Posted on 03/25/2015 10:46:15 PM PDT by Steelfish
`
You're disputing with me because of what you think somebody else would have said next?
Don't you have dishes to do?
“Not apparently to the Roman Catholic Cult”
You make two errors:
1) there is no “Roman Catholic Cult” that published the CCC.
2) Nothing in the CCC is about Chrislam. Chrislam is the mixing of two different religious. What the CCC discusses in 841 is what two different religions have in common.
Of course truth and facts won’t stop any anti-Catholic from posting distortions and misrepresentations. Anti-Catholics apparently think it is okay to lie. It’s what they do.
You're joking right? That only says there were many things He did that were not written. Nothing in there about teaching.
>>The early Church fathers spent hundreds of years assembling what they infallibly pronounced under Petrine authority<<
So you have taken it upon yourself to declare the church fathers infallible? Have you checked with the Catholic Church to see if that's appropriate? You surely do have some power because I don't believe the "Church" claims them to be infallible.
In that vain, would you please show where the "church fathers" taught that the real apostles taught the assumption of Mary?
Now, if you can't show where the apostles taught everything that the Catholic Church teaches I must consider the Catholic Church accursed.
“Intellectual laziness has nothing to do with it, unless it’s on the part of someone posting things without attribution.”
You can always do a little work or not. The choice is yours.
“Well, what terms did you use to search for in Google?”
Find it on your own. It’s G-O-O-G-L-E. How hard can it be?
“What didn’t you exclude or include?”
I included exactly what was necessary and what I knew would work from previous finds. I excluded everything else.
“How is he “average lazy anti-catholic” supposed to do if he doesn’t know WHAT you searched for of HOW you searched for it?”
It’s google. There’s effectively one way to search - you put words in the search box. Does that give you any ideas of how to do this ‘cause I am most certainly not going to help you do it. If I can do it - and I did this morning - than you can too. It’s just that simple.
“I suppose we lazy anti-catholics are going to have to learn to read your mind so that we can then go out, and satisfy you by searching for the “facts” on Google.”
You don’t have to satisfy me. This is all about satisfying you isn’t it? I didn’t post any links so you’re not satisfied, right? I hope you enjoy that lack of satisfaction because you’re only going to get more of it at this rate.
“You see, if you attribute the source, one can see that the fact is actually, a fact.”
Since I KNOW it is a fact I don’t have to “satisfy” you to have validation that it is a fact. I know it is a fact because I have already seen that it is factual. This sort of thing where a Protestant anti-Catholic makes a statement about something he apparently knows nothing about and then starts running in circles when evidence is posted happens all the time. Example on a related topic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3044370/posts
I have seen that SO MANY TIMES that now I often simply refuse to do the work the Protestant anti-Catholic should be willing to do themselves.
“Until mind reading becomes a commonplace event, it’s going to be mighty hard to satisfy your request.”
No, it isn’t. You see google is easy to use. If you want to do the research, do it. If you don’t want to, then don’t.
“But, If you want to actually appear to be using trustworthy “facts,” it’s up to you to provide it to us lazy anti-cathoics.”
No. I know what I posted is absolutely correct. Whether or not you consider it to be “trustworthy” is completely irrelevant to me since I don’t believe you are remotely interested in the truth in the first place. Again, look at the thread I posted a link to. I posted evidence. It was irrefutable. Did it matter? Did it matter in the least? No. Anti-Catholics DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.
“Otherwise, we could just assume your “facts” are made up from whole cloth.”
I think the anti-Catholic should just go ahead and assume that. After all he would be wrong, but at least if someone does that he won’t feel any need to be intellectually and morally dishonest on top of it by pretending evidence given him was never actually given him, right? So the anti-Catholic should just go ahead and assume whatever he wants since that is how it always goes anyway no matter how much evidence is posted anyway. The truth doesn’t matter to anti-Catholics. They prove it here every day.
that’s funny
you keep changing the subject and then blame me when I answer your false charge and claim I am changing the subject
that’s funny
that type of dishonest response is also beneath the thinking person
But, as one of the RCC said on here, the RCC is not a Biblical Faith, not the faith of Bible Believers
It's funny. The Roman Catholic Cultist has to go to "tradition" or to G-O-O-G-L-E to find what they need to try to twist truth; Christians (or, as stated before, we lazy non-Catholics) turn to what?
The B-I-B-L-E
Instead of all the mumbo-jumbo, we lazy non-Catholics look to
C-H-R-I-S-T
And we find the actual truth; not some gamed, twisted pap that results from the error of a church that seeks to mold God's word around man-made traditions instead of basing everything on God's word.
I would challenge you to try to write, or present, anything to any serious body of professionals or academics without presenting some form of attribution. You would be roundly, soundly, and properly laughed off of the podium.
If you want to try to convince us lazy non-Catholics, why NOT put your links in so we can go look at them, read them, and evaluate them -- after all, as you've stated, you're posting nothing but fact... why be afraid to put up your sources so we can see how factual you are?
While we're posting, are you interested yet in answering the question about whether you, as a faithful Roman Catholic, "acknowledge" and "adore" the same "merciful God" as do Muslims?
Here's where I got that quote, by the way:
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Just so folks who read this don't think I'm making up the quote that I'm asking you about and hoping against hope that you would answer.
Without any refutation, this passage from the CCC says that Catholics and Muslims worship the same god. And we all know that Muslims do NOT worship Yahweh. Jehovah. The Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Muslims worship "Allah" who is NOT the God of Judaism and Christianity. But it does appear to be the god of Muslims and Roman Catholics -- at least according to this part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Or, if you prefer:
Why does the Roman Catholic Church contradict scripture -- even contradicts Jesus Christ himself -- concerning the role of Mary as a "mediatrix"?
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
So... The Roman Catholic Cult states that Mary intercedes for sinners, provides them with grace, as well as salvation and as a result she is a 'mediatrix' -- yet, the scriptures say:
In John 14:6, Jesus himself says:
Jesus said to him, “I am lthe way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
Did God lie? He must have if the CCC says Mary provides intercession, right? If Jesus says 'no one' it means NO ONE, right? No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. That's what Jesus said.
So way does the CCC contradict God?
Also, why does the CCC contradict God when they say she is a 'mediatrix' when God says in 1 Timothy 2:5:
"5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
Which G-O-O-G-L-E sites can you show me that says God is a liar? It surely appears that the Roman Catholic Cult's Catechism is surely lying?
So, if the Catholic Cult will lie about these things it can lie about *anything* -- and so puts the end to you earlier claim that the Catholic Church does not teach falsehood.
Help me out here and give me something that can back up your FACTS to the contrary.
Hoss
You are defending the indefensible. Protestantism is collapsing all around you and every faith except Catholicism is sinking into a mud-hole of conflicting beliefs.
Today Protestantism and Episcopalianism as are many mainline Evangelical denominations in a state of evil rut by claiming scriptural warrant for the ordination of married gays and lesbian pastors. But the rot had its inception from the very beginnings of Protestantism where it soon collapsed into warring offshoots and factions.
Thus one can hopscotch across town through half a dozen corner street Bible-Christian churches: a First Baptist; a First AME; a First Presbyterian; a First Methodist; a First Unitarian; a first Emmanuel (Please no “Seconds”) until one settles in a congregation that is more in line with her/her interpretations of scripture. In short, every Tom, Dick, and Harry and their “milkmaid” (a term used by Luther himself) gets a freelance hand to know the Word of God and ironically from a Bible whose canonical texts were first infallibly authenticated under Petrine authority in the Synod of Rome AD 382.
Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: He wrote: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.”
That infallibility and the authority to teach ONE truth as Christ commanded in His Great Commission to “go Forth and TEACH all nations” This is to teach ONE truth and assured to Peter:
“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
However, here in the US and elsewhere we have low-information shallow Bible Christians flooding the pews of the Joel Osteens and Moonies of this world, all lapping up the vapid rubbish spewed by these charlatans while they make a nice living for themselves and their families. We have seen this with the Rev. Schullers and Billy Grahams preaching their own vapid nonsense.
For example, Easter Service becomes a sunrise picnic on the beach holding hands and doing an early morning Kumabaya. At the times Protestant Churches borrow Catholic ritual like Stations of the Cross and imitate the display of the Creche, a practice started by St. Francis.
In the meantime while prominent Protestant theologians convert to Catholicism, shallow Bible Christians are left stranded in the pews while the more educated among them converted to Catholicism. A few examples of note will suffice.
1. Ulf Ekman, the founder of Scandinavia’s biggest Bible school, with a congregation of some 4000 individuals, converted to Catholicism because his theological inquiry confirmed for him the indispensability of the Catholic sacraments.
2. Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical, a tenured professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex, was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians resigned and joined the Catholic Church. One blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan’s defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.
3. Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, was a pre-eminent Lutheran theologian in America. He knew his Bible-text and history like no other Protestant. When he converted to Catholicism he said, “I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time.”
The Bible Christians here on FR are reduced playing neophyte “internet” theologian by telling us how Paul tried to “correct” Peter etc., or this or that, or attacking the Eucharist, or the Sacraments; or Marian devotions with incoherent and out-of-context reference to scripture.
This is the shallow nonsense of Bible Christians and why now scores of Protestant theologians have decamped at great personal sacrifice and consider Protestantism awash in sheer rubbish.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,
“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
Don’t take my word. Here’s one original source. St. Irenaeus:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
It your reference to John 21:25 that is so neophyte and risible. By your lights the unwritten word of God got lost in the desert dust!
St. Paul in his letters also warns the faithful to hold fast to the tradition they received: “We command you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid any brother who wanders from the straight path and does not follow the tradition you received from us” (2 Th 3, 6).
In short, there is Catholicism and every other form of heretical belief under the sun.
For a comprehensive treatise on the Bible and its various Protestant variations for those seeking an escape from the shallow prison of Bible Christians,
See Graham Green and a convert to Catholicism:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
“The Roman Catholic Cultist has to go to “tradition” or to G-O-O-G-L-E to find what they need to try to twist truth; Christians (or, as stated before, we lazy non-Catholics) turn to what?”
Thanks for confirming what I said: Anti-Catholics aren’t interested in truth or facts. They’ll even go so far as to say what you just said.
“why be afraid to put up your sources so we can see how factual you are?”
I’m not at all afraid. I am much more enjoying watching you twist in the wind instead. My last post pointed out that anti-Catholics don’t care about the truth or facts. And your latest post confirmed that.
“Which G-O-O-G-L-E sites can you show me that says God is a liar?”
Why would you want them? Do you believe God is a liar?
“It surely appears that the Roman Catholic Cult’s Catechism is surely lying?”
No, just the anti-Catholics lie.
Your last post may have done many things, include doing a tap-dance, and avoidance, but it confirmed no such thing.
Still no answers? I guess when the Catholic Church paints its adherents in a corner, and faced with the admitting the truth about the cult of the Catholic Church, things get tough.
Hoss
“Your last post may have done many things, include doing a tap-dance, and avoidance, but it confirmed no such thing.”
I didn’t claim mine did. YOURS did.
“Still no answers? I guess when the Catholic Church paints its adherents in a corner, and faced with the admitting the truth about the cult of the Catholic Church, things get tough.”
I guess you still haven’t figured out how to use google.
You've got that one wrong. Read CCC 841. Your Church believes in the same "god" as Muslims. Pretty much knocks you out of the running.
Christians are not determined by their denomination or church; they're determined by God Almighty himself. By their faith and trust in Christ alone for salvation. Not Mary. Not baptism. Not works. Faith. By the grace of God.
The Roman Catholic Church needs to sort out where it stands in terms of the true Gospel. The Roman Catholic Church needs it.
Hoss
I’m Southern Baptist
I have no issue with Catholics venerating Mother Mary
It’s their creed
I see it a bit different but if it works for them why should I fight them over it
This is not the time for all that anymore
No Christian church I’m aware of has the brute powers they all used to muster
So what they do is not my business like it might have been
No one has said they don't 'profess' that.
What HAS been said is that the 'GOD of Abraham' means a different thing to Muslims than it does Christians.
It also is different between JEWS and Christians.
Why the big fuss?
Sigh...
Do I waste my time defending this remark or continue to wonder what SCRIPTURE he is relying on to KNOW ->>> He knows Mary intercedes for us, but did not create grace and does not control the universe.
I didn't ask Google if it believed that the Roman Catholic Church believed in the same god as the Muslims. I asked you. Google isn't Catholic. You are. Google can't answer that question. You can.
But, as always, you refuse.
So. Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Catholics and Muslims believe in the same god? CCC 841 does. Do you agree?
Hoss
Not between. See, you can’t even get it right.
O...
K...
1 Timothy 2:5 KJV
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
A simple Yes or No will do.
Ok...
Poor, ol' Steelfish thinks it's ok to disregard what learned Catholics have said about...
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.
• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.