Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
Show where Christ established the Roman Catholic Church (you may also want to discuss the concept of Christ's first church with apostolic Protestant groups and the Eastern Orthodox Church). Christ established his church, full of human beings who would differ -- some honestly, some not -- on certain matters.
But I reject the premise implicit in your post. The Catholic Church is not a church that has existed, unchanged, since Peter's time. That's nonsense. In fact, the RCC became so thoroughly corrupt at certain times in its history that people of good faith had to leave it.
The Church is where Christ is, and in some times and some places that has not been the RCC.
Does that mean that Rome the literal city is meant today? I don’t know. It is possible (and IMO likely) that it means a similar all encompassing pagan empire that will rise in the last days.
Do you mean like the early church fathers refutations of Rome's misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 to denote Petrine primacy?
Eusebius of Caesarea says:
‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)...By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world---Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176.
Likewise Augustine says:
And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. 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, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
There is no excuse for ignorance.
I agree, the early church fathers held the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Protestants, in opposition to the later Roman interpretation which infers a Petrine primacy that is confided to the bishops of Rome where it does not exist.
Um, Revelation 2-3?
Do you have some evidence for that?
Every RC writer on this so called "prophecy" says that "Peter the Roman" is the Anti-Christ.
Do I understand that correctly to mean that within the course of providing opposition to Roman Catholicism with documented facts, that it is legitimate and not against the rules to use the terms: heretical, apostate, damnable, antichrist or reprobate?
None of which support many of the dogmas of Roman Catholicism which developed well after the 6th century.
Your post shows that you have no knowledge of the Early Church and the “faith of the Apostles.”
I do, as I firmly suspect "topcat" does as well, which is why he made the comment that Rome began deviating from the "faith of the Apostles" and ultimately strayed so far as to have ceased being a true church during the medieval period as the Reformers rightly charged.
You might want to investigate.
I have, and do, finding the religion of Roman Catholicism to be far removed from the Apostolic faith taught by Christ, the Apostles and the early Church.
You have two whole examples. I have a book here on my lap ("Jesus, Peter, and the Keys", by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess) with 64 pages of counterexamples between pages 215 and 279.
It will take me time just to cherry-pick some good ones to post.
I'm familiar with the misrepresentations in that book.
Post them when you want and I'll respond to demonstrate how the authors take the citations they present out of context, and totally misrepresent, especially the term they point out so much, being "the chair of Peter".
Also, there are a lot of RC sites on the net that deal with the topic of "Peter the Roman".
Those two were just for starters, there are many, many more.
So much for "tradition" being the "unanimous consent of the fathers", that Rome cited at Trent, huh?
Of course there are the Old Catholics, SSPXers, Sedevacantists and others who say the Roman church led by the Vatican has been apostate since the Vatican I Council.
***I don’t go around posting that the church of Calvinism is worthless and hellbound.***
Maybe you don’t, but many of your friends do.
***I don’t go around posting that the church of Calvinism is worthless and hellbound.***
Maybe you don’t, but many of your friends do.
All Trent said was that something which was unanimously attested by the fathers required assent. They didn't specify which "somethings" they had in mind.
Wrong.
The phrase "unanimous consent of the Fathers" had a specific application as used at the Council of Trent (Fourth Session), and reiterated at the First Vatican Council (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, chap. 2). The Council Fathers specifically applied the phrase to the interpretation of Scripture. Biblical and theological confusion was rampant in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther stated, "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."The Council Fathers at Trent (1554-63) affirmed the ancient custom that the proper understanding of Scripture was that which was held by the Fathers of the Church. In this way, they hoped to bring order out of the rising chaos. Opposition to the Church's teaching is exemplified by William Webster (The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995]), who misrepresents the Council Fathers by redefining and misapplying "unanimous consent." First in redefining, he implies that unanimous consent means 100% affirmation by each Father. This is a false understanding of the phrase and even in American law, unanimous consent "does not always mean that every one present voted for the proposition, but it may, and generally does, mean, when a [verbal] vote is taken, that no one voted in the negative" (Black's Law Dictionary).
Second, Webster misapplies the term, not to the interpretation of Scripture, as the Council Fathers intended, but to tradition. His assertions are patently untrue, but using a skewed definition and application of "unanimous consent," he uses selective patristic passages as proof-texts for his analysis of the Fathers.
As an example, individual Fathers may explain the "Rock" in Matthew 16 as Jesus, Peter, Peter's confession or Peter's faith. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the "Rock" of Matthew 16 as Peter in one place (CCC 552) and his faith in another (CCC 424). Matthew 16 can be applied in many ways to refute false teachings and to instruct the faithful without emphasizing the literal, historical interpretation of Peter as the Rock upon which the Church has been built. Webster and others emphasize various patristic applications as "proof" of non-unanimous consent.
Of course there are the Old Catholics, SSPXers, Sedevacantists and others who say the Roman church led by the Vatican has been apostate since the Vatican I Council.
I've seen that opinion expressed numerous times in this very forum.
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.