Skip to comments.
St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome
Ignatius Insigiht.com ^
| not given
| Stephen K. Ray
Posted on 04/18/2010 6:47:04 PM PDT by Salvation
![](http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/images/featureart1/apr2007/stpeterprimacy.jpg)
St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray | From Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church
There is little in the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the
apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit's work in the primitive Church.
History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely, the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their cumulative feet.
Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again--for themselves. And what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: "To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant." [1] As the Protestant churches continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and tradition of the primitive Church--the very Church bequeathed to us by the apostles.
Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is entitled Peter and the Rock and asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, "The contemporary Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church doctors." To ascertain whether or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But along with what the Fathers say, we need to hear their silence as well.
While reading Webster's book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church's teaching on the Papacy, that there are no citations "revealed" in his book in which a Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes! We may find differing interpretations of Peter's primacy, which is what we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.
I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.
The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor's authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a decree of Stephen's on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate, or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said, "No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?" If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound.
As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New Testament was, or which books it contained--a discussion, by the way, that raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther--in any way prove that somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that there were "apostolic" books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority was attached to Peter and his See in Rome.
Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the prophets [3] and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father. [4] The apostles themselves were abused and rejected. [5] Should it surprise us that many in our present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic Church and "assembled in unauthorized meetings". [6] Rejecting the Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day.
Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own--asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially "Protestant" in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic?
Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study.
Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account.
In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the metaphors used--foundations, builders, stones, and so on--are as varied as the gem's surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church), understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I provide an extended quotation from Salmon's book to lay the foundation (pun intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and the foundation of the Church. It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):--"Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14) :--"The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, "for one is our Father which is in heaven." And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter's also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone. [7]
Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome. We divide the study in this way:
1. The Life and Ministry of Peter
A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament?
B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop, and die a martyr's death in the city of Rome?
2. The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church
A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest non-canonical writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.
B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced throughout the first five centuries.
Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written teachings per se, but by the actions of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are hostile to the Catholic Church's teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to "proof-text", by which they point out things that seem to support their contentions and ignore everything that does not.
Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially anti-sacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God's economy, however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die" (Ex 20:19). Take another example--Paul. God could very well have "saved" him directly, but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he "was not running in vain", even though he had received revelations and had even been taken up to the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). No Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is difficult to understand the fullness of the faith. [8]
It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every Father's writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation espoused by the opposition. Much can be said about each of these topics and detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography.
In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition. Now let us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
ENDNOTES:
[1] John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 50.
[2] E-mail from William Webster dated August 16, 1997.
[3] Mt 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"
[4] Jn 1:10-11: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not."
[5] Paul says in 2 Timothy 1: 15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phygelus and Hermogenes." The Apostle John writes in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."
[6] "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985], 1:415 [hereafter ANF]).
[7] George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), 338-39.
[8] The objection will arise, "But we have only 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'" (1 Tim 2:5). To this the Catholic offers a hearty Amen! Yet we see, not four verses earlier, Paul commanding Timothy to pray for all men--to intercede (from the Latin intercedere, to intervene or go between, to mediate). Yes, Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, for such a unique covenant takes a unique mediator (Heb 8:6). But do we assume that, because Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, there is no longer any mediation in the Church? Prayer is mediation. We are mediating God's message to a sinful world when we preach the gospel. No finite human being can mediate an eternal covenant between God and man, but a pastor can certainly mediate God's word, and a simple soul can certainly intercede for the mighty. Mediation is alive and well as we enter into the New Covenant and participate in the mediating work of Christ.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; petrineprimacy; popes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-128 next last
To: BenKenobi
“hence the contention that the Bible doesnt teach salvation by baptism, but baptism as an outward symbol and public testimony of the inward work that has already taken place.”
Seems pretty clear to me that all those who are believers ought to be baptised, not because it’s a sign, but because it’s a sacramental and that it bears salvific grace.
101
posted on
04/20/2010 7:43:47 AM PDT
by
BenKenobi
("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
To: pgyanke
I take it on faith that I receive the benefit of Jesus’ broken body and shed blood in communion, but not that I am eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood...you can believe what you want.
102
posted on
04/20/2010 7:46:46 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: BenKenobi
“By the way, I find it interesting how you claim me as a Catholic because you think I was baptized Catholic.”
YOu say you experienced the Catholic faith from inside. So I must ask the question as to whether this means you were baptised and confirmed. If so, then you are and always will be a member of the Catholic church.
“If you think baptism saves you apart from faith”
No, but baptism is necessary for salvation. If you are saved by faith apart from baptism, why have bapstism at all? Even Christ submitted to baptism.
“If you cant tell the difference between the texture of meat (flesh) and bread, what can I say? Or does the change take place after you swallow?”
Christ is very clear about this. Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you. The disciples said this was a hard teaching, and we see the same thing today.
It is not a symbol, Christ is bodily present in the bread and the wine, or how else do you interpret, “I am the living bread, he who eats of me shall never go hungry.” Did not the manna from heaven actually sustain the Israelites, or was that simply symbolic too? They had Manna, we have Christ.
103
posted on
04/20/2010 7:49:37 AM PDT
by
BenKenobi
("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
To: BenKenobi
No. The Spirit of Christ dwells in me. If you want to believe you are chewing a piece of literal human flesh and drinking literal human blood during Mass, that is up to you. I am content to receive the benefits of Christ’s suffering by faith, through the symbolic act of communion.
If you think you are saved by externals, that is your choice.
104
posted on
04/20/2010 7:50:54 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: pgyanke
“There is none so blind as one who will not see.”
Amen!
105
posted on
04/20/2010 7:51:26 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: srweaver
I take it on faith that I receive the benefit of Jesus broken body and shed blood in communion... The "benefit"?! Where is that in Scripture? Again... I've done you the courtesy of posting from the Bible since you are of the Sola Scriptura camp... please do me the courtesy of showing references for your pronouncements. It would be the height of hypocrisy to criticize the Church for your perception of Her Teachings as extra-biblical and to then make up your own doctrines on the fly...
For the record, we Catholics simply take Christ at His Word and trust Him. He said it was His Body and Blood that He gave to His Apostles. We trust Him that they received His Body and Blood. He then gave the command to them to continue this practice in "remembrance". The problem of that word is that there is no direct translation for what it really means. The Passover supper they were sharing was also done in remembrance... that meant they were to have sandals on feet, staffs in hand and be prepared to make the Exodus the next day. It is more than the English word signifies... it is akin to a recreation... to make it real for all succeeding generations. We do that, as commanded, in the Mass.
If you take the Real Presence out of the Eucharist, you are left with an empty and vain ritual... something I thought Protestants detested.
106
posted on
04/20/2010 7:56:32 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
To: srweaver
If you want to believe you are chewing a piece of literal human flesh and drinking literal human blood during Mass, that is up to you. It is the very definition of walking "by faith and not by sight." So many of Protestant brethren refuse to see with the eyes of faith what they can not perceive in their flesh.
107
posted on
04/20/2010 8:00:48 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
To: pgyanke
Jesus wasn’t physically, personally baptizing:
Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Jesus is the baptizer in the Holy Spirit:
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Before water baptism:
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
After water baptism:
Act 19:1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
108
posted on
04/20/2010 8:02:12 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: pgyanke
Enjoy your prime minister(s). Hopefully he/they will open the right doors for you.
I think I’ll go directly to the Lord.
Hbr 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast [our] profession.
Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
109
posted on
04/20/2010 8:06:27 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: srweaver
In both of these instances... what was the mechanism of Baptism?
110
posted on
04/20/2010 8:06:43 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
To: srweaver
Enjoy your proof-texts which contradict nothing that I have said.
111
posted on
04/20/2010 8:08:08 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
To: pgyanke
This is fun... do you believe in Sola Fide (saved by Faith Alone)?
112
posted on
04/20/2010 8:09:50 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
To: pgyanke
You asked: In both of these instances... what was the mechanism of Baptism?
If you mean purpose of baptism, then...
Identification.
113
posted on
04/20/2010 8:24:18 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: pgyanke
Thank you...I will enjoy the throne of grace, and come boldly to it/my high priest...as instructed by God.
114
posted on
04/20/2010 8:25:39 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: pgyanke
You posted: If you take the Real Presence out of the Eucharist, you are left with an empty and vain ritual... something I thought Protestants detested.
If you take the real presence of Christ out of the your daily, moment by moment experience of Christianity, and confine it to the Eucharist you are left with an empty and vain life...something I hope Catholics would detest.
115
posted on
04/20/2010 8:38:04 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: srweaver
By mechanism I was referring to water... what do you mean by identification?
116
posted on
04/20/2010 8:39:51 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
To: pgyanke
And some of us reject false doctrine because we can see with the eyes God gave us and reason with the mind God gave us, and keep in context the Scriptures God gave us with the help of His Holy spirit who leads us.
117
posted on
04/20/2010 8:41:11 AM PDT
by
srweaver
(Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
To: srweaver
If you take the real presence of Christ out of the your daily, moment by moment experience of Christianity, and confine it to the Eucharist you are left with an empty and vain life...something I hope Catholics would detest. That isn't the faith we Catholics profess. You simply set up a straw man to knock down.
118
posted on
04/20/2010 8:41:19 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
To: pgyanke
**You simply set up a straw man to knock down.**
Very well said.
As Pilate asked, “What is truth?”
119
posted on
04/20/2010 8:47:08 AM PDT
by
Salvation
( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: srweaver
Your average atheist could make the same retort (except they would refer to the Holy Spirit as something more akin to “inspiration”).
120
posted on
04/20/2010 8:47:17 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-128 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson