifies Christ's greatness.

Michael Taylor said...

Nick wrote>>To better help Catholics see just how significant this is, they need to know that translating Peter as simply "Rock" actually loses a lot of its force. That's because what Jesus is saying is more akin to "You are Bedrock, and upon this bedrock I will build by Church," or another option, "You are Foundation, and upon this foundation I will build my Church." This brings out the metaphor a lot better and helps people see what Jesus was getting at.<<

Here I have to agree that "petra" could be a referent to a foundational rock, as it often has that meaning.
The question, however, still remains. Who or what is that foundation? Nick thinks it's Peter and he's in good company with a lot of church fathers and even Protestant commentators. I think it's Christ or Peter's confession, and I too am in good company with a number of church fathers.

Ultimately this issue can't be decided by polling the fathers or the commentators; rather one has to dig into the text itself and weigh the arguments. I've done that and have come to the conclusion that, while Peter is a viable option for being the referent of "this rock," that there are other, perhaps even more plausible options, as I write about on my blog:

http://fallibility.blogspot.com/p/roman-catholicism.html


John W said...

Actually Michael, every single one of the church fathers who said it was Peter's confession said it was also Peter himself.
They did not separate the confession from Peter himself.

Do I detect the typical Protestant either/or argumentation?

Anonymous said...

John W,
What father said anything about the papacy and it being the head of the entire church in the first 3 centuries?

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
Scripture does not need to say "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority."

=====

I am not sure who this is, wether it is ralph or not since this reply was not signed with a name. But according to Ralph's principle, it does, otherwise it is not binding.
=====
This does not in the least change the idea that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant Word of God. It follows from the necessity of the case that something that is inspired-inerrant by definition is the highest authority in the church. This is based on the nature of the Scripture itself.
=====
But the problem with that view is that it would only work if the word of God only became inspired when it was written down. The fact is the word of God is inspired before it was written down. Which means wether it was transmitted orally or in writing, it is inspired.


Did the apostles consider anything else to be inspired-inerrant Word of God?
======
I think you are simply confusing the medium with the message. What you really mean to ask is, did the apostles consider any other medium aside from writing to be inspired. Scriptures show us that apostles regarded their oral medium to carry the exact same weight as their written medium. And scriptures like wise show us that the inspired-inerrant Word of God was communicated via writing and orally. The word of God does not only become inspired at the time of writing.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Michael Taylor said...

=====
Reply: A couple of problems here. First, it begs the question to say that Jesus identified Peter as "this petra" because that has yet to be established. This history of interpretation of this verse (long before there were Protestants) is about evenly divided between those who saw Peter's confession as "this rock" and those who thought it was Peter himself, with another group who thought it was Christ. Origin thought it was all three, and even said that individual Christians were "this rock." So there was quite a bit of diversity of opinion in the catholic (small c) tradition.
=====

Michael I cannot comment as to what the "history" shows since I have not studied this topic. However I have heard other protestants make the same point, i.e., that some fathers say the rock is Peter while others say the rock is Peter's confession of faith.


"is about evenly divided between those who saw Peter's confession as "this rock" and those who thought it was Peter himself"

You view it as divided, but did they (ECF) consider it as so? Isn't it possible to refer to both as being true? For instance Jesus is called the foundation but then we find Jesus else where referring to his own teaching as rock. Jesus and his teaching can both be called the rock. In the same way the apostles and their teaching can be both called the rock. I believe it is more likely that the fathers were just, at different times, focusing on different things. And in this regard we would need to apply the same standard in reading them that we apply to scripture. Put it this way, you wouldn't read scripture and then argue that the books are divided over wether Jesus is the rock or wether it is his teaching.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael is quibbling over words in direct violation of scriputre!

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

You've asked for early church fathers commenting about the papacy. A simple google search would provide you with such information. But here's a start:

St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Hapax Paradidomi said...

cwdlaw223 said...
Michael is quibbling over words in direct violation of scriputre!
======
I am not sure how your comment is conducive to discussion. Could you elaborate on what you consider to be a quibble?

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
None of those quotes you gave tell us that Linus was looked upon as the supreme leader of the entire church. We also know that in the 1st century that there were other churches that were also influential such as Jerusalem and Antioch. in fact it was
Jerusalem that was the center of Christianity because that is where Christianity was founded by Christ and this was where the apostles had their headquarters.

Keep in mind also that Peter never considered himself to be the supreme leader of the entire church nor did the other apostles consider him as such.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Is there substantive difference between petros and petras that would cause the Papacy to be wrong?

There is ample evidence that however one defines these words that the Papacy existed in early Christian history. Trying to box the definition of the words petros or petras into a definition that indicates the papacy should not have existed is ridiculous.

The natural reading of the words and the practice of the early Church demonstrate the primacy of Rome and the use of the Papacy.
(I know the word Pope wasn't used until much later in history and means father).

Michael contiuously avoids the real issue which is whether Christ created a physical Church on this planet and what has happened to this Church. Or, why the Mass preceeded most of the NT and why he doesn't attend Mass.

Those are the two big issues that he gets wrong which is why his (as well as Calvin's) exegesis is warped. Calvin was the orignal liberal and progressive when it comes to changing Christianity for his own desire. I used to be like Michael and thought that my intellect was all that I need to properly exegete scripture. Fortunately the Lord opened my eyes and warmed my heart to his one and only Church found in Catholicism.

John W said...

Michael,

Just name one early father who said that the rock was Peter's confession of faith to the exclusion of Peter himself.

Every single father that cited Peter's confession also cited the person of Peter as the rock. His confession was the instrument through which he was named the rock. It is no coincidence that his name was changed to Cephas (= Greek transliteration of Kepha).

The majority of Protestant scholarship also accepts this.
The only remaining question is "was Peter's office successive". There is little doubt that it was throughout history. The number of citations are overwhelming.

Any objections you retain are based on your traditions and your arguments to the contrary are almost entirely from silence or demanding of a precision language that isn't reasonable.

You can maintain your objections, but the biblical and historical evidence is abundantly clear that it looked nothing like any form of Protestantism.
I think it would be better for those who object to the historical and scriptural data to just come out and claim that the church was in utter apostasy even before the death of the last apostle and wasn't brought back from the gates of hades until the 16th century like several groups already claim.


cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

If those quotes aren't enough then I guess only video evidence would suffice. You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence and now you change the standard for evidence. The early church fathers weren't sitting down making recipes for every conceivable challenge.

What is the more natural interpretation of history? There was no successor Pope in Rome or that there was a central figure who could resolve disputes?

Will you at least admit that the early Church was sacerdotal to the core?

John W said...

Irenaeus indeed states in "Against Heresies" that the final determination of orthodoxy lies in the succession of bishops from the apostles and that the ultimate succession lies in the Bishop of Rome starting with Peter through 180 AD when Irenaeus wrote this work.

Seems that there are always minute objections to historical data that are used to refute Catholicism, yet this same historical data is utterly foreign to Protestant Ecclesiology.

Nick said...

Michael,

I appreciate the work you've done in this regard, but I don't have time to read your 14 articles at the moment. I would like to read them soon though.

My point in this article was basically confined to whether the Bible itself makes a distinction between petros/petra, particularly with petros meaning small pebble. You seem to agree with this, so that's good.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
Nick,
What should I make of Eph 2:20---" having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,.."?
If "Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built" why doesn't Eph 2:20 say this?


Because Eph 2:20 is using a different metaphor.

Scripture says that God is our Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Do you really believe that God is an actual rock? No. Its a metaphor.

Why does Eph 2:20 say that the apostles (not just Peter) but all apostles with the prophets are the foundation?

Because they were the first people whom Christ selected to be in His Church.

You also have the problem with Peter who never claims to be sole foundation of the church and that no apostle attributes such a thing to him.

All Apostles call him "Peter". His birth name is "Simon". Even you call him, Peter. In so doing, you and they acknowledge the great honor which Jesus Christ gave St. Peter when He named him after Himself. Because, you see, Jesus was the Rock before Simon. When Jesus named Simon, "Rock", He did it to show the world that Simon would become His Representative upon this earth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...



Again, in calling him, Peter, they acknowledged everything which Jesus Christ promised to the man, because in that same instance, Christ changed his name from Simon to Peter.

If they wanted to deny this, they would also deny his name change. But just as God changed Abram's name to Abraham, Jesus' changed Simon's name to Peter to designate the mission to which he was now appointed. To become the Father of the Church. The Prince of the Apostles. The Vicar of Christ. As it also says in Scripture elsewhere:
John 21:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Not sure what Rev 214 has to do with this. Its not even about foundations.

It is a different metaphor. Or did you think the Apostles are 12 stones?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
I would agree there is no definition of Sola Scriptura in Scripture.


Nor is Sola Scriptura mentioned in Scripture. And the fact that Sola Scriptura is absent from Scripture tells us that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men. In fact, Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture which tells us to keep Tradition (2 Thess 2:15).


What we do know about Scripture is that it alone is inspired-inerrant. It alone is the Word of God.

Chapter and verse please.

What I see is Scripture says that Scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16). But it is the Church which tells you which books are Scripture and teaches that Scripture is without error.

Scripture also teaches that men are inspired of the Holy Spirit to speak and then to write the Scripture (2 Pet 19-21).

I also see that Scripture tells me that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God. I suppose that the Wisdom of God is also inspired-inerrant, wouldn't you agree?

I see no verse saying that Scripture ALONE is inspired-inerrant. So, please produce the chapter and verse.

What follows from this is that there is no higher or equal authority to the Scripture.

God is the highest authority in all matters. Scripture has no authority except as a rule upon which men can meditate to learn the Will of God. But the Church has been authorized to teach the Wisdom of God and to rule over men (Matt 28:19-20). And even to forgive their sins (John 20:22-23).

That is why its teachings are binding. Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding.

You admitted in your first sentence that Scripture does not address the doctrine of Scripture alone. Therefore, by your own admission, Scripture alone is a false doctrine.

Eating meat on Friday during lent is an example of a teaching-practice that is not apostolic and thereby not binding.

Abstinence from meat on Fridays is a Church discipline. And, as I have shown, Jesus Christ gave the Church authority over His disciples. Anyone who does not obey the Church is treated as a heathen (Matt 18:17).

Other doctrines of your church such as the Marian dogmas would be not binding nor apostolic.

Marian doctrines are in Scripture either explicit or implied. Sola Scriptura is totally absent from Scripture and contradicts the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
Scripture does not need to say "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority."


Anonymous also said:
Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding.

Therefore, since Scripture does not say, "there would be a time when it would be the sole infallible authority", this doctrine is not binding. It is a false doctrine of men.


This does not in the least change the idea that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant Word of God.

Again, produce the teaching from Scripture or by your own rule, it is invalid.


It follows from the necessity of the case that something that is inspired-inerrant by definition is the highest authority in the church. This is based on the nature of the Scripture itself.

Scripture says that the highest authority is God. And Scripture says that God established the Church as authority over men in this life.

Did the apostles consider anything else to be inspired-inerrant Word of God?

God, the Church and His Traditions.

De Maria said...

Michael Taylor says:
In other words, why use "petra" at all, unless something or someone other than Peter is in view?

Hello Mike. Since you claim to understand Spanish, I wonder why you are having trouble with this subject.

The same situation occurs in Spanish. There are masculine ways of signifying rock. For instance:

Significado de la palabra pedrón
pedrón.
1. m. aum. de piedra.

But the more common usage is "piedra".

Therefore, because of the gender issue, it is more polite and exact to say:

Simon, tu eres Pedron, y en esta piedra edificare mi iglesia.

That is why St. Matthew did the same thing. For the gender to be correct. Otherwise, he would be calling Simon by a name more fitting for a girl.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Michael Taylor said...

>>Hello Mike. Since you claim to understand Spanish, I wonder why you are having trouble with this subject.<<

I do speak Spanish and I have no trouble with the subject. Perhaps it is you who is having trouble with *English*.

For if you read what I said, (which was in English), then you'll see (if you pay attention to the context) that I said IF petros/petra are interchangeable or synonymous (as most scholars claim they were in the Koine of Matthew's day), THEN why didn't Matthew simply say, "and upon this Petros" (though in Greek, it would have to be the dative case, which is petroi)?

In other words, I'm turning your assumption on its head. You're beginning with the notion that Petra is the word that Matthew wants to use for "this rock," (apparently because it's more common that petros) but simply can't use for a name for Simon, because it's a feminine noun. BUT, reverse that thinking for a moment: What if Matthew first and foremost has Simon's new name in mind, and then has, for reasons unknown, switched to a different Greek word for "rock" in the expression "this rock."

Put another way--Matthew didn't have to search for a name for Simon, because he already had one available to him in the word "Petros." But since that word *already* is synonymous with *petra* (which is feminine), why switch to petra at all? Why not just use "petros" again, especially IF (as most scholars argue), the underlying spoken Aramaic was *kepha* in both cases? In yet other words, why use two words, to translate one word in Aramaic, when one word (Petros), would have worked for both?

Unless there were two Aramaic words, not one, and/or unless Jesus was speaking of two different "rocks." And that's exactly the alternative possibility that I'm suggesting because its a better explanation of the evidence we do have and is not based on the Aramaic that we do not have.

¿Sí me explico?



cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

I just saw your post about the Catholic Bible and my allegation that 7 books were removed (i.e., ripped) from the original Bible by Protestants.

Please show me one Protestant Bible in history WITHOUT the Deuterocanon prior to the 1,400s. No such Bible exists. The Septuagint CONTAINS the Deuterocanan. The Deuterocanon was too Christian which is why the Jews later rejected the Deuterocanon and then the Protestants rejected the Deuterocanon as being too Catholic.

The Protestants removed parts of the OT they didn't like and tried to hide behind a Jewish version of the OT that was too Christian for them. That's what happens when you don't study or use history in your thought process. You end up with wacky ideas.

There certainly isn't a Protestant explanation for 66 books from history since history shows the Bible containing 73 books.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Here's a thought provoking article on the Protestant Bible that might change your thinking:

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/search/label/deuterocanon

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Which traditions not recorded in the Scripture did the apostles consider inspired-inerrant?

Give a couple of specific examples that I can check.

Hapax Paradidomi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Which traditions not recorded in the Scripture did the apostles consider inspired-inerrant?

Give a couple of specific examples that I can check.
======
Your question is the equivalent to asking, Can God create a rock so big he can't pick it up? It is really a no win question because your requirement is that we show what the apostles considered. And you have already established that you except nothing as coming from an apostle unless you find it written. The proof of this is the fact that De Maria already told you but you still ask the question. In any case I will repeat is answer in my own words: the knowledge of what is and what is not scripture is a tradition from the apostles. Of course I suppose you could dispute that by saying either a) The apostles didn't know which of their writings were scripture or b) They never told any of their followers which of their writings were scripture. If you don't agree with a or b, then it must follow that you believe that there was at least one inspired inerrant tradition handed off to the church that was not written down.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

of course there is a third option to add to my list. Option c) The apostles did tell their followers but for some reason they didn't hand that knowledge on.

De Maria said...

Hapax Paradidomi said...
cwdlaw223 said...
Michael is quibbling over words in direct violation of scriputre!
======
I am not sure how your comment is conducive to discussion. Could you elaborate on what you consider to be a quibble?


I'm not cw, but I would say that claiming there is a difference between rock and stone, is a quibble. That is what an argument about the use of petros vs petra amounts to.

That is all which Michael has produced to this point.

sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
So it appears you don't know of any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures. Would that be correct?

If I'm wrong, please show me an example of a tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
So it appears you don't know of any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures. Would that be correct?

If I'm wrong, please show me an example of a tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant.


Confession. The Tradition that the Church ministers to and absolves repentant sinners:

John 20:
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Now you. Show us why we should believe in and practice Sola Scriptura, when you have admitted it is not in Scripture and you stated that anything which is not in Scripture is not binding.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Which traditions not recorded in the Scripture did the apostles consider inspired-inerrant?

Give a couple of specific examples that I can check.


All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament because Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament.

Do you not know that Jesus did not write anything down? Jesus established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Sacred Traditions. The Church then wrote down those Traditions in the book you now refer to as the New Testament.

The New Testament is the first official catechism of the Catholic Church. All Catholic Traditions are there, either implied or explicit.

But Sola Scriptura is absent and Sola Scriptura contradicts the New Testament. That is plain for all to see. Even you. Yet you continue to embrace that manmade tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Michael Taylor said...

….For if you read what I said, (which was in English), then you'll see (if you pay attention to the context) that I said IF petros/petra are interchangeable or synonymous (as most scholars claim they were in the Koine of Matthew's day), THEN why didn't Matthew simply say, "and upon this Petros" (though in Greek, it would have to be the dative case, which is petroi)? ….


That is precisely the question I answered. To summarize my response. Petros/Petra are interchangeable. But Petra is the more common usage of the word. But it is in the feminine gender. Therefore, St. Matthew used the less common petros as Peter's name, because the gender matches. And the more common petra to signify the symbolized Peter's foundational office in the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
You wrote that "All Catholic Traditions are recorded in the New Testament because Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament."

What about Roman Catholic traditions such as the Marian dogmas, purgatory, the rosary and the Sabbatine Privilege? Am I to believe these traditions are also part of the Scriptures when the apostles never taught such things?

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

They just didn't teach these things outright. You expect recipes and scripture was never intended to be a recipe or everything for Christianity.

Here are two traditions that I challenge you to refute:

(a) the Apostles Creed,
(b) the Nicene Creed.

Do you deny either Creed? Those creeds contain the truth of the Gospel and yet those creeds aren't in scripture so according to you, they should be rejected.

You engraf conditions upon scripture that nobody in history put upon scripture or that scripture itself says must exist. Once you understand that Christ created a physical Church on this earth you would understand that such Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is empowered to determine Holy Tradition and what is scripture.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
If "They just didn't teach these things outright" then you have no proof they taught them at all.

Those creeds have biblical support.

There is no proof for example that Mary was conceived without sin or kept from sin or that there is indulgences.

Where has your church officially defined what tradition is and what all the traditions of your church are?

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
What about Roman Catholic traditions such as the Marian dogmas,


Mary, Mother of God:
Luke 1:43
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Mary's Assumption and Queen of Heaven:
Revelation 12:1
King James Version (KJV)
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Mary, Mother of all believers:
Revelation 12:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Those are the explicit doctrines. The others are implied and can be derived by implied statements in Scripture.

purgatory,

1 Cor 3:15
1 Corinthians 3:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

the rosary

The Rosary is a prayer and meditation on the life of Christ.

and the Sabbatine Privilege?

It is invoked by the authority granted the Church by Christ to bind and loose:
Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 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.

19 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.

Am I to believe these traditions are also part of the Scriptures when the apostles never taught such things?

The Apostles taught all Catholic Doctrine either explicitly or implied. That is true whether you believe it or not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
There is no proof for example that Mary was conceived without sin or kept from sin


This is taught in the word, kecharitomene (Luke 1:28) and in the fact that God said He would put enmity between the Woman and Satan (Gen 3:15).

Kecharitomen means that one is "ever full of grace". Meaning that Mary was never touched by sin. This is because God put enmity between her and the Devil. Therefore, they never had anything in common.

or that there is indulgences.

In fact, there are several explicit teachings. The only thing missing is the word, Indulgence. Listen to Jesus:
Luke 11:41
But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

In today's terminology, Jesus would have said, "Give to the poor and you will receive a plenary indulgence.

Here's another,
Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

In today jargon, Jesus would have said, "Sell all you have and give to the poor and you will have many indulgences."

Where has your church officially defined what tradition is and what all the traditions of your church are?

In the New Testament.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Can give me one verse of anyone praying to Mary in the NT?

Here is what a plenary indulgences means-"Plenary Indulgence for the temporal punishment of sins, imparted by the mercy of God and applicable also to the souls of deceased faithful, may be obtained by all faithful who, truly penitent, take Sacramental Confession and the Eucharist and pray in accordance with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff."

Luke 11:41 has nothing to do with an indulgence.

Kecharitomen has nothing to do with being sinless. It means "To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5) In charitóō there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting special favor in distinction to charízomai (5483), to give grace, to remit, forgive."

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary

You have no exegetical support for your interpretation of Scripture. Not even your church interprets Scripture the way you do. You should not be doing this.



De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Can give me one verse of anyone praying to Mary in the NT?


Luke 1:28, Hail full of grace….

Here is what a plenary indulgences means-"Plenary Indulgence for the temporal punishment of sins, imparted by the mercy of God and applicable also to the souls of deceased faithful, may be obtained by all faithful who, truly penitent, take Sacramental Confession and the Eucharist and pray in accordance with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff."

Luke 11:41 has nothing to do with an indulgence.


Why not? You seem to have confused what an indulgence is:

"Plenary Indulgence for the temporal punishment of sins, imparted by the mercy of God and applicable also to the souls of deceased faithful,

With how it may be obtained today:
"may be obtained by all faithful who, truly penitent, take Sacramental Confession and the Eucharist and pray in accordance with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

Jesus offered the first plenary indulgence to the Rich man under the conditions which He specified.

Kecharitomen has nothing to do with being sinless.

I say it does. Now, who wins? You or I? Do you consider yourself an authority over me? Do you replace the Scriptures? I have read the Scripture and I say that it means that she is sinless. Now what?

It means "To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored,….

That is the Protestant definition. I don't accept it. I accept the Catholic::
In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).


You have no exegetical support for your interpretation of Scripture.

Nor do you for yours.

Not even your church interprets Scripture the way you do. You should not be doing this.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I follow the Catholic prescription precisely:
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

Sincerely,

De Maria

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

You said: If "They just didn't teach these things outright" then you have no proof they taught them at all.

That's a bunch of crap. Under that standard, the doctrine of the Trinity (more Holy Tradition) should be rejected.

Why do you keep presuming that everything must be in scripture? Why? Where do you get this requirement from? Certainly not scripture? Just admit that you pulled it out of thin air thereby creating a new form of Christianity.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Exegetical support? Do you really want to go there? You have yourself and nobody in history who thought like you. Catholicism has almost 2,000 years of consistent exegesis.

You live in a man made world given all the epistemological conditions you put upon Truth before you are willing to believe it. You have no mystery in your worldview. No wonder you reject anything close to mysterious. How you accept the Trinity is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
I asked you: "Can give me one verse of anyone praying to Mary in the NT?"

You said Luke 1:28. That verse is not about anyone praying to Mary. Try again please.

Where does your church say that Luke 11:41 is about indulgences?

If you interpret Scripture "within "the living Tradition of the whole Church" where in the living tradition of the church does the church of the early 2nd century interpret Luke 11:41 to be about indulgences? What church document mentions this?

Neither A.T. Robertson or (Blass and DeBrunner interpret Kecharitomen to mean without sin or sinlessness. It has nothing to do with sin. You are left with no biblical support for Mary being without sin or kept from sin. You are making things up to support your beliefs.



Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
Sorry, but you have no foundation for claiming that the apostles taught something that is not in the Scriptures. The only apostolic teachings we have are found in the Scripture alone and nowhere else.

Since the apostles never taught the Marian dogmas, indulgences, purgatory or the rosary these things are not apostolic but the teachings and traditions of men.

Michael Taylor said...

De María>>That is precisely the question I answered. To summarize my response. Petros/Petra are interchangeable.<<

Agreed. At least this is most likely the case.

>>But Petra is the more common usage of the word.<<

Also agreed. But what does this prove? Clearly Jesus chose the more uncommon word for Simon's new name. So the frequency of the word doesn't seem to be the reason for why a word is chosen. In this case we know Greek "Petros," (a masculine, singular noun) is a perfect match for Aramaic "kepha" (also a masculine, singular noun).

But if Petros means the same thing as Petra, why use Petra at all? It seems your only explanation for the switch from Petros to petra is that petra is more common. But as we've already seen, Jesus is quite capable of choosing the less common word, which he has done in naming Simon "petros." So clearly frequency of use cannot explain the switch. We therefore must seek some other reason.

Some have suggested "size" is the reason. But if the scholars are correct, both petros and petra could be used of rocks of varying sizes and so it is impossible to prove this, even if petra more often refers to larger rocks and petros more often refers to free standing rocks.

Another possibility is that Jesus has two distinct rocks in view and so "petra" was chosen, not because it's a bigger rock or a more common word for rock, but rather simply because it's a different word for rock, which thereby signals to the reader that two distinct rocks are in view.

Further, since both petros and petra share the root "petr-" Jesus' switch to petra makes for a pretty good word-play.

>>But it is in the feminine gender. Therefore, St. Matthew used the less common petros as Peter's name, because the gender matches.<<

That still doesn't explain why he uses petra in the first place, unless you're saying that Matthew's default preference was for the more common word, but was forced to switch to the less common word in order to avoid the gender disagreement problem.

I suppose that's possible. But how do you know? How does anyone know?

In fact, Matthew could have avoided the entire gender-disagreement problem just by using petros a second time. After all, you yourself agree that it means the same thing as petra. Of course, this would have forced Matthew to use the less common word a second time, but so what? His meaning would have been far more clear.

But of course that assumes that Simon is both the petros and the petra at the outset. So perhaps Matthew was perfectly clear after all: clear that someone or something other than Peter is "this rock" upon which the church is built.






De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
I asked you: "Can give me one verse of anyone praying to Mary in the NT?"

You said Luke 1:28. That verse is not about anyone praying to Mary. Try again please.


You define prayer differently than do we. That is an instance of one member of Christ's Kingdom communicating with another. He is, in fact, praising Mary. Praise is a form of prayer.

Where does your church say that Luke 11:41 is about indulgences?

It doesn't need to. The indulgence is recognizable to anyone who knows Catholic Doctrine. For example, here, Father Scott Hurd of the Archdiocese of Washington uses Luke 11:41 as the basis for indulgences:
The bottom line is that prayer and works of charity really do change things; they help the one praying and the one for whom the prayers are offered. See Tobit 12:9 – “almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin” and James 5:16 – “pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.” And Jesus himself said, But as to what is within [i.e. unrighteousness] give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.” (Luke 11:41)

If you interpret Scripture "within "the living Tradition of the whole Church" where in the living tradition of the church does the church of the early 2nd century interpret Luke 11:41 to be about indulgences?

Why do I need to know all that? All I need to know is that the Scripture calls the Catholic Church the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the Teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:15).


What church document mentions this?

The New Testament.

cont'd

Sincerely,

De Maria

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Sorry, but scripture does not claim to be the sole source for the teachings of the Apostles. Where do you get this crazy idea? WHERE? You just make up standards for scripture that are contradicted by scripture.

My foundation is through the physical Church created by Christ on this earth and known as the Catholic Church throughout time. Why is it so hard for you to realize a physical, universal, apostolic Church was created by Christ? You would have to be blind to not see this creation in Scripture.

De Maria said...

Anonymous also said:
Neither A.T. Robertson or (Blass and DeBrunner interpret Kecharitomen to mean without sin or sinlessness. It has nothing to do with sin. You are left with no biblical support for Mary being without sin or kept from sin. You are making things up to support your beliefs.

Then they contradicted themselves. How can they say that one is perfectly and enduringly full of grace and yet say that sin is found therein?

And even if they don't, their understanding substantiates the Catholic Teaching. Here is more from that site:

Ironically, that final definition is essentially coextensive with the Catholic understanding of the why of Mary's sinlessness --

Supreme Reason for the Privilege: The Divine Maternity

"And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds."
(Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)

However, I still haven't really gotten to my argument: whatever the denotation of "chaire, Kecharitomene," its connotation, what it actually meant to ancient Greek-speakers, is why it is communicating precisely that Mary was immaculately conceived.

The Greek Fathers

Here are a number of ancient experts and what they say it means; each of them is a Greek-speaker from a culture basically identical to that of St. Luke; there are a couple repeats from the previous thread, but from them I give new material, too; the passages are expositions by the authors of the meaning of Luke 1:28, generally centered on chaire, Kecharitomene:

Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD):

O purest one
O purest virgin
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered.
Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship,
and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man's common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one,
and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other:
and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold


Sincerely,

De Maria

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

An indulgence is a form of punishment for a sinner who repents. Do you not believe there is a temporal effect of sin on this earth?

Do you honestly believe that Rome authorized people to buy their way out of punishment for future sins? Even RC Sproul doesn't believe in such non-sense.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

In your opinion, were the Church fathers ignorant of the use of their native Greek in comparison to your interpretation of these words? Right out of the gate there was no leader on this earth?

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Let me get this straight: The greeting of the angel to Mary is a prayer. Correct?

When someone praises you for something you take that to mean they are praying to you. After all, praise is a form of prayer. Right?

I don't see the connection that Father Scott Hurd is making with the definition on indulgences I gave with his comments. What do his comments have to do with--"Plenary Indulgence for the temporal punishment of sins, imparted by the mercy of God and applicable also to the souls of deceased faithful, may be obtained by all faithful who, truly penitent, take Sacramental Confession and the Eucharist and pray in accordance with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff."

If you interpret Scripture "within "the living Tradition of the whole Church" you would need to know specifically what the "living Traditions" are to know what Luke 11:41 means. I would think you would want to know this so you can know if you truly are interpreting correctly. So far you have not shown that.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223
It may be true that "scripture does not claim to be the sole source for the teachings of the Apostles" but the only teachings we have from the apostles is found only in the Scripture and nowhere else.

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Where does Scripture say Mary was perfect?

Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus did not get his understanding on Mary's sinlessness from Scripture but on his human-fallen speculations that were contrary to Scripture. He not only contradicts Scripture but also Augustine:
"Augustine (354-430):

This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins."
NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.


Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
An indulgence is not "a form of punishment for a sinner who repents" but is "a full or partial remission of any remaining temporal punishment resulting from sins which have already been forgiven." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Do you realize that "With the permission of the Church, indulgences also became a way for Catholic rulers to fund expensive projects, such as Crusades and cathedrals, by keeping a significant portion of the money raised from indulgences in their lands.."? What a scam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_indulgences#Abuses

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

If I say the sky is blue will you also deny it? Your definition of an indulgence above is exactly what I said. The fact that you even research Catholic doctrine and still incorrectly state the doctrine leads me to believe you are intentionally trying to remain ignorant.

Indulgences were no scam despite the fact you want them to be. Next you'll claim Tetzel was given direct orders to go make money. Your Catholic bias is overwhelming. I will continue to pray for your soul and that God opens your eyes.

cwdlaw223 said...

We tell you the teachings are found in the deposit with the physical Church created by Christ on this earth. Why is that so hard for you to believe?

Once again, WHY do you believe the teaching is only in the word and not in Christ's Church? Does scripture tell you this? Do you believe Christ's Church us incapable of preserving and understanding the deposit of faith?

You keep making a massive claim but don't explain why such claim is possible when Christ created a physical Church on this planet to, among other things, contain such knowledge.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
So it appears you don't know of any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures. Would that be correct?

If I'm wrong, please show me an example of a tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant.
=====

It is difficult to take you seriously when A) Your question was answered already and B) I pointed out to you that the question was already answered. And I even reiterated the answer to you.

Now please deal with my answer and stop acting like you are only capable of reading selectively or not at all.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous
=======
It is obvious that you operate on a double standard. You require us to show everything from scripture while allowing that you don't have to. So now you demonstrate to me how you know that the book of Jude is scripture without relying on tradition to tell you.

De Maria said...

Michael Taylor said...
De María>>That is precisely the question I answered. To summarize my response. Petros/Petra are interchangeable.<<

Agreed. At least this is most likely the case.

>>But Petra is the more common usage of the word.<<

Also agreed. But what does this prove? Clearly Jesus chose the more uncommon word for Simon's new name.


Not Jesus. St. Matthew.

Jesus named Simon, Cephas, remember? And that name means "Stone".

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So the frequency of the word doesn't seem to be the reason for why a word is chosen.

It does to me. If St. Matthew is accustomed to using the word petra for stone, then he would continue using it but modified it for the gender when referring directly to St. Peter.

In this case we know Greek "Petros," (a masculine, singular noun) is a perfect match for Aramaic "kepha" (also a masculine, singular noun).

But if Petros means the same thing as Petra, why use Petra at all?


I already answered the question. Remember that you are simply speculating because you are not satisfied with the Catholic Teaching. Therefore, you are looking for ways to justify your belief. The Catholic Teaching is just fine with me.

It seems your only explanation for the switch from Petros to petra is that petra is more common. But as we've already seen, Jesus is quite capable of choosing the less common word, which he has done in naming Simon "petros." So clearly frequency of use cannot explain the switch. We therefore must seek some other reason.

Again,
1. Jesus named Simon, Cephas.
2. Matthew used the words, petros/petra.
3. He had every right to do so and you are simply speculating to justify your stance. There is nothing factual in your argument.

Some have suggested "size" is the reason…..

Another possibility is that Jesus has two distinct rocks in view….


I don't believe it. Jesus was praising Simon and appointing him to an office. There is only one rock in view.

and so "petra" was chosen, not because it's a bigger rock or a more common word for rock, but rather simply because it's a different word for rock, which thereby signals to the reader that two distinct rocks are in view.

Further, since both petros and petra share the root "petr-" Jesus' switch to petra makes for a pretty good word-play.


True.

That still doesn't explain why he uses petra in the first place, unless you're saying that Matthew's default preference was for the more common word, but was forced to switch to the less common word in order to avoid the gender disagreement problem.

Its not a big deal. Only those who want to deny the force of the statement want to make it a big deal. The meaning is obvious. Jesus appointed Simon as the first leader of the Church and gave Him a title appropriate to the job.

I suppose that's possible. But how do you know? How does anyone know?

We believe the Church.

In fact, Matthew could have avoided the entire gender-disagreement problem just by using petros a second time. After all, you yourself agree that it means the same thing as petra. Of course, this would have forced Matthew to use the less common word a second time, but so what? His meaning would have been far more clear.

But of course that assumes that Simon is both the petros and the petra at the outset. So perhaps Matthew was perfectly clear after all: clear that someone or something other than Peter is "this rock" upon which the church is built.


For those who know Scripture, there is another Rock. God. And it is clear to me that Jesus named Simon, Rock, in order to show that Simon would become His representative on earth.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Where does Scripture say Mary was perfect?


Where does it say that she wasn't?

Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus did not get his understanding on Mary's sinlessness from Scripture but on his human-fallen speculations that were contrary to Scripture. He not only contradicts Scripture but also Augustine:
"Augustine (354-430):

This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins."
NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.


You pick and choose from St. Augustine's writings as you do from Scripture. Here's what St. Augustine said about the Virgin Mary and sin:

"Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins - for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?--so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?"

(Nature and Grace 36:45)

But even if some of the early Church Fathers did not believe that Mary was without sin, we don't go by their errors, but by their truths. The Catholic Church picks and chooses that which is good and holds on to it. As Scripture says:
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Mary certainly implies she is a sinner in Luke 1:47. Most people mentioned in Scripture never mentions their sins so that must mean they never sinned.

What makes you think that church fathers who contradict Rome are in error? The Scripture is the standard and criteria of truth and not the church. A church can err. Scripture cannot since it alone is the inspired-inerrant Word of God.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
Your answer on the question: "any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures" means no. If it were true you would have produced some proof on another inspired-inerrant outside of the Scripture. Its that simple.

We know Jude belongs in the canon belongs in the canon because it has the characteristics of being an apostolic writing.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
What Tetzel and the pope did in regards to the indulgences was a scam. There motives were for money to build a new church and they were willing to even pervert an unbiblical doctrine to do it.

Your church has some truth but it also has a lot of false teachings and practices.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

How can a Church created by Christ fail? I would love to hear that explanation!

Michael Taylor said...

De Maria:>>Not Jesus. St. Matthew.Jesus named Simon, Cephas, remember? And that name means "Stone".<<

Fine, fine. Matthew is responsible for the Greek (on the relatively safe assumption that Jesus was speaking Aramaic in this scene, rather than Greek. Of course, since they could also speak Greek, and since Ceasarea-Philippi was a Greek-speaking region, we really can’t be sure what was spoken. In fact the only evidence we have is the Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel, and that more strongly suggests that there were two spoken words for “rock,” rather than one or that if there was one, that it corresponded to two distinct entities.) By the way, “Cephas” is the transliteration of the Aramaic “kepha,” which is better translated as “rock,” rather than “stone.”

>>It does to me. If St. Matthew is accustomed to using the word petra for stone,then he would continue using it but modified it for the gender when referring directly to St. Peter.<<

How do you know what Matthew as accustomed to? Further, on the assumption that Matthew has Simon in mind for both “rocks,” and on the assumption that petros and petra mean the same thing, then you still have not given us a plausible reason for why he would switch to petra other than petra being the more common word. But why risk being misunderstood by *unnecessarily* introducing another word for rock? Again, you have to admit that “You are petros and upon this petros” would have been far more clear, if you’re also going to affirm that petros is a synonym for petra.

De Maria>>Remember that you are simply speculating because you are not satisfied with the Catholic Teaching.<<

But aren’t you speculating about what Matthew was more “accustomed to?” Aren’t you speculating when you claim to know what the spoken words were in this scene? And even if Peter is “this rock” (a viable exegetical option), aren’t you speculating when you say he was thereby constituted pope with universal jurisdiction of the entire church, the charism of infallibility, and that such powers transfer to an alleged unbroken chain of “successors?”

De Maria>>Again
1. Jesus named Simon, Cephas.
2. Matthew used the words, petros/petra.
3. He had every right to do so and you are simply speculating to justify your stance. There is nothing factual in your argument.<<
Is this an argument? Are 1 and 2 premises from which 3 is the conclusion? If so, it looks like one big non-sequitur.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Mary certainly implies she is a sinner in Luke 1:47.


She says that God is her Saviour. She does not imply any sin thereby.

Most people mentioned in Scripture never mentions their sins so that must mean they never sinned.

Are they described as being "kecharitomene" as well, i.e. ever filled with grace. If so, you would be right. But Mary is the only one described thus.

What makes you think that church fathers who contradict Rome are in error?

Because the Catholic Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

The Scripture is the standard and criteria of truth and not the church.

The Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth and the Teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

Do you deny the Scripture?

A church can err.

Your church can err. But not the Church of Jesus Chrtist, not the Catholic Church.

Scripture cannot since it alone is the inspired-inerrant Word of God.

The New Testament was written by the infallible Catholic Church, that is why it does not contain error.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Michael Taylor asks:
Is this an argument? Are 1 and 2 premises from which 3 is the conclusion? If so, it looks like one big non-sequitur.


Yes. Remember, you are simply speculating. My speculations are just as valid as yours.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Michael Taylor said...

To De Maria:

Further, do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say “there is nothing factual in your argument?” I gave you all kinds of facts. Let’s revisit them here and add a few more:

1. Fact: Petros and petra are probably synonymous.
2. Fact: Because petros and petra can have overlapping meanings, we cannot be certain that Matthew thought of one as being different in kind or size.
3. Fact: It is also possible that Matthew chose distinguished petros from petra because “this rock” refers to someone or something other than Simon.
4. Fact: Many church fathers, including Augustine, understood “this rock” to refer to Peter’s confession.
5. Fact: Many church fathers understood “this rock” to refer to Christ.
6. Fact: At least one church father (Origin) thought “this rock” referred to individual believers.
7. Fact: Many church fathers affirmed two or more of these views, either simultaneously, or at distinct points in their career.
8. Conclusion: Matthew 16:18 has been understood in a variety of ways in the catholic (small c) tradition.
9. Fact: Vatican I doesn’t permit Roman Catholics to understand the catholic (small c) tradition in any other way than Rome’s interpretion of history, even stating categorically that its understanding has *always* been *the* understanding of the universal church.
10. Fact: this is a *lie*.

De Maria>>Jesus was praising Simon and appointing him to an office.<<

You’re reading the “office” of the papacy back into the text. But you can’t get it from the text, and so your entire rational for being a Roman Catholic is only as good as your exegesis of this text. Don’t you see how you’ve been lied to? You mock the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity, except for the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (and a few other texts), where you imagine anyone considering Rome’s claims could come to this text, read it, and conclude, “You are Peter, therefore the papacy.” It’s one huge non-sequitur. It’s one huge lie.

De Maria>>There is only one rock in view.<<

Again, you may be right. But I think it’s far more likely that two rocks are in view. Two distinct words for rock, coupled with “this rock” being set off in indirect discourse, coupled with Matthew’s overall portrait of Peter in his Gospel, coupled with the possibility that “and” may better be translated “but” in the phrase, “and upon this rock,” all amounts to a pretty good circumstantial case, for seeing a contrast between “rock” and “this rock.” But again, I’m not the first to draw this conclusion by any means. Many illustrious church fathers came to the same conclusion long before I did, including the great Augustine.

Keep in mind that plenty of people in church history had no problem with the idea that the bishop of Rome held a primacy of sorts, whether or not they saw "this rock" as referring to Peter. Cyrpian of Carthage thought every bishop sat on the "chair of Peter" within his own diocese. And he was quite clear that no bishop, not even the bishop of Rome, had the right to set himself up as the bishop of bishops. But undoubtedly Cyprian thought "this rock" referred to Peter!

So believing that "this rock" refers to Peter in no way shape or form necessitates an affirmation of the papacy as Rome has defined that office.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
Your answer on the question: "any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures" means no. If it were true you would have produced some proof on another inspired-inerrant outside of the Scripture. Its that simple.
=====
Actually you are simply saying that a tradition, that the apostles handed on is not inspired unless I can show the tradition from an inspired source. Ergo you contradict yourself since you cant show us that Jude is scripture from an inspired source.


=====
We know Jude belongs in the canon belongs in the canon because it has the characteristics of being an apostolic writing.
=====

Nice try. Show me an inspired source that says Jude is scripture.

Hapax Paradidomi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
De Maria said...

Michael Taylor said...
To De Maria:

Further, do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say “there is nothing factual in your argument?”


Yes.

I gave you all kinds of facts.

Apparently, you've got the meaning of fact mixed up with opinion.

Let’s revisit them here and add a few more:

ok.

1. Fact: Petros and petra are probably synonymous.

That is true.

2. Fact: Because petros and petra can have overlapping meanings, we cannot be certain that Matthew thought of one as being different in kind or size.

This is not a fact. This is your personal opinion. I am certain that St. Matthew did not see a difference between the two.

You are projecting your feelings on this matter and confusing fact with opinion.

3. Fact: It is also possible that Matthew chose distinguished petros from petra because “this rock” refers to someone or something other than Simon.

A possibility can hardly be described as a fact. It is merely your opinion about what might be true.

4. Fact: Many church fathers, including Augustine, understood “this rock” to refer to Peter’s confession.

Actually, that isn't exactly true. St. Augustine seemed to accept both understandings. As does the Catholic Church for that matter.

5. Fact: Many church fathers understood “this rock” to refer to Christ.

The Catholic Church also accepts that understanding. All three are acceptable and they are not mutually exclusive.

6. Fact: At least one church father (Origin) thought “this rock” referred to individual believers.

You mean, the faith of the individual believer, which really comes back to the faith of St. Peter. Which is still acceptable to the Catholic Church.

7. Fact: Many church fathers affirmed two or more of these views, either simultaneously, or at distinct points in their career.

I know St. Augustine did.

8. Conclusion: Matthew 16:18 has been understood in a variety of ways in the catholic (small c) tradition.

But none conflict with the Teaching that St. Peter is the Chief Apostle appointed to lead the Church and whose office is passed down to this day.

9. Fact: Vatican I doesn’t permit Roman Catholics to understand the catholic (small c) tradition in any other way than Rome’s interpretion of history, even stating categorically that its understanding has *always* been *the* understanding of the universal church.

Amen!

10. Fact: this is a *lie*.

In your opinion. I believe it is true.

You’re reading the “office” of the papacy back into the text.

The keys are a symbol for office.

But you can’t get it from the text, and so your entire rational for being a Roman Catholic is only as good as your exegesis of this text.

I don't need to exegete the text to be a Catholic. Where did you get that ridiculous idea?

cont'd

De Maria said...

cont'd

Don’t you see how you’ve been lied to?

It is you who is lying. The Church is the Pillar of Truth. So says Scripture. Don't you believe the Scripture?

You mock the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity, except for the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (and a few other texts), where you imagine anyone considering Rome’s claims could come to this text, read it, and conclude, “You are Peter, therefore the papacy.” It’s one huge non-sequitur. It’s one huge lie.

Yours is the non-sequitur. We see Jesus renaming Simon with a name which signifies God in the Old Testament. A name which signifies leadership and authority. We see Jesus giving him the keys to the Kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind in and loose. And you come to the conclusion that this is no biggee? Yours is the non-sequitur.

Again, you may be right. But I think it’s far more likely that two rocks are in view. ….

I'll let the reader decide between you and I.

Keep in mind that plenty of people in church history had no problem with the idea that the bishop of Rome held a primacy of sorts, whether or not they saw "this rock" as referring to Peter. ….

That tends to argue against your position. Not to substantiate it.

So believing that "this rock" refers to Peter in no way shape or form necessitates an affirmation of the papacy as Rome has defined that office.

jWhether it necessitates it or not depends upon whether you want to obey Christ or not. It is abundantly clear that Jesus Christ wanted us to submit to the Church and the Church to the office of Peter.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
"kecharitomene" has nothing to do with being sinless. Stephen was full of grace and power to (Acts 6:8). In fact it was said his face was like an angel. (The good angels are without sin). This means that Stephen was without sin his entire life. Right?

The church that Paul mentions in I Tim 3:15 is not only the churches at Rome but all churches. All churches are capable of error. Your church has erred as has been repeatedly been pointed out to you.

The church is not the truth. Scripture is. The church is to support the truth which is the Scripture. That your church has not done this by making doctrines that contradict the Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
The determination that Jude is an apostolic book and belongs was not done by inspired-infallible people. Those who determined the NT canon never claimed to be inspired or infallible.

Jude is considered Scripture because it was written by the half brother of Jesus and the early church considered it Scripture. These 2 facts make it Scripture.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
Your church has failed in doctrine and practice. In doctrine it created doctrines that are not apostolic and in practice by usurping the authority of Christ via the papacy and the inquisitions.

Hapax Paradidomi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
The determination that Jude is an apostolic book and belongs was not done by inspired-infallible people. Those who determined the NT canon never claimed to be inspired or infallible.
=====
Do you really believe that the apostles didn't know which of their writings were scripture?


=====
Jude is considered Scripture because it was written by the half brother of Jesus and the early church considered it Scripture. These 2 facts make it Scripture.
========
Your argument is problematic because you would have to assume that everything Jude wrote was automatically scripture.

You know Jude wrote it because it tells you so. But you don't know if what Jude wrote was scripture because Jude DOES NOT tell you so.

When you say the early church considered it scripture; That is an appeal to tradition. Now you have already denied that tradition is inspired, so your argument is moot by your own criteria. Show me an inspired source that says Jude is scripture.

Anonymous said...

Roman Catholic historian von Dollinger on papal succession:

"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these three texts, yet not one of them who commentaries we possess--Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas--has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!

Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together (Cited in Hunt D. A Women Rides the Beast. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (OR) p. 146)."

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
"kecharitomene" has nothing to do with being sinless.


Yes, it does.

Stephen was full of grace and power to (Acts 6:8).

and he was without sin on that occasion. But he was not perfectly without sin and not always without sin, otherwise he would have been described as "kecharitomene" instead of simply "chariot".

In fact it was said his face was like an angel. (The good angels are without sin). This means that Stephen was without sin his entire life. Right?

1. No, just at the moment when this happened.
2. But if you want to interpret it that way, how does this help you?

The church that Paul mentions in I Tim 3:15 is not only the churches at Rome but all churches.

Jesus Christ only established one Church. The Catholic Church. The Protestant Churches did not exist at that time and only came into being at the rebellion of Luther.


All churches are capable of error.

That is no what Scripture says:
1 Timothy 3:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


Your church has erred as has been repeatedly been pointed out to you.

You have erred in your judgment of the Catholic Church and that has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

The church is not the truth.

It is the Pillar of Truth. Therefore the Church upholds the Truth.

Scripture is.

The Catholic Church upholds Scripture, whereas you and all Protestants deny and contradict Scripture.

The church is to support the truth which is the Scripture.

Which the Catholic Church does perfectly.

That your church has not done this by making doctrines that contradict the Scripture.

On the contrary, it is your church which continually contradicts the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
It is not true that everything Jude wrote was "automatically scripture." That does not follow.

I base my belief in the canon of Scripture on Christ. It is He Who has revealed the canon to the church. Traditions outside of Scripture are not inspired or inerrant.

It is adequate that the church of the 4th century used various tests to determine which books belonged in the canon. The people who did this did not need to be infallible nor inspired. They never claimed to be.

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
You are being dishonest when you claim that kecharitomene has to do with sin. There is nothing in any definition of the term that relates to sin. It is deception on your part when you know this to be true.

If Stephen is also without sin then that makes Paul a double liar when he wrote that all men have sinned. It makes Augustine a liar also.

The church that Jesus established in Jerusalem was not Roman Catholic.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
Roman Catholic historian von Dollinger on papal succession:….


That is one fallible persons opinion. We don't go by the opinion of fallible men but by the Teaching of the infallible Church which teaches the Wisdom of God even in the heavens (Eph 3:10). Here's what the Church Fathers actually said:

Tertullian said:
….If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?

"On thee," He says, "will I build My Church; "and," I will give to thee the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever thou shall have based or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): "Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you," and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are "loosed" the sins that were beforetime "bound;" and those which have not been "loosed" are "bound," in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he "bound" with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he "absolved" from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, "And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved m the same way as they." This sentence both "loosed" those parts of the law which were abandoned, and "bound" those which were reserved. ….etc. etc.


So, I don't know what you read from Hunt's book which makes up all kinds of details which can't be verified. But the real life Catholic Fathers understood Matt 16:18-19 to be about Peter and the Papacy.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Oh, the Tertullain quote is from "On Modesty" Chapter XXI, paragraph 4 beginning with the words "If, because the Lord has said to Peter,".

Here's the link:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian32.html

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
It is not true that everything Jude wrote was "automatically scripture." That does not follow.
======
Actually it does follow, other wise you need to tell me why this one writing of his is scripture and not any thing else he may have written.

======
I base my belief in the canon of Scripture on Christ. It is He Who has revealed the canon to the church. Traditions outside of Scripture are not inspired or inerrant.
======
So Christ gave the church extra-biblical knowledge?

======
It is adequate that the church of the 4th century used various tests to determine which books belonged in the canon. The people who did this did not need to be infallible nor inspired. They never claimed to be.
======
Your argument is still moot. You said the evidence needs to come from an inspired inerrant source. You already denied that tradition is and that the church is, so you tell me, what is your inspired inerrant source that Jude is scripture?

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
You are being dishonest when you claim that kecharitomene has to do with sin. There is nothing in any definition of the term that relates to sin. It is deception on your part when you know this to be true.


Truly the Scripture is right when it says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Do you not understand that the fullness of grace is the absence of sin? Where one is full of grace there is no room for sin.

If Stephen is also without sin then that makes Paul a double liar when he wrote that all men have sinned. It makes Augustine a liar also.

Have you no faith in God? Do you not know what these words mean?
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Do you think that Stephen was not baptized? Do you not understand what it means to be born again? regenerated?

Titus 3:5
King James Version (KJV)
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The church that Jesus established in Jerusalem was not Roman Catholic.

It was none other than the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
It is a fact (not opinion) that in regards to the works of the fathers on the papacy that: "Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together."

This is not an opinion but historical facts that can be checked.

Not even Tertullian says anything about Rome or the bishop there.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
It is a fact (not opinion) that in regards to the works of the fathers on the papacy that: "Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together."

This is not an opinion but historical facts that can be checked.

Not even Tertullian says anything about Rome or the bishop there.



Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Your method is simply to deny the evidence. Even though you have no evidence of your own to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
Who do you know that claims other writings that the apostles wrote that we don't possess is considered Scripture?

Christ did not "give" them extra-biblical knowledge. They used various tests that they knew were reasonable to use to determine the NT canon. No mention of Christ giving "the church extra-biblical knowledge."

Where did I claim that "the evidence needs to come from an inspired inerrant source"?

Anonymous said...

De Maria
Where does Irenaeus mention the papacy in that quote?

Jerusalem has a far greater claim than Rome. That was where the Lord Jesus founded the church and died and rose there. It is the city where Christianity started. It is from there that the gospel went out.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
Who do you know that claims other writings that the apostles wrote that we don't possess is considered Scripture?
======
Actually I didn't make that claim. The point is, you assume that Jude's writing is scripture. If Jude would have written many writings then you would have to assume that they are all scripture since you don't have a test to distinguish between them.

======
Christ did not "give" them extra-biblical knowledge.
======
You said: "It is He Who has revealed the canon to the church."
What is and is not scripture, is "knowledge". If they didn't get it from the books themselves, then that means the knowledge is extra-biblical.

======
They used various tests that they knew were reasonable to use to determine the NT canon. No mention of Christ giving "the church extra-biblical knowledge."
======
Actually one of their tests was tradition. Tradition told them which books were scripture. They just used other tests in addition to help them make their decision. But the other tests in and of themselves are not sufficient alone to tell us what is scripture. For example, saying that Luke was a companion of Paul does not qualify anything that Luke wrote as scripture alone. That test had to be taken together with all the tests at least. Tradition was the big test. But none of the tests work for you since they are not inspired or inerrant.

======
Where did I claim that "the evidence needs to come from an inspired inerrant source"?
======

Because you said I have to prove the existence of an apostolic tradition form an inspired inerrant source. If that is the case, then you must also prove from an inspired inerrant source.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria
Where does Irenaeus mention the papacy in that quote?


He describes it. Here's another:

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

The evidence for the Papacy is overwhelming. Whereas, your m.o. is to simply deny everything. Producing no evidence except your opinion.

Jerusalem has a far greater claim than Rome. That was where the Lord Jesus founded the church and died and rose there. It is the city where Christianity started. It is from there that the gospel went out.

The Catholic Church is the heavenly Jerusalem. The old Jerusalem was burned to the ground and God called His people out of her:
Revelation 18:3-5
King James Version (KJV)
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

Anonymous said...

When did Peter supposedly get this Episcopal chair in Rome? Who in the first century witnessed this or wrote about it?

There is no evidence of a papacy in the first century.

Where are getting the idea that Rev 18:3-5 is about old Jerusalem?
The new American Bible says that its Babylon-Rome.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
I never said that we " have to prove the existence of an apostolic tradition form an inspired inerrant source." That is nonsense.

We can know the source of something without it being inspired-inerrant.

Christ did reveal the canon of the NT to the not through some supernatural means but through sound reason and evidences.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
When did Peter supposedly get this Episcopal chair in Rome?


He moved it there from Jerusalem. Jesus appointed Simon the leader of His Church. He did not say that Simon must remain in Jerusalem.


Who in the first century witnessed this or wrote about it?

Matt 16:18-19

There is no evidence of a papacy in the first century.

You deny all the evidence presented. You have preconceived notions about what evidence is acceptable and deny anything that does not fit your model.

This puts you in a very tenuous position because you also accept things against your prescriptions. For instance, you said:

Any teaching that contradicts Scripture or that Scripture does not address is not binding.

And also said:

I would agree there is no definition of Sola Scriptura in Scripture.

And yet you hold to this doctrine which is not in Scripture.

And you hold many illogical doctrines in the same way. You claim that Peter is not the appointed leader of the Church although Jesus Christ explicitly said so in many places in Scripture. Yet in this objection you try to assert an absence of any mention in history.

But when we show the mention in history, then you want to see the word "papacy".

Where are getting the idea that Rev 18:3-5 is about old Jerusalem?

It is easy to see. All you have to do is actually read Scripture. Here is an explanation.

The new American Bible says that its Babylon-Rome.

If that is true, it is probably written by one of the Protestants who were invited to contribute to the project. But the comments are not binding on Catholics.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hapax Paradidomi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
I never said that we " have to prove the existence of an apostolic tradition form an inspired inerrant source." That is nonsense.
======
Actually you did.

You said "So it appears you don't know of any tradition that the apostles considered inspired-inerrant outside of the Scriptures. Would that be correct?"

How would I know if the apostle considered it inspired, unless the apostle had written about it himself? In other words, you are expecting me to prove the existence of inspired tradition by quoting an apostle.

=====
We can know the source of something without it being inspired-inerrant.
=====
How?

=====
Christ did reveal the canon of the NT to the not through some supernatural means but through sound reason and evidences.
=====
Lol. What is this sound reasoning and evidence that tells you when a book should be classified as scripture and not? Does it involve tradition? How does this sound reason and evidence help the church discern that a writing was actually inspired and not just a compendium of scripture verses that was made by someone else other than an apostle or companion of an apostle?

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Matt 16:18-19 is not a witness to Peter to his "supposedly get this Episcopal chair in Rome." There is no mention of a chair in Matt 16:18-19

You presented no evidence for a papacy i.e. supreme leader of the entire church with those quotes.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
I did not say that we "have to prove the existence of an apostolic tradition form an inspired inerrant source." Your answer does not address this.

We can know what is inspired-inerrant by testing the writings of the apostles or those who knew the apostles by various tests. Tests such as: was it written by an apostle or one closely associated with one?

The church used various tests to determine if it belonged in the NT canon. Being written by an apostle was on par with something being written by a prophet of the OT. Apostle had the authority of Christ and so his writings about Christ would be considered Scripture.

Most writings were rejected at this point.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Matt 16:18-19 is not a witness to Peter to his "supposedly get this Episcopal chair in Rome." There is no mention of a chair in Matt 16:18-19


You really need to read Scripture. The chair of Peter replaced the chair of Moses.

Matthew 23:2
Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Oh wait! Don't tell me! That doesn;t say chair of Peter either! Lol!

And yet, Scripture doesn't say Scripture alone or faith alone. But you believe those.

You presented no evidence for a papacy i.e. supreme leader of the entire church with those quotes.

I presented more evidence for the Papacy than you did for Sola Scriptura or any other Protestant doctrine which denies Catholic doctrine.

You are the one who has produced nothing but denials.

Hapax Paradidomi said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
I did not say that we "have to prove the existence of an apostolic tradition form an inspired inerrant source." Your answer does not address this.
=====
Well how else would I know what Paul regarded as inspired? Any suggestions? I am not making this claim, but you asked the question, so how would I know?

=====
We can know what is inspired-inerrant by testing the writings of the apostles or those who knew the apostles by various tests. Tests such as: was it written by an apostle or one closely associated with one?
=====
I know that you already made this claim, but I am still waiting for you to illustrate how this actually works. How do you know when the writing is scripture? Sure you can say it was "written by an apostle or one closely associated with one", but that only tells you who wrote it. It doesn't tell you that it was scripture. If a second century person picked up a writing of Paul, the best he may know is that it was a writing of Paul. But how would he know that the writing itself was inspired and inerrant?

So far you are simply sounding like if it is written by an apostle then that automatically qualifies it as scripture. If that is the case then is essentially the same thing as saying anything written by an apostle qualifies as scripture. And you are also sounding like if a writing "Claims" to be written by an apostle, then it must be.

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Here is what the NAB footnote says about Moses seat: [2-3] Have taken their seat . . . Moses: it is uncertain whether this is simply a metaphor for Mosaic teaching authority or refers to an actual chair on which the teacher sat. It has been proved that there was a seat so designated in synagogues of a later period than that of this gospel."
Now where is it said anywhere in the NT that Peter had some kind of chair?

Where is Peter compared to Moses?

Were not talking about Sola Scriptura but the claims for the papacy.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
In answer to your question "Well how else would I know what Paul regarded as inspired? Any suggestions? I am not making this claim, but you asked the question, so how would I know?"

You could know by reading Scripture. We first hear of Paul in Acts 8. Christ appears to Him and is given the status of an apostle by Christ Himself. He had the authority of an apostle, saw the risen Christ and performed miracles.

For a person to know a writing is apostolic in the 2nd century he would need to speak with someone in a church such as a bishop or elder who knew what Scripture was and why it is accepted as Scripture.

Not everything an apostle wrote in their lives was Scripture. If an apostle wrote directions for someone that would not be considered Scripture.

Hapax Paradidomi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hapax Paradidomi said...

Anonymous said...
Hapax Paradidomi,
In answer to your question "Well how else would I know what Paul regarded as inspired? Any suggestions? I am not making this claim, but you asked the question, so how would I know?"

You could know by reading Scripture. We first hear of Paul in Acts 8. Christ appears to Him and is given the status of an apostle by Christ Himself. He had the authority of an apostle, saw the risen Christ and performed miracles.
======
I am not sure you are following this conversation. Remember I claimed that you expect me to prove traditions from an inerrant inspired source. You said you don't expect that. So when I asked you how am I supposed to prove what Paul regarded as an inspired inerrant tradition, you tell me to goto scripture. Are you not asking me to prove apostolic traditions that are not in scripture? Then why would I or how could I goto scripture to prove them?

======
For a person to know a writing is apostolic in the 2nd century he would need to speak with someone in a church such as a bishop or elder who knew what Scripture was and why it is accepted as Scripture.
======
Ok, that is a good move for this conversation. But where did the bishop or elder get this knowledge?


======
Not everything an apostle wrote in their lives was Scripture. If an apostle wrote directions for someone that would not be considered Scripture.
======
Exactly, or if an apostle wrote a theological letter that contained error.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Here is what the NAB footnote says about Moses seat: [2-3] Have taken their seat . . . Moses: it is uncertain whether this is simply a metaphor for Mosaic teaching authority or refers to an actual chair on which the teacher sat. It has been proved that there was a seat so designated in synagogues of a later period than that of this gospel."
Now where is it said anywhere in the NT that Peter had some kind of chair?


Where is it written that it must be written in Scripture? Did you not say that Sola Scriptura was not written in Scripture?

However, we know that St. Peter took over the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and thus took over where the Jews left off.

Where is Peter compared to Moses?

The comparison is basic and natural. cripture says:

Deuteronomy 32:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

And also:
1 Corinthians 10:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Now consider, God is our Rock and Jesus is the Rock, correct? <a href="http://washedsanctifiedandjustified.blogspot.com/2012/06/who-is-rock.html>read more.</a>

<b>Were not talking about Sola Scriptura but the claims for the papacy.</b>

We've touched upon a lot of topics in this discussion. And in all of them, you have proven to hold an illogical position and a standard which you can't uphold. Your standard is that everything must be in Scripture. Yet none of those beliefs you hold in denial of Catholic Truth can be found in Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Hapax Paradidomi,
The only inspired-inerrant source in the 2nd century would be the Scripture. There is no other.

The bishop or elder would get his information from the Scripture and he would know the writings of the apostles are considered Scripture by the churches.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

How do you know that the only "inspired-inerrant source" is ONLY SCRIPTURE? What evidence do you have that scripture is the ONLY inerrant source? Scripture doesn't say this so where do you get this idea? You have yet to answer this question.

I don't deny that scripture is an inerrant source, but it isn't the only source. How do I know this? Because the Church physically created by Christ and bestowed with the Holy Spirit would also be inerrant. How could it err with such guidance?

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT SCRIPTURE IS ALONE?????????? The fact that you state this belief isn't evidence.

Just answer this question.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
What else is inspired-inerrant?

If you can produce something else that is inspired-inerrant in the church then do so. We know popes and churches are not. We know church teachings are not. We know men are not.

cwdlaw223 said...

The Church itself!

I guess you reject the Apostles since they were men. You are blinded how God uses sinful people. How could the Church created by Christ err in its teachings since it was given the deposit of faith by God?

I do not know that the Church errs. Do you reject that Christ created a physical church on this earth and have it a deposit of faith?

I do not know that Church teachings err. How would you know that? Because you have better exegesis than the Church created by Christ, given the deposit if faith and lasted for 2,000 years? Such position is insane if Christ created such Church!

cwdlaw223 said...

That's a bunch of crap anonymous. Scripture cannot be determined through "reason and evidences." The guidance of the Holy Spirit in God's physical Church was the only way man could have determined scripture. Once again, sinful man being used by God for his glory.

cwdlaw223 said...

I'm getting sick of anonymous' double standards and talking out of both sides of his mouth. It's becoming annoying. Next he'll say the earth is flat because when he looks at the horizon it's flat and we can't use video evidence from space to prove him wrong since he said so.

cwdlaw223 said...

One of the tests was how the writings were used at MASS. I can only presume you reject the Mass as an abomination even though the Mass itself preceded Scripture itself. Explain that one!

De Maria said...



Let's see. Jesus Christ did not write the New Testament. He established the Church and commanded her to teach His Traditions. The Church then wrote these Traditions down in the book you know as the New Testament.

So, if the New Testament is inspired-inerrant, so is the Church which wrote it and the Traditions which are its content.

But, let us see what the New Testament says about the Church:

John 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

That sounds like the Church is inspired.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

That sounds like the Church is inerrant.

2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

That sounds like the Church is inspired and inerrant.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

That says that the Teaching of the Church is the Word of God. And I would say that the Word of God is inspired and inerrant.

Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

That says the Teaching of the Church is the Wisdom of God. I would say that by definition, the Wisdom of God is inspired-inerrant.

Do you deny any of this?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

No church is inspired-inerrant. Men, councils, popes etc can err but the Scripture cannot.

The errors of the RCC are many as we know. Just look at its history and doctrines.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

How can a Church physically created by Christ and endowed by the Holy Spirit err? You won't answer this question with any logic or reason? You just keep spouting off lies that no church is inspired-inerrant when: (a) scripture says otherwise, and (b) "logic and reasons" (your own words) indicate that if God created something it cannot fail and most certainly is inspired-inerrant.

I guess since you are errant we should not believe you. I don 't claim to be inspired-inerrant, but my Church does.

cwdlaw223 said...

BTW - There are no teaching errors by Rome. Never have been, never will be. Why? Because it was created by God and endowed by the Holy Spirit. Your church certainly can't make such claim. Pride was the downfall of man I the Garden of Eden and it affects you as well. You truly believe you have salvation figured out through your interpretation if scripture and yet you reject the plain teaching of scripture about a physical church created by Christ on this earth and endowed by the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure logic and reason will work with you so hopefully prayer will work to penetrate your hardened heart.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
No church is inspired-inerrant. Men, councils, popes etc can err but the Scripture cannot.

The errors of the RCC are many as we know. Just look at its history and doctrines.


All your objections have been answered.

You're going around in circles.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

De Maria -

You should know by know that all we are left with is Scripture which is an fallible collection of infallible books and if you use language that is even one letter different to interpret scripture such words are fallible and non-inspired. God no longer uses sinful man to teach. You're on you own and if you can't read or afford a Bible you're out of luck. :)

Just once I want a P to admit the printing press was given to us from the angel Moroni.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
Your church is not inspired-inerrant. It does not claim to be.

De Maria said...

It claims to be infallible. And it claims this charism is from the Holy Spirit. As in Holy Inspiration.

cwdlaw223 said...

It certainly claims it's TEACHING ON FAITH AND MORALS is inspired, inerrant and infallible as the Church founded by Christ and endowed would claim. How you don't know this is ridiculous.

Do you deny the Church created by Christ and endowed with the Holy Spirit would TEACH non-inspired and errantly on faith and morals? Please answer.

cwdlaw223 said...

If you answer no you reject the power of God and basic logic. If you answer yes, the debate now shifts to where is such Church on this earth (where it should be).

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

When we say the word Church it often means the Teaching aspect of the Church and not EVERYTHING that is in the Church such as Popes or Bishops that don't follow such Teaching.

Anonymous said...

The great RC apologist Robert Sungenis made this startling observation:
"In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. The first was in 1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was decreed as a doctrine in itself, and the second was in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was decreed. Every other teaching by the popes, past and present, has never been officially defined as an excathedra, infallible, and irreformable teaching. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings."

http://galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/features/Refutation_of_David_Armstrong%27s_Teaching_On_Galileo.pdf

The implications of this is huge. For one it means that your church does not consider its teachings to be inspired-inerrant. How could it when most of its teachings are not singled out as being infallible?

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Do you deny A Church created by Christ and endowed with the Holy Spirit would TEACH non-inspired and errantly on faith and morals?

It's a simple yes or no. Think carefully.

Well? Yes or No?

cwdlaw223 said...

In case anyone else is following this debate. Please note that by implication, Anonymous believes the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are doctrines that are capable of error. These doctrines are NOT in scripture and therefore, they cannot inerrant (which means free from error).

Of course, if these doctrines are free from error Anonymous is wrong with his position that anything outside of scripture is not free from error.

I await his yes or no answer.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
Christ founded the church that is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Scripture) with Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. Christ is the One building the church and guiding it.
That does not mean all that the church teaches is true. Churches have taught error because no church is infallible or kept from teaching error.

All apostolic doctrines are grounded in Scripture. This would include the Trinity as well as the 2 natures of Christ. Non-apostolic doctrines would include doctrines such as the Marian dogmas, indulgences, purgatory, praying to Mary and the saints. For these doctrines there is no apostolic support.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

(1) So you deny that Christ built a PHYSICAL Church on this earth since Pentecost that has lasted until today?

(2) So you believe that Christ does not guide his Church at times in teaching faith and morals?

(3) So you believe the Holy Spirit does not guide the Church created by Christ? You said Christ in your second sentence without mentioning the Holy Spirit.

(4) You now have a double standard for scripture regarding interpretations that you like and others you don't. There is NOTHING in scripture directly teaching the Trinity and/or the Hypostatic Union. (These words don't even exist in scripture). These doctrines are as grounded in scripture as the other Catholic doctrines you so despise. There is simply no difference in scriptural support for these doctrines being taught in scripture as the Catholic doctrines you despise. You are being unfaithful to your own standards. You should reject the Trinity and Hypostatic Unions as being errant doctrines from men.

De Maria said...

The implications of this is huge. For one it means that your church does not consider its teachings to be inspired-inerrant.

I don't see that anywhere in Sungenis statement. Please point to it.

How could it when most of its teachings are not singled out as being infallible?

Because all Catholic Teaching is already infallible. Dogmatic proclamations do not make them infallible. They simply confirm that they are infallible.

Dogmatic proclamations are only made when challenges are directed at the Teaching. The Catholic Church reviews the situation and judges whether the challenge is right or wrong. So far, no challenger has proven any Catholic Teaching wrong. All Catholic Doctrine is infallible.

Please go back and study Catholic Teaching before you make such claims.

Despite its name, the "ordinary and universal magisterium" falls under the infallible sacred magisterium, and in fact is the usual manifestation of the infallibility of the Church, the decrees of popes and councils being "extraordinary".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

cwdlaw223 said...

I can't wait to learn how Christ/HS leaves the Church at times when the Church teaches on faith and morals. Anonymous has boxed himself in when it comes to his idea of a church and infallibility/inerrancy. He has to deny a physical church was created on this earth despite the overwhelming claims in scripture that a physical church was created on this earth by God.

Anonymous said...

If Christ/HS is guiding your church where was Christ/HS during the inquisitions that went on for centuries? Were they powerless to stop this evil by the vicars of Christ?

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

This isn't about Rome right now. Answer the three questions above! The three questions above are epistemological in nature and go to the heart of your nonsense about inspiration/inerrancy only being in scripture.

Here they are again:

(1) So you deny that Christ built a PHYSICAL Church on this earth since Pentecost that has lasted until today?

(2) So you believe that Christ does not guide his Church at times in teaching faith and morals?

(3) So you believe the Holy Spirit does not guide the Church created by Christ? You said Christ in your second sentence without mentioning the Holy Spirit.

You know full well the answers to these questions either prove you reject scripture or you are now forced into history to look for the physical Church created by Christ.

We're waiting.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
1-don't deny that Christ built a PHYSICAL Church on this earth since Pentecost that has lasted until today.

2- what do you mean by "guides" and how do you know when He is guiding? What are the characteristics?

3-Since Christ is building the church Himself (Matt 16:18) then it follows that He is guiding its development.

BTW- we know that Jesus founded the church not in Rome but Jerusalem. It is from this church that the foundation of the church was laid.

cwdlaw223 said...

So where can I find this physical church today? What is it called? What was it called throughout history? Just "church"? Or do you think this Church hides itself at times?

Guide means directed. Christ is guiding his church in teaching faith and morals AT ALL TIMES. Do you think Christ lets such teaching to be guided one day and not another? If the Church makes a formal announcement about faith and morals you know.

What about the HS? Is it not part of this Church?

Anonymous said...

Christ's church is where true believers are and where the word of Christ (Scripture) is preached.

The church of Christ cannot be hidden.

Many claim to be guided by Christ. That does not mean its true. Its by their fruit i.e. doctrines and practice we can know if this is the case. If a doctrine is not grounded in Scripture such as indulgences, purgatory and the Marian dogmas then we know it is not of Christ since these doctrines deny His word.

The HS does work in the lives of Christ's followers.

cwdlaw223 said...


Where are non-sacerdotal "true" believers in history before the Reformation?

What is the name of one church in the fourth century that was teaching correctly? 6th Century? 8th? I need names to look them up.

So you agree a true Church can be inspired/inerrant when teaching? You said nothing outside of scripture can be inspired/inerrant and yet the Catholic doctrines such as the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Mary, Penance all have the same level of support (although Mary probably has more) and are outside of scripture? You will never, ever find a verse in scripture directly referencing the Trinity or Hypostatic Union (plenty about the Mother of God).

The fact that different language is used than that in scripture means it's outside of scripture.

Anonymous said...

The church is not inspired-inerrant when it teaches.

cwdlaw223 said...

How can it not be if guided by Christ? Where is your support in scripture for the claim the Church of Christ is not inspired/inerrant when teaching on faith and morals? Your position denigrates the power of Christ and the deposit of faith to his physical Church that you admit was created at Pentecost and still on this earth today?

This isn't about Rome (yet). It's about what A Church created by Christ would be.

Don't forget to answer:

Where are non-sacerdotal "true" believers in history before the Reformation?

What is the name of one church in the fourth century that was teaching correctly? 6th Century? 8th? I need names to look them up.

Anonymous said...

What does it mean to be guided by Christ and how do you know when someone or some church is being guided by Christ? What are the signs-characteristics?

What is a sacerdotal believer? Where does the Scripture speak about this?

If Scripture does not teach that believers are "sacerdotal" and you see them in history then they are not NT Christians.

Barbara said...

Anonymous
Post April 28 2013 7:37 am
Sorry for this length reply, you comment necessitated such a lengthy reply. also this YouTube video put things in right perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wd_EAmcFZc

You said
<< If Christ/HS is guiding your church where was Christ/HS during the inquisitions that went on for centuries? Were they powerless to stop this evil by the vicars of Christ?>>

Nothing can undo the divine foundation of the Church, whether foolishness, misguided zeal or cruelty committed by Catholics though these things become a stumbling block to Catholics and non-Catholics

the Church is not a museum of saints Jesus spoke of His church as a field that the Owner of the field planted good seeds in it but the enemy came at night and planted the bad seed Matt 7:15. St Paul also warns that there would be a few ravenous wolves among the Church leader Act 20:29

the inquisition has been a handy stick with which to engage in Non-Catholic bashing because most Catholics are at a loss for a sensible reply and I don't think a com box is a place where we can unpack this topic nevertheless we can point some important facts that was misrepresented by Protestants

1. Sir James Stephens of his history of English Criminal Law notes there were 800 execution year during the early post-Reformation period in England where the inquisition never operated {Rumbel and Carty, Replies 1:218}
one can also refer to the burning of alleged witches, [a practice unknown to Catholic countries] in Britain 30000 went to the stake for witchcraft. In Protestant Germany the figure was in hundred thousand. Such figure doesn't make the (SI) right but they indicated the severity in punishment was not do Catholicism as such but must be attributed to the general character of the time of the time heresy was serious crime punished by death this punishment carried by the civil authority

to be continue>>>>>>>>

Barbara said...

<<<< continue

2. despite what we consider the (SI) lamentable procedure many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. in fact historian had found records that people were blaspheming in secular courts of that period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical where they can get better hearing

3. those who lead the Inquisitions could think their action is justified. The bible itself records instance where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries (( inquisitions)) be carried out to expose secret believers in false religion Deut.17:2-5 to protect the kingdom form such hidden heresy.

4. like Israel Medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to Christ it is therefore understandable that these Catholics would read their Bible and conclude that for the good of Christian society , like the Israelites before them, "must purge evil from the midst of you" Deut. 13:. Paul repeats this principle in 1stCorn.5:13

5. the same texts were interpreted by the first Protestants who also tried to root and punish those they regarded heretics. Both Luther and Calvin endorsed the right of state to protect society by purging false religion.
Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy"(e.g., Jacques Gouet, tortured in 1547 and Michael Servetus burned at stake in 1553
in England and Ireland, reformed engaged in their own ruthless inquisition and executions. thousands of Catholics were put to death for practicing their Catholic believe and refuse to convert to Protestantism and creator number were force flee to . The point here is this : it is a two way street and both sides easily understood the bible to require the use of penal sanction to root out false religion from Christian society

The pact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does NOT prove that a movement is not of God. Protestant can't make such claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither Catholics can make such a charge against Protestants .The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds


Anonymous said...

Barbara,
Your church claims to be guided by the HS and incapable of erring in matters of faith and morals. If that were true then the inquisitions would never have happened since the inquisitions do deal with matters of faith and morals.

This shows your church is not guided by the HS.

cwdlaw223 said...

What does it mean to be guided by Christ?

(1) It means that Christ guides men in his Church to teach the deposit of faith the same way that he guided men to write scripture. No difference whatsoever in his guidance/control/influence over man. You believe that man can only be guided when he was writing scripture. How could this be if Christ is in charge of his Physical Church when teaching on faith and morals. He would allow his Church to teaching something that isn't congruent with Scripture? If so, Christ is no longer God.

Do you understand that Scripture itself doesn't claim to be inspired or inerrant? I'm not sure you do. You recognize that Christ built a physical church, but you don't allow this Church to teach inerrantly. Why? How? The fact that such a Church teaches at all is the sign that it is being guided by Christ.

Do you believe that Christ doesn't guide/control/influence (pick a verb) when it teaches on faith and morals? If so, what's the scriptural basis for this position?

(2) The fact that you assert sacerdotal believers are not Christian is evidence you understand this word, however, I'll make it more simple for you. What "true believers" in history were not celebrating the Mass as part of their worship? I need names to look up these people from the 4th Century, 6th Century, 8 Century and 10th Century.

They must be easy to state or else you're creating a new form of Christianity just like Jospeh Smith with his wild claims that there were Israelites in North America and yet there's no historical evidence for this fact.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

One other point, how is the Church teaching faith and morals with the inquisitions? You make this claim out of thin air and without logic or reason.

You should read this article to clear up your misconceptions about the inquisition:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

You know there is only one Church in history from Pentecost until Today and it was Rome. Why don't you conclude that Christ failed? You make no sense and seem to just want to force a new form of Christianity out of thin air. Be honest and admit that Christ failed with his Church or show us the "true believers" in history from Pentecost until Today. Shouldn't be too hard for a couple names.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Please stop being a jerk and asking me to define what being "guided" means and then use that word against Barbara to claim the inquisitions show the RCC wasn't being led by Christ.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
You only assert that your church is guided by the HS. Anyone can do that. What are the characteristics of being guided by it?

We already know your church teaches things that contradict scripture such as claiming Mary was without sin or a celibate leadership. To believe these things makes one call the Scripture a liar.

Why didn't your answer "What is a sacerdotal believer? Where does the Scripture speak about this?"

Get serious. Rome was not the only church in history that had influence. First there was Jerusalem then Antioch.

Christ does not fail His church but Rome has.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

I kept it simple for you. You bear the burden of proving these "true believers" that you speak of in history.

Where are they? List some names. The sacraments were/are the lifeblood of Christianity and throughout Scripture. You just don't want to admit they're there. I can only pray for your soul.

There were non-RCC Church with influences in history? Where are they in the 1st Century? 2nd? 3rd? 4th? 5th? Should be easy to answer since you seem to know a lot about history.

cwdlaw223 said...

What are the Characteristics? That's easy. The Church can trace itself throughout history to the physical Church that even you admit was formed by Christ at Pentecost.

Furthermore, it is one, holy, apostolic and universal.

Your Church is none of the above. Only Rome can lay claim to being one, holy, apostolic and universal.

Where are these true believers in history? Where are these "true" churches in history that aren't affiliated with Rome practicing a sacerdotal form of worship?

Show us your intelligence with some names.

Anonymous said...

The church for the first few centuries was not RC. The church during these centuries did not have a supreme leader of the entire church, celibate leaders, the Marian dogmas, indulgences or purgatory. All of these doctrines are RC but not NT.

Just because church can claim to trace its history back does not mean it cannot err.

Please answer my questions: "What is a sacerdotal believer? Where does the Scripture speak about this?"

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

A sacerdotal believer means someone who believes in the seven sacraments. Here is a good article that will walk you through these sacraments through scripture:

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/04/sacramental-look-at-holy-thursday.html

The biggest sacrament since the inception of the Church was the Mass. You know this.THE MASS PRECEDED MOST OF THE NT SCRIPTURE WHICH IS A MAJOR FACT YOU IGNORE. The entire Christian experience was centered around the Mass. The Jewish converts didn't just turn into Protestants following such nonsense as sola scripture and justification by faith alone. Like most scholastics, you assume that everyone in history was walking around literate and had easy access to scripture. There is no serious debate about the Mass within Christianity until the Reformation.

(1) So what happened to the "true" Church or "true believers"? Did they die out? Where did they/it go? What would I have called these people in history? Just "true believers"?

(2) What do I do if my Church interprets scripture as X and I interpret scripture as Y? Who has the authority to interpret scripture properly?

(3) How about you tell me where they are from the 4th Century through the 14th Century? I answered your question about a sacerdotal believer (my own word BTW).

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223,
Lets continue our discussion on sacerdotal. According your church a sacrament is:"efficacious signs of grace". Again, where do we see this being talked about in Scripture?
Where are believers exhorted to go to some sacrament to get grace in the NT?

Its important we understand the foundation for your claim to sacraments from Scripture. If its not grounded in Scripture then its a doctrine of men.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Let's not. That's a completely different topic that isn't relevant at this point in time.

If one can't get the idea/concept/intention/creation of the Church right and whether its teachings on faith and morals are inerrant/inspired these debates are meaningless. You are the one that admitted that a physical Church created by Christ exists in history (Pentecost through today) and that "true believers" can be known. I don't know what a "true believer" is in history and am looking for evidence.

(1) So what happened to the "true" Church or "true believers"? Did they die out? Where did they/it go? What would I have called these people in history? Just "true believers"?



(2) How about "true believers" from the 4th Century through the 14th Century who did not celebrate the Mass?

Give me specific names of these believers. For example, you can't use Saint Augustine because he celebrated the Mass. So he must not be a true believer.

(3) What is your scriptural basis that the physical Church created by Christ could be errant in its teachings on faith and morals? Like you said, if your position is outside of scripture it's a tradition of men. Of course, scripture itself doesn't claim to be inspired/inerrant which causes a massive epistemological problem for you because if you just "know" that the Word of God must be "inerrant/inspired" how is that any different than Christ's Church teaching on faith and morals? It's the exact same deposit of faith being taught.

Anonymous said...

I can understand why you don't want to continue our discussion of sacerdotal believers and sacraments is because that is not what the NT teaches. So we can dispense with this nonsense.

1- True believers have always existed in the world since the beginning.

2- the mass is a later development.

3- all men are fallen and capable of error. The apostles warned of false teachers coming into the church and deceiving many. Christ never promised to protect the church from error.

Barbara said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barbara said...


What is the Church teachings (doctrines and dogmas) had to do with the Inquisitions??????

I really believe you are totally ignorant about the history of the inquisitions,and never had the interested to do you homework to learn historic facts about the inquisitions before engaging in honest intellectual discussion

and this is very common among most Protestants even scholars they never honestly are interested to present truth the facts they have being for centuries propagating lies about the Catholic Church regarding inquisitions ((the black legend))

did you know as a matter of historic fact that

King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples

Hope you will find time to watch the youtube video I like in my prior post

May the Lord give you the grace to seek the truth

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Give me some names of true believers who did not participate in the Mass from the 4th Century through the 8th Century? Shouldn't be hard but apparently it is for you. I want to know what happened over time to these true believers. Did they die out and become Mormon?

The Mass was a later invention? Now I know you are making up history. Google the Didache. Christ never promised scripture would be inerrant either. How do you know that scripture is inerrant if it doesn't say so?

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

This story sums up your thinking on this site:

A man is convinced he is dead. His wife and kids are exasperated. They keep telling him he's not dead. But he continues to insist he's dead.

They try telling him, "Look, you're not dead; you're walking and talking and breathing; how can you be dead?" But he continues to insist he is dead.

The family finally takes him to a doctor. The doctor pulls out some medical books to demonstrate to the man that dead men do not bleed. After some time, the man admits that dead men do not bleed.

The doctor then takes the man's hand and a needle and pokes the end of his finger. The man starts bleeding. He looks at his finger and says, "What do you know? DEAD MEN DO BLEED!"

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

You claim the Mass was a later development. How late? Given me a timeline how late is really late? 300 AD? 400 AD?

I still want some names of "true believers" in the 4-8th Centuries so I can look them up. Make sure these names aren't individuals who celebrate the Mass. Obviously they can't be true believers

Anonymous said...

Barbara,
Why do you think your church established the inqusititions? What theological issue was at stake in the inqusitions?

Keep in mind when your church does something like this it is for some theological reason.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 215   Newer› Newest»