I was raised deep in the protestant church. My grandfather was a preacher, my father an organist, and my mother in the choir. We rarely missed a Sunday. At 12yo I was baptized, I eventually married and became a Sunday school teacher. After 10yrs of marriage, my husband left, I confronted being sexually abused as a child (by a neighbor), my physical health collapsed, I lost the ability to work and most of my worldly possessions. Through treatments and surgeries I turned to God, the bible and my faith every waking second. I was led to an amazing man who gave me a love I never knew and we married. Together, we had our first and only child. As I continued to study our faith and the history of the protestant church, the information began leading me away. I turned to my family, hoping my dad could help since he had a degree in theology. Needless to say it backfired. One by one, we each were welcomed home to the Catholic Church. A year later my son was baptized and I buried my precious dad from a traumatic brain injury. The moment I stood beside him as he received his last rights, I understood my life and the journey home. I was able to give back to him from the base he gave to me. I love you dad.
You already did judge me. If you seek, you will find. I'm sorry, but I won't be swayed into hate or persecution. I love you brother. Christ be with you in your spiritual journey.
Martin Luther famously said: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God …”, but pretty much everybody can claim the same, for example a Presbyterian can assure us all, that is ok to baptize our babies, because his “conscience is captive to the Word of God”. A Baptist can tell us exactly the opposite, that we should not baptize our babies, and that he is certain that that is what the Bible teaches because his “conscience is captive to the Word of God”. How can the consciences of two people be captive to the Word of God and contradict each other? How can we decide who is interpreting Scripture correctly? Our conscience is not the final arbiter to determine truth, so to say: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God …” is not enough, this approach has only created disunity and schism for the last 500 years. R.C. Sproul summarized the legacy of the Protestant Reformation with these words “Every Christian has the right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, but no Christian ever has the right to misinterpret the Scriptures” , How can you tell the difference? How do you know when somebody is misinterpreting the Scriptures? Who is to decide what is a “right interpretation”, and what is a “misinterpretation”? This is why we need an infallible teaching office.
As a foundation of their faith, Jews believe God gave to Moses an oral explanation of the Torah (Law) along with the written text which came after. Moses actually first spoke to the people after he communed with God before he put down in writing much of what was said. He did that during the 40 year sojourn in the wilderness. The Oral Tradition is essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim. Thus the Jews have two Torahs: Torah SheBiKetav (written) and Torah SheB'Al Peh (oral/unwritten). In many cases, the Torah refers to details not included in the written text, which presupposes an oral tradition of equal importance. The written word itself supports this presupposition. For example, we read in Deuteronomy 12, 21: ""You shall slaughter your cattle… as I have commanded you." What has been commanded has been passed on orally, that being the prescriptions on how to slaughter the animal (shechitah). Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but their details belong to the Oral Tradition. Needless to say, the commandment on observing Shabbat and keeping it holy is recorded in Jeremiah 17:22, but the details on how the Jews are to keep the Sabbath holy are found in the Midrashim as part of the Talmud/ Oral Tradition. From the time of Moses, the Jews have always depended on tradition for their accepted text, vocalization, and translation of the Torah. And, likewise, they have also relied on tradition for its proper interpretation. The Jews assert that the written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. The interpretation of the written text must be made in light of oral tradition by the divinely appointed rabbinical teaching authority, to avoid ambiguities and misinterpretations of the text. In fact, the Jews regard the oral tradition as being more important to their faith than the written text. The Jews see the written Torah as largely defective, unless it is supplemented by the oral Torah, as it has been faithfully transmitted from one generation to the next by Divine guidance. Hence, a rejection of the oral Torah leads to the denial of the Divine origin of the written Torah. The oral Torah was originally intended to be passed by word of mouth, not unlike the oral Tradition of the Church by the preaching of the Gospel, which was only then put down in writing. But the authors of the NT texts did not write down everything that was preached or believed, at least not explicitly. Likewise, in Judaism, the oral Torah was meant to cover the countless questions that would arise concerning doctrine and the practice of the faith. So not everything could be put in writing and neatly compiled at the outset when God established His covenant with the Hebrew people through Moses. "Of making many books there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The Apostles, being Jews themselves, couldn't have espoused the idea of sola Scriptura. Indeed, as the NT implies, they saw the deposit of faith as consisting of both the written and 'unwritten' word of God (John 16:12-13). The written Gospels and Epistles and the boundless preaching of God's word by the Apostles and their appointed successors all proceeded from God's unwritten word, that which is declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church: sacred Tradition. And it is the Church which is the Rule of Faith. not the Bible which she infallibly compiled under the guidance of the Paraclete. The Bible is often ambiguous and, of course, it cannot interpret itself. A correct understanding of Scripture can only be assured if it is interpreted by the proper final teaching authority of the Church, viz., the Magisterium instituted by Christ himself (Matthew 16:18-19). Christ has maintained a deposit of faith that is part of our Judaic heritage. The so-called "reformers" of the 16th century had absolutely no authority to change the Divine order of things with respect to Divine revelation.
The caller wants to claim "reason" as his reason . . . sigh . . . for believing sola scriptura. Yet if you reason through WHERE the Bible comes from, it comes from the Church, especially from the Mass. So why would it be reasonable to think the Bible is okay but the Church isn't?
Jeff david Sorry, but I'll pray for you. You reject the Church at your peril. It's informative that you claim the Bible and it's unchangeableness (if that's a word) and then honor Luther, who attempted to change the Bible! He tried, among other things, to throw out the Epistle of James ("Throw Jimmy into the fire.") and when asked for his authority to do that, claimed himself! Your arguments are all over the place and in some places, you actually agree with the Church. On the other hand, you mistake "traditions" with Church Tradition. Actually, Saint Paul writes of traditions that are good, noble, and godly that we should follow: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” - 1 Corinthians 11:2 ” Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” - 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15. THOSE are the traditions we're talking about--those passed down from the Apostles. Things with origins in Jesus and his Apostles that the Church believes in, not simply a custom passed down or some changeable human discipline, like "meatless Fridays." Your misunderstanding of Church doctrines and disciplines might be understandable, depending on your background, but the result is an improper argument. Then you argue about the Old Testament as a red herring. The Church used the Septuagint--the Apostles used the Septuagint--and it was the Reformers (or the Deformers, more properly) who dumped that for the Jewish version, without the deuterocanonical books. But as far as the New Testament, that arose from the Mass, actually. The Church put together the Canon of Scripture based on what was appropriate to be read at Mass. That was the measuring stick. Many of the gospels and epistles and the Apocalypse of Peter, for example, were used in some places but not agreed upon by the whole Church so they were jettisoned. And if you look at the New Testament, when it refers to the Old Testament 90% of the time it refers to the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. You can compare the wording and see this. In fact, it also refers to Maccabees, which is, as you know, not included in the Protestant Bible. You refere to St. Paul's comment that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). And in fact, some NON-canonical scriptures are referred to for these purposes. Looks at the Epistle of Jude, with his reference to the book of Enoch and the book of Abraham, scriptures not canonized by the Church (although Enoch, for example, is accepted by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches as canonical. Nowhere in St. Paul's teaching does it say ONLY the (current Protestant) Bible is the ONLY thing we can refer to for that (especially after looking at St. Jude). So that statement simply does not apply, even though Protestants use it all the time. But you admit that the Bible doesn't affirm Sola Scripture anyway, so I don't need to go on about it. And perhaps the biggest problem with your argument is your equating the Bible with "God's Word." The Bible itself defines "God's Word" and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It's probably helpful if you talk about the Bible as God's words and quite deifying the Bible. God's Word--clearly defined in John--is Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity and Son of the Living God. HE is who the Catholic Church follows and holds up to the World as the Savior. And She has for 2000 years. Pax tecum.
Joe. What about the KJV? The whole "throwing out go James" is nothing more than Roman apologetics. I've heard the same reasons that papists use to justify idol worship, Mary worship, and the exhalting of traditions a hundred times. It's a shame it's always done at the degrading of scripture. You act like the book of James means something to you until your traditions are put to the test in light of scripture, then it's always "well scripture isn't our authority". Again I've heard it a hundred times.
Jeremy James Couple of comments. Actually, a few. First, just because you've "heard it a hundred times" doesn't make it wrong. Second, what about the KJV? I'm not sure what you're asking that for? The KJV--the original KJV--was an English translation approved by King James and in fact it had the deuterocanonical books in it. Modern KJVs don't because the reformers excluded them. Third, "Roman apologetics" is a term that actually means explaining the Church's position on something. You're using it as a derogatory epithet, which doesn't advance your argument. I could say you're just doing "Protestant apologetics," but that doesn't automatically invalidate an argument. It just indicates who's making it. Fourth, we Catholics DON'T worship Mary or idols. That's specifically forbidden and has been forbidden in the Church for about 2000 years. Fifth, who is degrading scripture? Scripture is one of the three legs of the stool that we stand on. Scripture is sacred for us and authoritative. In fact, we read it EVERY DAY in Mass, from sunrise to sunset. And at the reading of the Gospel (one of the four canonical gospels) everyone stands up out of reverence. The Church doesn't degrade scripture--she has carefully and jealously guarded it since the days of the Apostles. Sixth, the Letter of St. James is just as sacred as the other books. I'm not sure how we're acting like it's different. They all point to the truth--the truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who build our Church on Peter and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail upon it and sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to guide the Church after He left. So we revere ALL the books of the Bible and they all agree on the same truth. And finally, when you get to name calling you won't find many reasonable people listening to you any more. Calling folks "papists," like the KKK did years ago, doesn't make friends and influence people. Pax te cum. Joe P.
Wrong again. The king James came out AFTER the "reformers", and the apocrypha was included for historical purposes only, it says it in the preface. Also the apocrypha WAS NOT considered inspired by Rome until the council of Trent. Know your own history, or hush.
What about John 1 "in the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God", and Jesus was "the Word made flesh"?, or Matthew 4:4 "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", or John 17:17 "sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth"?.
+Jeremy James well that's just it; when many Protestant denominations say "Sola Scriptura" they mean the written Word of God alone; not Christ who is the Living Word.
I'm not seeing any "only" in those statements; "sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is *the only* truth". I realize you posted this 7 months ago and I'm sorry if you've changed your mind on this subject or just don't want to have to deal with me replying, but here's the thing with Protestantism: It's so much 'either or'. By faith ALONE! no works! Scripture ALONE! no tradition! What I don't get about Protestantism is, why can't it be both? I'll take a few excerpts from: www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/according-to-scripture Jesus Christ established a Church-not a book-to be the foundation of the Christian faith (Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ said of his Church, *"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke **10:16**).* The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening. But when it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition and to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the text is clear: *If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. **18:15**-17).* More on this: www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-scriptura www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
Moses' seat = What was the tradition of Moses' seat (Ex 18:13-15)?THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS (Nevi'im) WERE READ EVERY SABBATH DAY IN SYNAGOGUES: “ … Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them….. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead (Lk 16:29, 31). “… the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day" (Acts 13:27). “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (Acts 15:21). “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets…. “ (Acts 13:14, 15).
As a Protestant, when I heard him say James White I cringed. There are two versions of Sola Scriptura and the one that’s come out of the reformed tradition is one that should absolutely be rejected.
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?
misinterpretation of scripture at its worst. what I want to know is, if apostolic succession is true then why is it only the names of the 12 disciples that are memorialized on the foundational walls of the new temple in revelations 21:14? the 12 tribes of Israel's being the foundation of the old testament are also memorialized on the gates of the new temple. where's the popes names going to be memorialized on the temple of God if they had the divine authority of st Peter? and why is his authority and office not confirmed with supernatural miracles as the disciples? surely an apostle of such authority like the pope and his priests who claim to have the power to forgive sins like jesus can, would have some supernatural power to confirm this, as the disciples did. or even be memorialized somehow as we see in revelation 21:14. oh and why did Jesus say he will send the Holy Spirit as teacher counsellor and helper to us when we have the pope and his priests filling that role??? hmmmm...
QuisutDeus. mpc You seem like a smart guy and you seem to know the Catholic faith well. I am hoping that you will be smart enough to objectively examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. The problem with Catholics is that no matter how insurmountable the evidence presented, they will never admit they are wrong in their beliefs. I do not like to debate scripture because both Catholics and protestant have their interpretation. I will tell you the protestant view is that the true church of Christ has been corrupted over the years by the Roman Catholic church. But the facts of history however, do not lie. The critical passage on which the Catholic church stands on is Mathew 16:18. If the Catholic interpretation of this passage is correct and has always been the interpretation of the church and has not been later misinterpreted by the Vatican, which is the claim of the protestant, CAN YOU THEN PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHER'S EXEGESIS OF MATHEW 16:18 proving that the fathers also believed that the person of Peter was given an infallible papal office which extended to the bishops of Rome? Please do not post an ambiguous one line snippet which generally refers to Peter as the rock out of context but I want to see an examination of that very passage (Mathew 16:18) by the father's to know exactly the context and what their belief was. I look forward to your evidence.
QuisutDeus. mpc You seem like a smart guy and you seem to know the Catholic faith well. I am hoping that you will be smart enough to objectively examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. The problem with Catholics is that no matter how insurmountable the evidence presented, they will never admit they are wrong in their beliefs. I do not like to debate scripture because both Catholics and protestant have their interpretation. I will tell you the protestant view is that the true church of Christ has been corrupted over the years by the Roman Catholic church. But the facts of history however, do not lie. The critical passage on which the Catholic church stands on is Mathew 16:18. If the Catholic interpretation of this passage is correct and has always been the interpretation of the church and has not been later misinterpreted by the Vatican, which is the claim of the protestant, CAN YOU THEN PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHER'S EXEGESIS OF MATHEW 16:18 proving that the fathers also believed that the person of Peter was given an infallible papal office which extended to the bishops of Rome? Please do not post an ambiguous one line snippet which generally refers to Peter as the rock out of context but I want to see an examination of that very passage (Mathew 16:18) by the father's to know exactly the context and what their belief was. I look forward to your evidence.
QuisutDeus. mpc The problem, as I have stated, in using scripture as evidence, is that we don't know which interpretation is the right one. Your claim is that you are the church Christ founded on the person of Peter and an infallible papal office which is succeeded by the bishops of Rome. All this is not taught explicitly throughout the NT as we would expect if the rcc claim were true. Yet we are to believe this based only on implications and one passage in which Jesus supposedly makes Peter the rock the church is built on and the only way to salvation. But my point is this, if your interpretation of mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s is the correct one then the early church history will reflect that. The writings of the fathers will reflect that when the present their interpretation of Mathew 16 to us. The question is, does it support the catholic view or the protestant view? If it doesnt support the catholic view of an office and authority given solely to Peter, then the basis on which your entire church is built on is a lie and that would make you a heretic. And what would the point be in debating scripture with a heretic? First show me that the basis in which your church is built can be supported by hard evidence and the facts of history. I have extensive documentation of the fathers exegesis of Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s AND NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM INTERPRETED IT TO MEAN PAPAL RULE. So I say again, show me where the early church father's in their exegesis of Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s supports your claim that a church was built on Peter as the rock and foundation of the church.
QuisutDeus. mpc We all agree that Christ built A church. But recognising that church can only be done by looking back in history and knowing whether what we believe today is consistent with what the early church and father's have always believed and taught. Apostolic succession to the Catholic does not mean the same thing to the church father's. But that's getting too far ahead, as we must first establish the foundation of the catholic church in Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s. If you cannot reconcile the interpretation of the fathers to your own beliefs, then discussing anything else would be pointless as I've previously stated because you would not be part of the church Christ built and any interpretation you give of scripture to support your beliefs would be false. No, you must first establish what the rock was in Mathew 16 according to the church history. I don't want to know the interpretation the Vatican claims to be true. We must go straight to the source. My claim is this. The church father's view of Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s and what they say about it is that the rock and foundation is.. (1) Jesus christ (2) Peter's FAITH (3) Peter as representative of all those with FAITH ALONE(church)in Christ is the rock. The complete exegesis of every father who speaks on Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s can be categorized into these 3 points. Not once do they mention an infallible papal authority which extended to the bishop of Rome. There are a couple other things that are worth mentioning and would give you an idea of the protestant position reflective of the church father's writings. . (1) the fathers generally refer to Peter as the rock when they mention him but it still does not support a papal office as they explain exactly what they mean when directly examining mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s (2)one line snippets referring to Peter as the rock is taken out of context (3)Peter is described in lofty terms aswell as the other disciples but that is limited to the apostles and does not extend to the bishop of Rome (4) the chair of peter is not limited to the bishop of rome but to all the bishops of the church (5)the keys to the kingdom was given to all the disciples aswell as the church (6) Peter has a preeminence and honour as first apostle but again, it does not extend to the bishop of Rome (7)the keys to the kingdom is the preaching of the gospel message. The reason I ask for a commentary on Mathew 16 from the fathers is so that there is no chance of misrepresentation of their beliefs and nothing is taken out of context..
QuisutDeus. mpc All your quotes from the fathers fit the 7 points I pointed out in my previous post. I will categorize them for You to show you that it has been taken out of context by you to mean an infallible papal office. You: "Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to the sleeping and the lazy; rather, 'the violent take it by force'[cf. Matt. 11: 12]...On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, THE CHOSEN, THE PRE-EMINENT, the FIRST AMONG THE DISCIPLES, FOR WHOM ALONE along with Himself, the Savior paid the Temple tax [cf. Matt. 17: 27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you!'" cf. St. Clement of Alexandria, "Who is the Rich Man That is Saved?" Me: (6) Peter has a preeminence and honour as first apostle but again, it does not extend to the bishop of Rome You: "I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right [i. e. the right to forgive sins in Christ's name] for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said TO PETER, "On this rock I will build my Church,...I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven", or "whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven", that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, SUBVERTING AND CHANGING WHAT WAS THE MANIFEST INTENT OF THE LORD when He conferred this PERSONALLY UPON Peter? On "YOU", He says, I will build My Church; and I will give to "YOU" the Keys, not to the Church; and whatever "YOU" shall have bound or "YOU" shall have loosed, NOT what "THEY" shall have bound or "THEY" shall have loosed." Tertullian, On Modesty Me: 1) the fathers generally refer to Peter as the rock when they mention him but it still does not support a papal office as they explain exactly what they mean when directly examining mathew 16:18 You have taken tertullian view of the rock out of context by posting only half of what he wrote.. If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt 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 thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...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...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99). When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome. The patristic scholar, Karlfried Froehlich, states that even though Tertullian teaches that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in the same sense as the Roman Catholic Church: ‘Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18-19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members.’(Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989) It is a common practice of Roman Catholic apologists to omit part of the quotation given above by Tertullian in order to make it appear that he is a proponent of papal primacy. A prime example off this is found in a recently released Roman Catholic defense of the papacy entitledJesus, Peter and the Keys. The authors give the following partial citation from Tertullian: I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:1819a] or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed(Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), pp. 216-217). When comparing this citation with the one given above it is clear that these authors have left out the last half of the quotation. The part of the quotation that is omitted defines what Tertullian means by the statement that Christ built his Church on Peter and invested him with authroity. Again, what he means by these words is that Christ built his church on Peter by building itthrough him as he preached the gospel. This is a meaning that is clearly contrary to the Roman Catholic perspective. To omit this is to distort the teaching of Tertullian and to give the impression that he taught something he did not teach. So, though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock, he does not mean this in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does. Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men. This is similar to the view expressed by Maximus of Tours when he says: ‘For he is called a rock because he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations' (Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1989), The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, Sermon 77.1, p. 187). Not only do we see a clear denial of any belief in a papal primacy in Tertullian’s exegesis of Matthew 16, but such a denial is also seen from his practice. In his later years Tertullian separated himself from the Catholic Church to become a Montanist. He clearly did not hold to the view espoused by Vatican I that communion with the Bishop of Rome was the ultimate criterion of orthodoxy and of inclusiveness in the Church of God. You are guilty of blindly following these Catholic apologists who lead many astray.. You: "Peter, UPON WHOM IS BUILT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which, however, may be doubtful." Origin, "Commentaries on John" "Look at the GREAT FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, THAT MOST SOLID OF ROCKS, UPON WHOM CHRIST BUILT THE CHURCH! And what does the Lord say TO HIM? "O ye of little faith," He says, "why did you doubt!" [cf. Matt. 14: 31] Origen, "Homilies on the Psalms" Me: (2)one line snippets referring to Peter as the rock is taken out of context compared to origens other statements. You isolate one line to support your case. Origen is the first father to give a detailed exposition of the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:18. His interpretation became normative for the Eastern fathers and for many in the West. Apart from the specific passage of Matthew 16 he states that Peter is the rock: Look at the great foundation of that Church and at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: ‘Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?'(Exodus, Homily 5.4. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelaiter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), p. 100). But, like Tertullian, he does not mean this in the Roman Catholic sense. Often, Origen is cited as a proponent of papal primacy because he says that Peter is the rock. Quotes such as the one given above are isolated from his other statements about Peter and his actual interpretation of Matthew 16:18 thereby inferring that he taught something which he did not teach. In his mind Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments: And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen,Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11). This is one of the most important passages in all the writings of Origen for an understanding of his view of the rock of Matthew 16. Yet this passage is is not included in those referenced by the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This is a glaring omission given the importance of the passage and the fact that it is easily accessible in the work the Ante-Nicene Fathers. One can only conclude that the authors purposefully omitted the passage because it is antithetical to the position they are seeking establish. John Meyendorff was a world renowned and highly respected Orthodox theologian, historian and patristics scholar. He was dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and Professor of Church History and Patristics. He gives the following explanation of Origen’s interpretation and of his influence on subsequent fathers in the East and West: Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus’ answer to Peter’s confession: Simon became the ‘rock’ on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: ‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’ According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first ‘believer,’ and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can ‘imitate’ Peter and receive the same keys. Thus the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the ‘Petrie’ logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature...Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham, 1974), pp. 97-98). James McCue in Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue affirms these views of Origen in these statements: When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18f, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be...(His) is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18f. and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church (Paul Empie and Austin Murphy, Ed., Papal Primacy in the Universal Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 60-61). Origen and Tertullian are the first fathers, from the East and West respectively, to give an exposition on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16 and the role and position of Peter. Their views are foundational for the interpretation of this important passage for the centuries following. Strands of their teaching will appear in the views of the fathers throughout the East and West. It is important to point out that the first Eastern and Western fathers to give an exegesis of Matthew 16 do not interpret the passage in a pro-Roman sense. You: [n. b. there are TWO edition's of Cyprian's commentary on these two verses] [Cyprians's first edition] And again He says to him after His resurrection: "Feed My sheep."[cf. John 21: 17] On HIM He builds the Church, and to HIM He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles [i. e. when He says, As the Father has sent Me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained." [cf. John 20: 21-23], yet He founded a SINGLE CHAIR, and He established by His own authority A source and AN intrinsic reason for THAT UNITY. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i. e. an Apostle]; BUT A PRIMACY IS GIVEN TO PETER, WHEREBY IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THERE IS BUT ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT HOLD FAST TO THIS UNITY OF PETER, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert THE CHAIR OF PETER UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WAS BUILT, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? [Cyprian's second edition] It is ON ONE MAN THAT HE BUILDS THE CHURCH; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, when He says, "As the Father has sent Me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained" [cf. John 20: 21-23], - NEVERTHELESS, IN ORDER THAT UNITY MIGHT BE CLEARLY SHOWN, He established by His own authority A SOURCE FOR THAT UNITY, WHICH TAKES ITS BEGINNING FROM ONE MAN ALONE. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was [i. e. an Apostle], being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; BUT THE ORIGIN [i. e. of the Church] IS GROUNDED IN UNITY [i. e. in the Person of St. Peter by virtue of being the SOLE holder of the "keys to the kingdom of heaven"], so that it may be made clear that there is BUT ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST. Indeed, this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says: "One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." [Song of Songs 6: 8] If someone does not hold fast to THIS UNITY OF THE CHURCH [i. e. in the Person of St. Peter], can he imagine that he still holds the faith? St. Cyprian of Carthage, "The Unity of the Catholic Church" "You have written also that on my account the Church now has a portion of itself in a state of dispersion. In truth, the whole people of the Church are collected together and made one and joined to each other in an indivisible harmony....And the Lord too, in the Gospel, when the disciples abandoned Him while He was speaking, turned to the twelve and said, "And do you too wish to go away?" Peter answered Him, saying, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the word of eternal life: and we believe and know that you are the Son of the Living God." [cf. John 6: 68-70] There speaks PETER, UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WOULD BE BUILT, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church,which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another." St. Cyprian of Carthage, "Letter of Cyprian to Florentines Pupianus" "But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the ONE CHURCH WHICH WAS FOUNDED ON THE ROCK [i. e. of St. Peter] by Christ, can be learned from this, WHICH CHRIST SAID TO PETER ALONE: "Whatever things YOU BIND on earth SHALL BE BOUND also in heaven; and whatever YOU LOOSE on earth, they SHALL BE BOUND in heaven" [cf. Matthew 16: 19];..." Firmilian of Caesarea, "Letter to Cyprian" Me: Cyprian writes his 2nd treatise because of people like yourself misusing his first treatise and applying it to mean something other then he intended.. Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock. If his comments were restricted to the above citation it would lend credence to the idea that he was a proponent of papal primacy. However Cyprian’s comments continue on from the statements given above. His additional statements prove conclusively that although he states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro-Roman sense. His view is that Peter is a symbol of unity, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words: Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian,On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133). Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1). Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock. The bishops of Rome are not endowed with divine authority to rule the Church. All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co-equals. If Cyprian meant to say that the Church was built upon Peter and he who resists the bishop of Rome resists the Church (cutting himself off from the Church), then he completely contradicts himself, for he opposed Stephen, the bishop of Rome in his interpretation of Matthew 16 as well as on theological and jurisdictional issues. His actions prove that his comments about Peter could not coincide with the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. To do so is a distortion of his true meaning. Historically there has been some confusion on the interpretation of Cyprian’s teaching because there are two versions of his treatise, The Unity of the Church. In the first Cyprian speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true Church with that chair. He states that there is only one Church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. In the second, the references to a Petrine primacy are softened to give greater emphasis to the theme of unity and co-equality of bishops. Most Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree that Cyprian is the author of both versions. He wrote the second in order to offset a pro-Roman interpretation which was being attached to his words which he never intended. The episcopate is to him the principle of unity within the Church and representative of it. The ‘chair of Peter’ is a figurative expression which applies to every bishop in his own see, not just the bishops of Rome. The bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor but he does not have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church for Cyprian expressly states that all the apostles received the same authority and status as Peter and the Church is built upon all the bishops and not just Peter alone. Some object to these conclusions about Cyprian citing his statements about the chair of Peter. Roman Catholic apologists would lead us to believe that Cyprian’s comments refer exclusively to the bishops of Rome and that they therefore possess special authority as the successors of Peter. The Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, repudiates this point of view as a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s view. As he points out Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were all equals:: Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5). The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines. Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused. The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘...a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would-be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8). Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3). It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops(Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60). As Charles Gore has pointed out, Cyprian used the phrase, the Chair of Peter’ in his Epistle 43, which Roman apologists often cite in defense of an exclusive Roman primacy, to refer to his own see of Carthage, not the see of Rome. This is confirmed as a general consensus of Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic historians. James McCue, writing for Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, in the work Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, affirms this interpretation of Cyprian’s view in the following comments: According to Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Jesus first conferred upon Peter the authority with which he subsequently endowed all the apostles. This, according to Cyprian, was to make clear the unity of the power that was being conferred and of the church that was being established. Cyprian frequently speaks of Peter as the foundation of the church, and his meaning seems to be that it was in Peter that Jesus first established all the church-building powers and responsibilities that would subsequently also be given to the other apostles and to the bishops. Peter is the source of the church’s unity only in an exemplary or symbolic way...Peter himself seems, in Cyprian’s thought, to have had no authority over the other apostles, and consequently the church of Peter cannot reasonably claim to have any authority over the other churches (Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Edited by Paul Empie and Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 68-69). This judgment is further affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian, Michael Winter: Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes(Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48). This Roman Catholic historian insists that it is a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s true teaching to assert that he is a father who supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. And he says that both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars are now agreed on this. Once again, Roman Catholic historians specifically repudiate what some Roman apologists often teach about Cyprian and his comments on the ‘Chair of Peter’. Karlfried Froehlich states: Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome...He understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the privileged officers of penance...For (Cyprian), the one Peter, the first to receive the penitential keys which all other bishops also exercise, was the biblical type of the one episcopate, which in turn guaranteed the unity of the church. The one Peter equaled the one body of bishops (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 36, 13, n. 28 p. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989). John Meyendorff explains the meaning of Cyprian’s use of the phrase ‘chair of Peter’ and sums up the Cyprianic ecclesiology which was normative for the East as a whole: The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo-Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’-i.e., the bishops of the early Church-refers immediately to the image of Peter....Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual (John Meyendorff,Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98). Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage...For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions(Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152). And finally, Reinhold Seeberg explains Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16 and his ecclesiology in these words: According to Matt. 16:18f., the church is founded upon the bishop and its direction devolves upon him: ‘Hence through the changes of times and dynasties the ordination of bishops and the order of the church moves on, so that the church is constituted of bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these leaders’ (Epistle 33.1)...The bishops constitute a college (collegium), the episcopate (episcopatus). The councils developed this conception. In them the bishops practically represented the unity of the church, as Cyprian now theoretically formulated it. Upon their unity rests the unity of the church...This unity is manifest in the fact that the Lord in the first instance bestowed apostolic authority upon Peter: ‘Hence the other apostles were also, to a certain extent, what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of both honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, in order that the church of Christ may be shown to be one’ (de un. eccl. 4)...In reality all the bishops-regarded dogmatically-stand upon the same level, and hence he maintained, in opposition to Stephanus of Rome, his right of independent opinion and action...(Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume I, p. 182-183). The above quotations from world renowned Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox historians reveal a consensus of scholarly opinion on Cyprian’s teaching effectively demonstrating the incompatibility of Cyprian’s views with those espoused by Vatican I. This consensus also reveals the danger of taking the statements of Church fathers at face value without regard for the context of those statements or for seeking a proper interpretation of the meaning of the terms they use. It is easy to import preconceived meanings into their statements resulting in misrepresentation of their teaching. The authors of Jesus Peter and the Keys are guilty of this very thing. They list quotations from Cyprian in total disregard of the true facts as they have been enumerated by the above historians giving the impression that Cyprian believed in papal primacy when in fact he did not. Their point of view and that of many of the Roman apologists of our day is thoroughly repudiated even by conservative Roman Catholic historians. Cyprian is an excellent example of a father who states that Peter is the rock but who does not mean this in a Roman Catholic sense. But without giving the proper historical context and understanding of his writings it would be quite easy to mislead the unintiated by investing Cyprian’s words with the doctrinal development of a later age thereby misrepresenting his actual position. You: "The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man, then, despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the Apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl; but he repented and wept bitterly. Weeping is demonstrative of repentance from the depth of the heart, which is why he not only received the forgiveness of his denial, but also kept his apostolic dignity without forfeit." St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures" "In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, BOTH THE CHIEF OF THE APOSTLES AND THE KEEPER OF THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [cf. Acts 9: 32-34]; and at Joppa he raised the beneficent Tabitha from the dead [cf. Acts 9: 36-41]." St. Cyril of Jerusalem "Catechetical Lectures 17, 27". Me: (2)one line snippets referring to Peter as the rock is taken out of context (3)Peter is described in lofty terms aswell as the other disciples but that is limited to the apostles and does not extend to the bishop of Rome Cyril of Jerusalem As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...131 So Peter and paul both rule the church according to Cyril? I thought it was a primal rule given to only Peter? You: "...although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, NEVERTHELESS, THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH HAS BEEN PLACED AT THE FOREFRONT not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but HAS RECEIVED THE PRIMACY BY THE EVANGELIC VOICE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, who says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [cf. Matthew 16: 18-19]...The FIRST SEE, therefore is that of PETER THE APOSTLE, THAT OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it...." Pope Damasus I, The Decree of Damascus Me: No use quoting a Roman pope with his own heretical agenda You: Something should be mentioned here; that is, that there were five great Christian centers throughout the ancient world: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople. As you can see from the quotes, ALL of those areas are represented by those making these quotes. In other words, there was a UNIVERSAL consensus that it was Peter who is the 'rock' upon which Christ stated that He would build His Church and to whom, he alone, was entrusted "the keys to the kingdom of heaven". Me: As you can see by the passages I posted refuting your claim, you catholics are king at misrepresenting the fathers views by isolating certain passages or omitting key passages to portray a pro papal rule given to the person of peter apart from his faith, which they clearly did not teach. The father's taught. (1)Christ is the rock (2)Peter's confession of FAITH IN CHRIST is the rock (3)Peter representative of the church is the rock (all those with faith in Christ)
Should follow the Law,so Yes absolutely Live By the Word of GOD.If you run a Church you should point to the Law.I understand some people stumble,and there are individual bad apples.When GOD says call no man Father but He in Heaven,I would take Him seriously.Because you and your church will fall into a pit.And you will take the good apples you have with you.I might stumble but I am A Zealot for Law.I would never tell somebody to do something against it.I have enough problems and do not need somebody else blood on my hands.He says no Idols,so no Statues,Beads and Gold. Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. So yeh Do what He says.Why debate this?You people sound like the Jews with the Talmud.They made it into a book on Laws overriding GOD's so they could break the Laws and be Pagan.Like a Lawyer defending a criminal,and the Lawyer Already knows his client is a criminal. Do what Christ asked us to do,Is it not enough?Do we have to add our own Traditions?The Traditions GOD talks about when He Tells us it is in Vain,Are the ones He never told us to do.Do ye not have the Holy Spirit in you to tell you these things?
Sola scriptura is the thought that all things are given you, through scripture to believe, and be saved by our Lord. It was the Catholic authority that compiled the bible through Our Lord. It is why there are so many confused, So many denominations. So many raised deep in a protestant church who want to believe. You Catholics messed up the Word of God. You added to scripture, and took our bibles away. Do you love me? How many Spirits is our Lord?
I was raised deep in the protestant church. My grandfather was a preacher, my father an organist, and my mother in the choir. We rarely missed a Sunday. At 12yo I was baptized, I eventually married and became a Sunday school teacher. After 10yrs of marriage, my husband left, I confronted being sexually abused as a child (by a neighbor), my physical health collapsed, I lost the ability to work and most of my worldly possessions. Through treatments and surgeries I turned to God, the bible and my faith every waking second. I was led to an amazing man who gave me a love I never knew and we married. Together, we had our first and only child. As I continued to study our faith and the history of the protestant church, the information began leading me away. I turned to my family, hoping my dad could help since he had a degree in theology. Needless to say it backfired. One by one, we each were welcomed home to the Catholic Church. A year later my son was baptized and I buried my precious dad from a traumatic brain injury. The moment I stood beside him as he received his last rights, I understood my life and the journey home. I was able to give back to him from the base he gave to me. I love you dad.
You already did judge me. If you seek, you will find. I'm sorry, but I won't be swayed into hate or persecution. I love you brother. Christ be with you in your spiritual journey.
Martin Luther famously said: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God …”, but pretty much everybody can claim the same, for example a Presbyterian can assure us all, that is ok to baptize our babies, because his “conscience is captive to the Word of God”. A Baptist can tell us exactly the opposite, that we should not baptize our babies, and that he is certain that that is what the Bible teaches because his “conscience is captive to the Word of God”. How can the consciences of two people be captive to the Word of God and contradict each other? How can we decide who is interpreting Scripture correctly? Our conscience is not the final arbiter to determine truth, so to say: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God …” is not enough, this approach has only created disunity and schism for the last 500 years. R.C. Sproul summarized the legacy of the Protestant Reformation with these words “Every Christian has the right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, but no Christian ever has the right to misinterpret the Scriptures” , How can you tell the difference? How do you know when somebody is misinterpreting the Scriptures? Who is to decide what is a “right interpretation”, and what is a “misinterpretation”? This is why we need an infallible teaching office.
Bro. Trent God Bless you for defending the Catholic Faith you are such big and wonderful blessing to the Church the Catholic Church.
Trent. I freaking love you man. Man do I envy your intelligence. May God always bless you.
I got to meet him once. He's great!
Sola Scriptura cannot answer the most fundamental question about the Bible. Which books should be part of the Bible especially the New Testament?
really solid agument, that was awesome Trent
Sola scriptura and tota scriptura period. end of story. full stop! God bless
As a foundation of their faith, Jews believe God gave to Moses an oral explanation of the Torah (Law) along with the written text which came after. Moses actually first spoke to the people after he communed with God before he put down in writing much of what was said. He did that during the 40 year sojourn in the wilderness. The Oral Tradition is essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim. Thus the Jews have two Torahs: Torah SheBiKetav (written) and Torah SheB'Al Peh (oral/unwritten). In many cases, the Torah refers to details not included in the written text, which presupposes an oral tradition of equal importance. The written word itself supports this presupposition. For example, we read in Deuteronomy 12, 21: ""You shall slaughter your cattle… as I have commanded you." What has been commanded has been passed on orally, that being the prescriptions on how to slaughter the animal (shechitah). Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but their details belong to the Oral Tradition.
Needless to say, the commandment on observing Shabbat and keeping it holy is recorded in Jeremiah 17:22, but the details on how the Jews are to keep the Sabbath holy are found in the Midrashim as part of the Talmud/ Oral Tradition. From the time of Moses, the Jews have always depended on tradition for their accepted text, vocalization, and translation of the Torah. And, likewise, they have also relied on tradition for its proper interpretation. The Jews assert that the written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. The interpretation of the written text must be made in light of oral tradition by the divinely appointed rabbinical teaching authority, to avoid ambiguities and misinterpretations of the text. In fact, the Jews regard the oral tradition as being more important to their faith than the written text. The Jews see the written Torah as largely defective, unless it is supplemented by the oral Torah, as it has been faithfully transmitted from one generation to the next by Divine guidance.
Hence, a rejection of the oral Torah leads to the denial of the Divine origin of the written Torah. The oral Torah was originally intended to be passed by word of mouth, not unlike the oral Tradition of the Church by the preaching of the Gospel, which was only then put down in writing. But the authors of the NT texts did not write down everything that was preached or believed, at least not explicitly. Likewise, in Judaism, the oral Torah was meant to cover the countless questions that would arise concerning doctrine and the practice of the faith. So not everything could be put in writing and neatly compiled at the outset when God established His covenant with the Hebrew people through Moses. "Of making many books there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12).
The Apostles, being Jews themselves, couldn't have espoused the idea of sola Scriptura. Indeed, as the NT implies, they saw the deposit of faith as consisting of both the written and 'unwritten' word of God (John 16:12-13). The written Gospels and Epistles and the boundless preaching of God's word by the Apostles and their appointed successors all proceeded from God's unwritten word, that which is declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church: sacred Tradition. And it is the Church which is the Rule of Faith. not the Bible which she infallibly compiled under the guidance of the Paraclete. The Bible is often ambiguous and, of course, it cannot interpret itself. A correct understanding of Scripture can only be assured if it is interpreted by the proper final teaching authority of the Church, viz., the Magisterium instituted by Christ himself (Matthew 16:18-19). Christ has maintained a deposit of faith that is part of our Judaic heritage. The so-called "reformers" of the 16th century had absolutely no authority to change the Divine order of things with respect to Divine revelation.
Not attacking one side or the other, but the protestant wasn't very learned.
Great new set and camera angles folks.
The caller wants to claim "reason" as his reason . . . sigh . . . for believing sola scriptura. Yet if you reason through WHERE the Bible comes from, it comes from the Church, especially from the Mass. So why would it be reasonable to think the Bible is okay but the Church isn't?
Jeff david Sorry, but I'll pray for you.
You reject the Church at your peril. It's informative that you claim the Bible and it's unchangeableness (if that's a word) and then honor Luther, who attempted to change the Bible! He tried, among other things, to throw out the Epistle of James ("Throw Jimmy into the fire.") and when asked for his authority to do that, claimed himself!
Your arguments are all over the place and in some places, you actually agree with the Church. On the other hand, you mistake "traditions" with Church Tradition. Actually, Saint Paul writes of traditions that are good, noble, and godly that we should follow:
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” - 1 Corinthians 11:2 ” Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” - 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15. THOSE are the traditions we're talking about--those passed down from the Apostles. Things with origins in Jesus and his Apostles that the Church believes in, not simply a custom passed down or some changeable human discipline, like "meatless Fridays." Your misunderstanding of Church doctrines and disciplines might be understandable, depending on your background, but the result is an improper argument.
Then you argue about the Old Testament as a red herring. The Church used the Septuagint--the Apostles used the Septuagint--and it was the Reformers (or the Deformers, more properly) who dumped that for the Jewish version, without the deuterocanonical books. But as far as the New Testament, that arose from the Mass, actually. The Church put together the Canon of Scripture based on what was appropriate to be read at Mass. That was the measuring stick. Many of the gospels and epistles and the Apocalypse of Peter, for example, were used in some places but not agreed upon by the whole Church so they were jettisoned. And if you look at the New Testament, when it refers to the Old Testament 90% of the time it refers to the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. You can compare the wording and see this. In fact, it also refers to Maccabees, which is, as you know, not included in the Protestant Bible.
You refere to St. Paul's comment that “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). And in fact, some NON-canonical scriptures are referred to for these purposes. Looks at the Epistle of Jude, with his reference to the book of Enoch and the book of Abraham, scriptures not canonized by the Church (although Enoch, for example, is accepted by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches as canonical. Nowhere in St. Paul's teaching does it say ONLY the (current Protestant) Bible is the ONLY thing we can refer to for that (especially after looking at St. Jude). So that statement simply does not apply, even though Protestants use it all the time. But you admit that the Bible doesn't affirm Sola Scripture anyway, so I don't need to go on about it.
And perhaps the biggest problem with your argument is your equating the Bible with "God's Word." The Bible itself defines "God's Word" and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It's probably helpful if you talk about the Bible as God's words and quite deifying the Bible. God's Word--clearly defined in John--is Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity and Son of the Living God. HE is who the Catholic Church follows and holds up to the World as the Savior. And She has for 2000 years.
Pax tecum.
Joe. What about the KJV? The whole "throwing out go James" is nothing more than Roman apologetics. I've heard the same reasons that papists use to justify idol worship, Mary worship, and the exhalting of traditions a hundred times. It's a shame it's always done at the degrading of scripture. You act like the book of James means something to you until your traditions are put to the test in light of scripture, then it's always "well scripture isn't our authority". Again I've heard it a hundred times.
Jeremy James Couple of comments. Actually, a few.
First, just because you've "heard it a hundred times" doesn't make it wrong.
Second, what about the KJV? I'm not sure what you're asking that for? The KJV--the original KJV--was an English translation approved by King James and in fact it had the deuterocanonical books in it. Modern KJVs don't because the reformers excluded them.
Third, "Roman apologetics" is a term that actually means explaining the Church's position on something. You're using it as a derogatory epithet, which doesn't advance your argument. I could say you're just doing "Protestant apologetics," but that doesn't automatically invalidate an argument. It just indicates who's making it.
Fourth, we Catholics DON'T worship Mary or idols. That's specifically forbidden and has been forbidden in the Church for about 2000 years.
Fifth, who is degrading scripture? Scripture is one of the three legs of the stool that we stand on. Scripture is sacred for us and authoritative. In fact, we read it EVERY DAY in Mass, from sunrise to sunset. And at the reading of the Gospel (one of the four canonical gospels) everyone stands up out of reverence. The Church doesn't degrade scripture--she has carefully and jealously guarded it since the days of the Apostles.
Sixth, the Letter of St. James is just as sacred as the other books. I'm not sure how we're acting like it's different. They all point to the truth--the truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who build our Church on Peter and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail upon it and sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to guide the Church after He left. So we revere ALL the books of the Bible and they all agree on the same truth.
And finally, when you get to name calling you won't find many reasonable people listening to you any more. Calling folks "papists," like the KKK did years ago, doesn't make friends and influence people.
Pax te cum.
Joe P.
+Jeff david good for you have fun in you false faith That would be the Word of God preserved by the
Catholic Church as the bible, right?
Wrong again. The king James came out AFTER the "reformers", and the apocrypha was included for historical purposes only, it says it in the preface. Also the apocrypha WAS NOT considered inspired by Rome until the council of Trent. Know your own history, or hush.
What about John 1 "in the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God", and Jesus was "the Word made flesh"?, or Matthew 4:4 "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", or John 17:17 "sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth"?.
+Jeremy James well that's just it; when many Protestant denominations say "Sola Scriptura" they mean the written Word of God alone; not Christ who is the Living Word.
I'm not seeing any "only" in those statements; "sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is *the only* truth". I realize you posted this 7 months ago and I'm sorry if you've changed your mind on this subject or just don't want to have to deal with me replying, but here's the thing with Protestantism: It's so much 'either or'. By faith ALONE! no works! Scripture ALONE! no tradition! What I don't get about Protestantism is, why can't it be both?
I'll take a few excerpts from: www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/according-to-scripture
Jesus Christ established a Church-not a book-to be the foundation of the Christian faith (Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ said of his Church, *"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke **10:16**).*
The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening. But when it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition and to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the text is clear:
*If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. **18:15**-17).*
More on this: www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-scriptura
www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
this one was great!
Amen
Moses' seat = What was the tradition of Moses' seat (Ex 18:13-15)?THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS (Nevi'im) WERE READ EVERY SABBATH DAY IN SYNAGOGUES:
“ … Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them….. If they
hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead (Lk 16:29, 31).
“… the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day" (Acts 13:27).
“For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (Acts 15:21).
“But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets…. “ (Acts 13:14, 15).
As a Protestant, when I heard him say James White I cringed. There are two versions of Sola Scriptura and the one that’s come out of the reformed tradition is one that should absolutely be rejected.
Sola Scriptura is not good
Sola Scriptura from the living Word is alive despite you . God is perfect, He saves.
You need to be enlightened by science to appreciate God, likewise you need to be enlightened by God to appreciate science.
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?
new office space?
misinterpretation of scripture at its worst. what I want to know is, if apostolic succession is true then why is it only the names of the 12 disciples that are memorialized on the foundational walls of the new temple in revelations 21:14? the 12 tribes of Israel's being the foundation of the old testament are also memorialized on the gates of the new temple. where's the popes names going to be memorialized on the temple of God if they had the divine authority of st Peter? and why is his authority and office not confirmed with supernatural miracles as the disciples? surely an apostle of such authority like the pope and his priests who claim to have the power to forgive sins like jesus can, would have some supernatural power to confirm this, as the disciples did. or even be memorialized somehow as we see in revelation 21:14. oh and why did Jesus say he will send the Holy Spirit as teacher counsellor and helper to us when we have the pope and his priests filling that role??? hmmmm...
QuisutDeus. mpc
You seem like a smart guy and you seem to know the Catholic faith well. I am hoping that you will be smart enough to objectively examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. The problem with Catholics is that no matter how insurmountable the evidence presented, they will never admit they are wrong in their beliefs. I do not like to debate scripture because both Catholics and protestant have their interpretation. I will tell you the protestant view is that the true church of Christ has been corrupted over the years by the Roman Catholic church. But the facts of history however, do not lie.
The critical passage on which the Catholic church stands on is Mathew 16:18. If the Catholic interpretation of this passage is correct and has always been the interpretation of the church and has not been later misinterpreted by the Vatican, which is the claim of the protestant, CAN YOU THEN PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHER'S EXEGESIS OF MATHEW 16:18 proving that the fathers also believed that the person of Peter was given an infallible papal office which extended to the bishops of Rome? Please do not post an ambiguous one line snippet which generally refers to Peter as the rock out of context but I want to see an examination of that very passage (Mathew 16:18) by the father's to know exactly the context and what their belief was. I look forward to your evidence.
QuisutDeus. mpc
You seem like a smart guy and you seem to know the Catholic faith well. I am hoping that you will be smart enough to objectively examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. The problem with Catholics is that no matter how insurmountable the evidence presented, they will never admit they are wrong in their beliefs. I do not like to debate scripture because both Catholics and protestant have their interpretation. I will tell you the protestant view is that the true church of Christ has been corrupted over the years by the Roman Catholic church. But the facts of history however, do not lie.
The critical passage on which the Catholic church stands on is Mathew 16:18. If the Catholic interpretation of this passage is correct and has always been the interpretation of the church and has not been later misinterpreted by the Vatican, which is the claim of the protestant, CAN YOU THEN PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHER'S EXEGESIS OF MATHEW 16:18 proving that the fathers also believed that the person of Peter was given an infallible papal office which extended to the bishops of Rome? Please do not post an ambiguous one line snippet which generally refers to Peter as the rock out of context but I want to see an examination of that very passage (Mathew 16:18) by the father's to know exactly the context and what their belief was. I look forward to your evidence.
QuisutDeus. mpc
The problem, as I have stated, in using scripture as evidence, is that we don't know which interpretation is the right one. Your claim is that you are the church Christ founded on the person of Peter and an infallible papal office which is succeeded by the bishops of Rome. All this is not taught explicitly throughout the NT as we would expect if the rcc claim were true. Yet we are to believe this based only on implications and one passage in which Jesus supposedly makes Peter the rock the church is built on and the only way to salvation.
But my point is this, if your interpretation of mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s is the correct one then the early church history will reflect that. The writings of the fathers will reflect that when the present their interpretation of Mathew 16 to us. The question is, does it support the catholic view or the protestant view? If it doesnt support the catholic view of an office and authority given solely to Peter, then the basis on which your entire church is built on is a lie and that would make you a heretic. And what would the point be in debating scripture with a heretic?
First show me that the basis in which your church is built can be supported by hard evidence and the facts of history. I have extensive documentation of the fathers exegesis of Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s AND NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM INTERPRETED IT TO MEAN PAPAL RULE.
So I say again, show me where the early church father's in their exegesis of Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s supports your claim that a church was built on Peter as the rock and foundation of the church.
QuisutDeus. mpc
We all agree that Christ built A church. But recognising that church can only be done by looking back in history and knowing whether what we believe today is consistent with what the early church and father's have always believed and taught.
Apostolic succession to the Catholic does not mean the same thing to the church father's. But that's getting too far ahead, as we must first establish the foundation of the catholic church in Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s. If you cannot reconcile the interpretation of the fathers to your own beliefs, then discussing anything else would be pointless as I've previously stated because you would not be part of the church Christ built and any interpretation you give of scripture to support your beliefs would be false.
No, you must first establish what the rock was in Mathew 16 according to the church history. I don't want to know the interpretation the Vatican claims to be true. We must go straight to the source.
My claim is this. The church father's view of Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s and what they say about it is that the rock and foundation is..
(1) Jesus christ
(2) Peter's FAITH
(3) Peter as representative of all those with FAITH ALONE(church)in Christ is the rock.
The complete exegesis of every father who speaks on Mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s can be categorized into these 3 points. Not once do they mention an infallible papal authority which extended to the bishop of Rome.
There are a couple other things that are worth mentioning and would give you an idea of the protestant position reflective of the church father's writings. .
(1) the fathers generally refer to Peter as the rock when they mention him but it still does not support a papal office as they explain exactly what they mean when directly examining mathew ruclips.net/video/_g72zamBPFk/видео.htmlm18s
(2)one line snippets referring to Peter as the rock is taken out of context
(3)Peter is described in lofty terms aswell as the other disciples but that is limited to the apostles and does not extend to the bishop of Rome
(4) the chair of peter is not limited to the bishop of rome but to all the bishops of the church
(5)the keys to the kingdom was given to all the disciples aswell as the church
(6) Peter has a preeminence and honour as first apostle but again, it does not extend to the bishop of Rome
(7)the keys to the kingdom is the preaching of the gospel message.
The reason I ask for a commentary on Mathew 16 from the fathers is so that there is no chance of misrepresentation of their beliefs and nothing is taken out of context..
QuisutDeus. mpc
All your quotes from the fathers fit the 7 points I pointed out in my previous post. I will categorize them for You to show you that it has been taken out of context by you to mean an infallible papal office.
You:
"Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to the sleeping and the lazy; rather, 'the violent take it by force'[cf. Matt. 11: 12]...On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, THE CHOSEN, THE PRE-EMINENT, the FIRST AMONG THE DISCIPLES, FOR WHOM ALONE along with Himself, the Savior paid the Temple tax [cf. Matt. 17: 27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you!'"
cf. St. Clement of Alexandria, "Who is the Rich Man That is Saved?"
Me:
(6) Peter has a preeminence and honour as first apostle but again, it does not extend to the bishop of Rome
You:
"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right [i. e. the right to forgive sins in Christ's name] for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said TO PETER, "On this rock I will build my Church,...I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven", or "whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven", that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, SUBVERTING AND CHANGING WHAT WAS THE MANIFEST INTENT OF THE LORD when He conferred this PERSONALLY UPON Peter? On "YOU", He says, I will build My Church; and I will give to "YOU" the Keys, not to the Church; and whatever "YOU" shall have bound or "YOU" shall have loosed, NOT what "THEY" shall have bound or "THEY" shall have loosed."
Tertullian, On Modesty
Me:
1) the fathers generally refer to Peter as the rock when they mention him but it still does not support a papal office as they explain exactly what they mean when directly examining mathew 16:18
You have taken tertullian view of the rock out of context by posting only half of what he wrote..
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt 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 thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...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...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).
When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome. The patristic scholar, Karlfried Froehlich, states that even though Tertullian teaches that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in the same sense as the Roman Catholic Church:
‘Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18-19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members.’(Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989)
It is a common practice of Roman Catholic apologists to omit part of the quotation given above by Tertullian in order to make it appear that he is a proponent of papal primacy. A prime example off this is found in a recently released Roman Catholic defense of the papacy entitledJesus, Peter and the Keys. The authors give the following partial citation from Tertullian:
I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:1819a] or ‘whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed(Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), pp. 216-217).
When comparing this citation with the one given above it is clear that these authors have left out the last half of the quotation. The part of the quotation that is omitted defines what Tertullian means by the statement that Christ built his Church on Peter and invested him with authroity. Again, what he means by these words is that Christ built his church on Peter by building itthrough him as he preached the gospel. This is a meaning that is clearly contrary to the Roman Catholic perspective. To omit this is to distort the teaching of Tertullian and to give the impression that he taught something he did not teach. So, though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock, he does not mean this in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does. Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men. This is similar to the view expressed by Maximus of Tours when he says: ‘For he is called a rock because he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations' (Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1989), The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, Sermon 77.1, p. 187).
Not only do we see a clear denial of any belief in a papal primacy in Tertullian’s exegesis of Matthew 16, but such a denial is also seen from his practice. In his later years Tertullian separated himself from the Catholic Church to become a Montanist. He clearly did not hold to the view espoused by Vatican I that communion with the Bishop of Rome was the ultimate criterion of orthodoxy and of inclusiveness in the Church of God.
You are guilty of blindly following these Catholic apologists who lead many astray..
You:
"Peter, UPON WHOM IS BUILT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which, however, may be doubtful."
Origin, "Commentaries on John"
"Look at the GREAT FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, THAT MOST SOLID OF ROCKS, UPON WHOM CHRIST BUILT THE CHURCH! And what does the Lord say TO HIM? "O ye of little faith," He says, "why did you doubt!" [cf. Matt. 14: 31]
Origen, "Homilies on the Psalms"
Me:
(2)one line snippets referring to Peter as the rock is taken out of context compared to origens other statements. You isolate one line to support your case.
Origen is the first father to give a detailed exposition of the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:18. His interpretation became normative for the Eastern fathers and for many in the West. Apart from the specific passage of Matthew 16 he states that Peter is the rock:
Look at the great foundation of that Church and at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: ‘Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?'(Exodus, Homily 5.4. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelaiter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), p. 100).
But, like Tertullian, he does not mean this in the Roman Catholic sense. Often, Origen is cited as a proponent of papal primacy because he says that Peter is the rock. Quotes such as the one given above are isolated from his other statements about Peter and his actual interpretation of Matthew 16:18 thereby inferring that he taught something which he did not teach. In his mind Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments:
And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen,Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
This is one of the most important passages in all the writings of Origen for an understanding of his view of the rock of Matthew 16. Yet this passage is is not included in those referenced by the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This is a glaring omission given the importance of the passage and the fact that it is easily accessible in the work the Ante-Nicene Fathers. One can only conclude that the authors purposefully omitted the passage because it is antithetical to the position they are seeking establish.
John Meyendorff was a world renowned and highly respected Orthodox theologian, historian and patristics scholar. He was dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and Professor of Church History and Patristics. He gives the following explanation of Origen’s interpretation and of his influence on subsequent fathers in the East and West:
Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus’ answer to Peter’s confession: Simon became the ‘rock’ on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: ‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’ According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first ‘believer,’ and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can ‘imitate’ Peter and receive the same keys. Thus the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the ‘Petrie’ logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature...Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham, 1974), pp. 97-98).
James McCue in Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue affirms these views of Origen in these statements:
When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18f, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be...(His) is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18f. and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church (Paul Empie and Austin Murphy, Ed., Papal Primacy in the Universal Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 60-61).
Origen and Tertullian are the first fathers, from the East and West respectively, to give an exposition on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16 and the role and position of Peter. Their views are foundational for the interpretation of this important passage for the centuries following. Strands of their teaching will appear in the views of the fathers throughout the East and West. It is important to point out that the first Eastern and Western fathers to give an exegesis of Matthew 16 do not interpret the passage in a pro-Roman sense.
You:
[n. b. there are TWO edition's of Cyprian's commentary on these two verses]
[Cyprians's first edition]
And again He says to him after His resurrection: "Feed My sheep."[cf. John 21: 17] On HIM He builds the Church, and to HIM He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles [i. e. when He says, As the Father has sent Me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained." [cf. John 20: 21-23], yet He founded a SINGLE CHAIR, and He established by His own authority A source and AN intrinsic reason for THAT UNITY. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i. e. an Apostle]; BUT A PRIMACY IS GIVEN TO PETER, WHEREBY IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THERE IS BUT ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT HOLD FAST TO THIS UNITY OF PETER, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert THE CHAIR OF PETER UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WAS BUILT, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
[Cyprian's second edition]
It is ON ONE MAN THAT HE BUILDS THE CHURCH; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, when He says, "As the Father has sent Me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained" [cf. John 20: 21-23], - NEVERTHELESS, IN ORDER THAT UNITY MIGHT BE CLEARLY SHOWN, He established by His own authority A SOURCE FOR THAT UNITY, WHICH TAKES ITS BEGINNING FROM ONE MAN ALONE. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was [i. e. an Apostle], being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; BUT THE ORIGIN [i. e. of the Church] IS GROUNDED IN UNITY [i. e. in the Person of St. Peter by virtue of being the SOLE holder of the "keys to the kingdom of heaven"], so that it may be made clear that there is BUT ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST. Indeed, this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says: "One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." [Song of Songs 6: 8] If someone does not hold fast to THIS UNITY OF THE CHURCH [i. e. in the Person of St. Peter], can he imagine that he still holds the faith?
St. Cyprian of Carthage, "The Unity of the Catholic Church"
"You have written also that on my account the Church now has a portion of itself in a state of dispersion. In truth, the whole people of the Church are collected together and made one and joined to each other in an indivisible harmony....And the Lord too, in the Gospel, when the disciples abandoned Him while He was speaking, turned to the twelve and said, "And do you too wish to go away?" Peter answered Him, saying, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the word of eternal life: and we believe and know that you are the Son of the Living God." [cf. John 6: 68-70] There speaks PETER, UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WOULD BE BUILT, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church,which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another."
St. Cyprian of Carthage, "Letter of Cyprian to Florentines Pupianus"
"But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the ONE CHURCH WHICH WAS FOUNDED ON THE ROCK [i. e. of St. Peter] by Christ, can be learned from this, WHICH CHRIST SAID TO PETER ALONE: "Whatever things YOU BIND on earth SHALL BE BOUND also in heaven; and whatever YOU LOOSE on earth, they SHALL BE BOUND in heaven" [cf. Matthew 16: 19];..."
Firmilian of Caesarea, "Letter to Cyprian"
Me:
Cyprian writes his 2nd treatise because of people like yourself misusing his first treatise and applying it to mean something other then he intended..
Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock. If his comments were restricted to the above citation it would lend credence to the idea that he was a proponent of papal primacy. However Cyprian’s comments continue on from the statements given above. His additional statements prove conclusively that although he states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro-Roman sense. His view is that Peter is a symbol of unity, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words:
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian,On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).
Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).
Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that Peter is the rock. But such a statement must be qualified. He definitely does not mean this in the same way the Church of Rome does. In his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian teaches that Peter alone is not the rock or foundation on which the Church is built, but rather, he is an example of the principle of unity. He is representative of the Church as a whole. The entire episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ is himself the true Rock. The bishops of Rome are not endowed with divine authority to rule the Church. All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co-equals. If Cyprian meant to say that the Church was built upon Peter and he who resists the bishop of Rome resists the Church (cutting himself off from the Church), then he completely contradicts himself, for he opposed Stephen, the bishop of Rome in his interpretation of Matthew 16 as well as on theological and jurisdictional issues. His actions prove that his comments about Peter could not coincide with the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. To do so is a distortion of his true meaning.
Historically there has been some confusion on the interpretation of Cyprian’s teaching because there are two versions of his treatise, The Unity of the Church. In the first Cyprian speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true Church with that chair. He states that there is only one Church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. In the second, the references to a Petrine primacy are softened to give greater emphasis to the theme of unity and co-equality of bishops. Most Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree that Cyprian is the author of both versions. He wrote the second in order to offset a pro-Roman interpretation which was being attached to his words which he never intended. The episcopate is to him the principle of unity within the Church and representative of it. The ‘chair of Peter’ is a figurative expression which applies to every bishop in his own see, not just the bishops of Rome. The bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor but he does not have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church for Cyprian expressly states that all the apostles received the same authority and status as Peter and the Church is built upon all the bishops and not just Peter alone. Some object to these conclusions about Cyprian citing his statements about the chair of Peter. Roman Catholic apologists would lead us to believe that Cyprian’s comments refer exclusively to the bishops of Rome and that they therefore possess special authority as the successors of Peter.
The Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, repudiates this point of view as a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s view. As he points out Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were all equals::
Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5).
The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.
Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.
The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘...a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would-be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).
Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3).
It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops(Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).
As Charles Gore has pointed out, Cyprian used the phrase, the Chair of Peter’ in his Epistle 43, which Roman apologists often cite in defense of an exclusive Roman primacy, to refer to his own see of Carthage, not the see of Rome. This is confirmed as a general consensus of Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic historians. James McCue, writing for Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, in the work Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, affirms this interpretation of Cyprian’s view in the following comments:
According to Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Jesus first conferred upon Peter the authority with which he subsequently endowed all the apostles. This, according to Cyprian, was to make clear the unity of the power that was being conferred and of the church that was being established. Cyprian frequently speaks of Peter as the foundation of the church, and his meaning seems to be that it was in Peter that Jesus first established all the church-building powers and responsibilities that would subsequently also be given to the other apostles and to the bishops.
Peter is the source of the church’s unity only in an exemplary or symbolic way...Peter himself seems, in Cyprian’s thought, to have had no authority over the other apostles, and consequently the church of Peter cannot reasonably claim to have any authority over the other churches (Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Edited by Paul Empie and Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 68-69).
This judgment is further affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian, Michael Winter:
Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes(Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48).
This Roman Catholic historian insists that it is a misrepresentation of Cyprian’s true teaching to assert that he is a father who supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. And he says that both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars are now agreed on this. Once again, Roman Catholic historians specifically repudiate what some Roman apologists often teach about Cyprian and his comments on the ‘Chair of Peter’. Karlfried Froehlich states:
Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome...He understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the privileged officers of penance...For (Cyprian), the one Peter, the first to receive the penitential keys which all other bishops also exercise, was the biblical type of the one episcopate, which in turn guaranteed the unity of the church. The one Peter equaled the one body of bishops (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 36, 13, n. 28 p. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).
John Meyendorff explains the meaning of Cyprian’s use of the phrase ‘chair of Peter’ and sums up the Cyprianic ecclesiology which was normative for the East as a whole:
The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’ Pseudo-Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’-i.e., the bishops of the early Church-refers immediately to the image of Peter....Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual (John Meyendorff,Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98).
Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage...For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions(Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152).
And finally, Reinhold Seeberg explains Cyprian’s interpretation of Matthew 16 and his ecclesiology in these words:
According to Matt. 16:18f., the church is founded upon the bishop and its direction devolves upon him: ‘Hence through the changes of times and dynasties the ordination of bishops and the order of the church moves on, so that the church is constituted of bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these leaders’ (Epistle 33.1)...The bishops constitute a college (collegium), the episcopate (episcopatus). The councils developed this conception. In them the bishops practically represented the unity of the church, as Cyprian now theoretically formulated it. Upon their unity rests the unity of the church...This unity is manifest in the fact that the Lord in the first instance bestowed apostolic authority upon Peter: ‘Hence the other apostles were also, to a certain extent, what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of both honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, in order that the church of Christ may be shown to be one’ (de un. eccl. 4)...In reality all the bishops-regarded dogmatically-stand upon the same level, and hence he maintained, in opposition to Stephanus of Rome, his right of independent opinion and action...(Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume I, p. 182-183).
The above quotations from world renowned Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox historians reveal a consensus of scholarly opinion on Cyprian’s teaching effectively demonstrating the incompatibility of Cyprian’s views with those espoused by Vatican I. This consensus also reveals the danger of taking the statements of Church fathers at face value without regard for the context of those statements or for seeking a proper interpretation of the meaning of the terms they use. It is easy to import preconceived meanings into their statements resulting in misrepresentation of their teaching.
The authors of Jesus Peter and the Keys are guilty of this very thing. They list quotations from Cyprian in total disregard of the true facts as they have been enumerated by the above historians giving the impression that Cyprian believed in papal primacy when in fact he did not. Their point of view and that of many of the Roman apologists of our day is thoroughly repudiated even by conservative Roman Catholic historians. Cyprian is an excellent example of a father who states that Peter is the rock but who does not mean this in a Roman Catholic sense. But without giving the proper historical context and understanding of his writings it would be quite easy to mislead the unintiated by investing Cyprian’s words with the doctrinal development of a later age thereby misrepresenting his actual position.
You:
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man, then, despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the Apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl; but he repented and wept bitterly. Weeping is demonstrative of repentance from the depth of the heart, which is why he not only received the forgiveness of his denial, but also kept his apostolic dignity without forfeit."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures"
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, BOTH THE CHIEF OF THE APOSTLES AND THE KEEPER OF THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [cf. Acts 9: 32-34]; and at Joppa he raised the beneficent Tabitha from the dead [cf. Acts 9: 36-41]."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem "Catechetical Lectures 17, 27".
Me:
(2)one line snippets referring to Peter as the rock is taken out of context
(3)Peter is described in lofty terms aswell as the other disciples but that is limited to the apostles and does not extend to the bishop of Rome
Cyril of Jerusalem
As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...131
So Peter and paul both rule the church according to Cyril? I thought it was a primal rule given to only Peter?
You:
"...although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, NEVERTHELESS, THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH HAS BEEN PLACED AT THE FOREFRONT not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but HAS RECEIVED THE PRIMACY BY THE EVANGELIC VOICE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, who says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [cf. Matthew 16: 18-19]...The FIRST SEE, therefore is that of PETER THE APOSTLE, THAT OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it...."
Pope Damasus I, The Decree of Damascus
Me:
No use quoting a Roman pope with his own heretical agenda
You:
Something should be mentioned here; that is, that there were five great Christian centers throughout the ancient world: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople. As you can see from the quotes, ALL of those areas are represented by those making these quotes. In other words, there was a UNIVERSAL consensus that it was Peter who is the 'rock' upon which Christ stated that He would build His Church and to whom, he alone, was entrusted "the keys to the kingdom of heaven".
Me:
As you can see by the passages I posted refuting your claim, you catholics are king at misrepresenting the fathers views by isolating certain passages or omitting key passages to portray a pro papal rule given to the person of peter apart from his faith, which they clearly did not teach. The father's taught.
(1)Christ is the rock
(2)Peter's confession of FAITH IN CHRIST is the rock
(3)Peter representative of the church is the rock (all those with faith in Christ)
Sola New Testament sounds good.
Should follow the Law,so Yes absolutely Live By the Word of GOD.If you run a Church you should point to the Law.I understand some people stumble,and there are individual bad apples.When GOD says call no man Father but He in Heaven,I would take Him seriously.Because you and your church will fall into a pit.And you will take the good apples you have with you.I might stumble but I am A Zealot for Law.I would never tell somebody to do something against it.I have enough problems and do not need somebody else blood on my hands.He says no Idols,so no Statues,Beads and Gold.
Mat 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
So yeh Do what He says.Why debate this?You people sound like the Jews with the Talmud.They made it into a book on Laws overriding GOD's so they could break the Laws and be Pagan.Like a Lawyer defending a criminal,and the Lawyer Already knows his client is a criminal.
Do what Christ asked us to do,Is it not enough?Do we have to add our own Traditions?The Traditions GOD talks about when He Tells us it is in Vain,Are the ones He never told us to do.Do ye not have the Holy Spirit in you to tell you these things?
Sola scriptura is the thought that all things are given you, through scripture to believe, and be saved by our Lord. It was the Catholic authority that compiled the bible through Our Lord. It is why there are so many confused, So many denominations. So many raised deep in a protestant church who want to believe. You Catholics messed up the Word of God. You added to scripture, and took our bibles away. Do you love me? How many Spirits is our Lord?