Which of course is fair. Both Protestants and Catholics have their own versions of what transpired and I suspect (human nature being what it is) that both sides are guilty of whitewashing their own histories.
When a thread is posted about Calvinism versus Arminianism, for example, it is rightly viewed as an internal Protestant matter and I don't think you will find much interference from the Catholics.
Lately there have been a number of Catholics who have come on and taken the side of the Arminians. However, I would state that while there are similarities in Catholic and Arminian soteriology, Modern Catholic soteriology really bears little resemblance to the Arminianism of the reformation which seems to have affirmed that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. IMO the Catholic Church is mired in self righteousness and works based salvation to the point that it would seem that the work of Christ accounted for naught.
I am sure it is not the first time that you do so, and it is hard form me to believe that you never encountered someone who would point out the linguistic facts about "petros" and "petra". Correct me if I am wrong about that.
Certainly they have, but that does not mean they are right, nor does it mean that Peter was the first Pope.
You've got one single ambiguous verse upon which you elevate Peter from a Disciple to the Vicar of Christ and the Holy Father. But the Bible clearly does not support your view and the view you have is based solely upon muddled tradition . The Bible not only admonishes us not to call any man Father, but that no man is Holy. Yet here your tradition has elevated a mortal man to the office of "Holy Father". Where is your biblical justification for that?
....Crickets.....
This is a good example of how you read things your own way with little attention to what the person posting actually said. Annalex said that we Catholics consider the Arminius-Calvin debate to be an internal matter between Reformed Protestants. I think that's a correct statement.
However, can you give me an example of a Catholic poster defending Arminius? Or were they defending free will from a Catholic perspective? In your narrow little Reformed world (which I grew up in) anyone who believes in free will is labeled an Arminian. I remember being puzzled by that when I first encountered Anabaptist theology. Here were people who believed in free will who were active long before Arminius but were called "Arminians." I eventually caught on to the trick.
When we Catholics defend free will we are not defending Arminius or Arminianism. We could care less about Arminius. We leave that quarrel to you guys. But you spread your excoriating term of choice, "Arminian" over us, which is a very self-centered, arrogant thing to do.
It's this parochial vision you exhibit, this narrow world you inhabit in which nothing can make sense unless it is crammed through your Reformed sieve that exasperates us.
Now, pony up. Where have Catholic posters defended Arminius or Arminianism as distinct from defending the doctrine of free taught by all the Fathers of the Church, including Augustine?
The history is presented on this thread, as it was pointed out, very poorly, and some opinions expressed here are inaccurate as regards Catholic teaching. I agree that some posts are intemperate, by the way, but I am glad you agree that on historical in intent threads all sides should participate.
Were Cathoics disruptive on the Arminian/Calvinist threads or merely posting opinions?
About Peter. I merely gave you an example of a repeatedly posted error, despite correction. I did so narrowly pointing out that in fact both Peter and the rock are described by the same word. This is a statement of fact. I know Greek and can tell you so with authority. Please do not repeat the "pebble" fantasy again. As to your other questions:
- St. Peter alone was given the keys to the Kingdom and was told to feed and guide Christ's sheep, by Christ. This is the basis of Peter's papacy, along with, of course, the Rock nickname and his prominence on shaping the Church seen in the Acts.
- The Catholic view is that priests are our spiritual Fathers, and Christ only discourages from giving the honorific "father" to men who are not fathers in either biological or spiritual sense. Besides, either Christ or St. Paul in fact refers to people as fathers (a trip to a good Catholic apologetics website will provide quote, and I got to run), so clearly the admonition was meant by Christ in some narrow sense. We also teach that men can be holy. So we choose to call Holy Father the man who is both holy and father.
I will be back tomorrow.
Perhaps you can begin to understand why some Catholics are bothered by you, because you repeat the same untruths over and over again, even after I personally corrected you on several ocassions. But I suppose you and your pastor know more about Catholicism then the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not our differences of opinion that bother Catholics here. What bothers me and many others, I think, is your refusal to even KNOW what we properly believe, even after told many times. I suppose it endangers the straw man and demolishes the necessity of a Protestant Reformation in the first place...
Comments? Please, don't take this in a negative way. I would love to discuss with you our respective views. But after we are done, at least know what we believe - even if you continue to disagree with it. The straw man you call Catholicism must be burnt at the stake...It doesn't exist. What would you say if I came here and started calling Protestants woman-beaters? Even after proven wrong, I continued to say it? Wouldn't you get slightly annoyed?
Regards