Posted on 05/06/2014 4:56:53 PM PDT by Gamecock
Wrong. It's this way....
As such, though God can act directly, He chooses to act through His Church Christ. We are only arguing over method. Righteousness is imputed... through His Church Christ.
Catholics tend to attribute to their church the work of the Holy Spirit in a person's life. It's the Holy Spirit who convicts, gives life, seals, sanctifies, etc, not the church. Men are simply ambassadors spreading the message of reconciliation.
The Holy Spirit does that job for the believer.
Oh? I seems declaring Truth by fiat also belongs to Internet RCAs. A Roman has spoken: the matter i settled.
Second, I do hold to imputed righteousness as well as imputed sin. Sin came through one person, and righteousness came through one person. Did anyone today gain sin directly though Eve?
You do not hold to imputed righteousness as you do to imputed sin. Imputed righteousness refers being counted righteous on Christ's blood-expense and righteousness, versus one's own personal holiness as per Rome. But if you hold that infants are in need of salvation due to them being in need of salvation due to sin, then they are not merely counted as sinners, but are damned because they are sinful. Thus formal justification must be due to actually becoming good enough for Heaven thru the act of baptism, and (usually) thru purgatory.
Righteousness is imputed... through His Church.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. (Romans 4:5-7)
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)
Of course God uses men to convey truth and grace, but it is not on the account of the instruments that one is counted righteousness, but "his faith is counted for righteousness." You are exalting "men above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6)
You want grace to act only between God and each person. While that process exists, there is also grace to each person through other people.
I nowhere denied that, as God even used to man to carry the tablets upon which the 10 commandments were written. But i am correcting the erroneous ritualism by which one is formally justified on his personal holiness via the act of baptism. But which Rome holds even an atheist might be able to effectually perform
Of course, proper intent is required for a sacrament to be effectual, and you can only presume that.
As for the rest: Yes, I do not believe I have a charism to authoritatively interpret Scripture. Neither do you. Only the bishops have it because it is core to their function, their purpose on earth.
Which presumption is not new, or Scriptural. "For the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law. even in case of error...http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees Yet the very church began with the common people rightly discerning Truth in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) following an itinerant Preacher who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus only the Roman model for assurance of Truth, the 1st c. souls should have submitted to the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture.
I have more personal experience with bishops than most. If the Holy Spirit gave me anything, it is the ability to discern hypocrisy, and the men I have seen are not hypocrites. They live the same faith they preach.
Which again, proves no more than what a Mormon's testimony does. However, his is irrelevant, as their sppsd charism is not dependent upon their character, and even many of your own popes were hypocrites. Yet whose power is unlimited, and cannot be deposed (without their consent). In any case, they fail of both the requirements and attestation of Biblical apostles, while calling for an even greater degree of submission.
...I have personally seen this, and no words by you will convince me in place of “my lying eyes”.
Which again, a Mormon could also say. Since Scripture is reduced to being a servant to support church teaching, and the veracity of which is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of your church, then you are operating out of a cultic model, which comes from Hell.
-— Imputed righteousness refers being counted righteous on Christ’s blood-expense and righteousness, versus one’s own personal holiness as per Rome-—
That’s a false characterization of the Catholic position.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online, as is the Joint Declaration on Justification which was signed onto by Rome, the Lutheran World Federation, and later, the Methodist World Federation.
But of course scripture is a servant to Church teaching, because Scripture was written as a result of Church teaching in order to preserve it. But Scripture is silent on a lot of things, so Church teaching continues to be necessary. Anything else is idolatry of a book and not worship of the God the book is about.
No matter. I got what I wanted, i.e. an accusation from you that I am following a model from Hell. Push long enough and it comes out. As you might have noticed, most of this came off the top of my head. I have neither the time or inclination to spend time researching and pulling exact quotes. We have long since left anything relevant to a rogue priest in Seattle. Maybe see you on the next thread, but this one has played out.
But of course scripture is a servant to Church teaching, because Scripture was written as a result of Church teaching in order to preserve it.
But which logic the church is invalid, since it should have submitted to those thru whom most of Scripture came and was established thru, and were the stewards of Divine revelation.
Moreover, the real church began upon Scriptural substantiation, not the premise of assured magisterial infallibility of the office of the stewards of Scripture, as per Rome.
For both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are to be subject to it as the the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as the proto-Romanist Pharisees found out - too late.
But Scripture is silent on a lot of things, so Church teaching continues to be necessary.
Perverse logic, as Rome is silent or merely speculative above many things. What can be know if one thing" what is provided as needful is another. The only transcendent form of Truth that is said to be wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally used to make men "perfect, thoroughly furnished [supplied] unto every good work" (2Tim. 3:16,17) is Scripture, and which includes whatever future writings of Scripture.
Thus it was Scripture, not amorphous tradition, that the Lord substantiated Messiahship and mission by, and opened the minds of the disciples to understand. (Lk. 24:27.44.45)
And thus it was Scripture, not nebulous tradition, that the noble Berean searched in seeking to ascertain the veracity of apostolic preaching by. Which, as with other oral transmission called the Word of God/theLord, we see written down.
Anything else is idolatry of a book and not worship of the God the book is about.
Wrong. It is not a merely book you demean the assured word of God as, but the collection of wholly inspired word. And "the Lord "hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalms 138:2) Job even "esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." (Job 23:12) And the Lord Jesus is the word made flesh who said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". (Matthew 4:4).
Idolatry is making something created your god, your ultimate object of heart affection, source of security, and object of allegiance, but the wholly inspired words of God are not created, but are God's expression of Him, of His character and will, and thus man lives by God by living by them, trusting in them, as there is not distinction btwn trusting in the assured word of God and God Himself.
But the same cannot be said of the organized church, which Scripture nowhere teaches it is and will always be assuredly infallible (when speaking according to its infallibly defined formula), and thus it is idolatrous to implicitly submit to Rome as to God!
No matter. I got what I wanted, i.e. an accusation from you that I am following a model from Hell. Push long enough and it comes out.
There simply was no pushing needed, rather it is you who made that clear enough by your statements, which were indeed basically akin to that of Mormons, as being based on the same cultic sola ecclesia model.
As you might have noticed, most of this came off the top of my head. I have neither the time or inclination to spend time researching and pulling exact quotes. We have long since left anything relevant to a rogue priest in Seattle. Maybe see you on the next thread, but this one has played out.
Exact quotes, which i am the one usually providing, often results in more evidence that Rome is indeed preaching a false gospel, esp. effectually, and that her foundational premise for her claim to assured veracity invalidates the church itself. May the Lord grant all repentance unto the acknowledging of the church.
That’s a false characterization of the Catholic position. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online, as is the Joint Declaration on Justification which was signed onto by Rome, the Lutheran World Federation, and later, the Methodist World Federation.
So you deny that Rome teaches the baptized is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness?
The JDDJ is a document on basic truths, "to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnation" (No. 5). http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1334
I have not myself analyzed the JDDJ but it is widely held as an ambiguous, nuanced compromise document this is the subject of much contention.
From the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations’ Document, from a Lutheran side:
“Although JDDJ uses the biblical phraseology ‘through faith’ or ‘by faith’ at critical points it speaks of justification ‘in faith.’ This new wording is ambiguous and allows for the Roman Catholic idea of infused grace. It does not clearly state that faith’s role in justification is exclusively to receive Christ’s benefits given to sinners by God in His grace. Therefore, it fails to make clear that the cause of justification is God’s saving work in Christ, not ourselves or anything in us” (pg. 8)
“If grace now means infused grace, a spiritual power poured into the soul by which we love God and merit salvation, then such infused grace and works in justification are related as ‘both/and.’ Neither the Joint Declaration nor the background dialog have come to terms with these contradictory meanings of ‘grace.’ This would have unraveled the illusory ‘consensus’ on justification” (pg. 19) - http://www.lutheransonline.com/lo/553/FSLO-1361564553-111553.pdf
From a Cath. side:
It is an example of a trumpet sounding an uncertan sound, and it is said (in criticism) that its purpose was "for Lutherans to say things on justification which would not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church, and for Catholics to say things which would not contradict the Lutheran confessional documents." "...in the following years, various Catholic theologians would find the Joint Declaration simply indigestible for the Catholic mind." And "that to the extent the Joint Declaration is “received” by Catholics coherent with the Faith, its key words will signify one thing to Catholics and something else to Lutherans." - http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/hermeneutic-of-continuity-and-joint.html
Dulles does indeed find significant fault with it as in Church and Society: The Laurence J. McGinley Lectures, 1988-2007, p. 311 , etc.
And needless to say TRCs go even much further in finding fault, while this is a document that it is open to reform or correction.
Specifics would be needed into order to deal with the relevance of this.
“But what about HIM???
Why is it that folks NEVER girlcott anything??
HMMMmmm...
An inquiring mind wants to peruse this LIST...
It appears that Catholics CAN believe some things that are not true...
Nice qualifier!
Note which 'laws' are NOT spoken of...
And thew Web; too!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
See the Above...
HMMMmmm...
I wonder where PROTESTant came from?
Turtles: all the way down...
Lots of things are...
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.
Christ changed Cephas' name to "Peter," or Rock. The quotes you cite are making the point that Christ is ultimately, the "Rock," which makes sense in terms of the gift of the "keys of the Kingdom." As can be seen in Isaiah 22, the keys represented the office of the prime minister of the Davidic Kingdom. The "keeper of the keys" in the Davidic kingdom isn't the king, but the king's representative in his absence.
So it is with the pope. He holds the keys of the King of the Eternal Davidic Kingdom.
______________________________________________________
Augustine
"Who is ignorant that the chief Apostolate is to be preferred to any Episcopate?"
Of the dignity of Peter he says, "in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with excelling grace."
St. Clement of Alexandria:
The blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Saviour paid the tribute (Matthew 17:27), quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you." [Matt 19:27; Mark 10:28] (St. Clement of Alexandria,Who is the Rich Man That is Saved?, 21:3-5, 190 A.D.)
Hippolytus
Peter, the Rock of the faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the keys of the kingdom. (Hippolytus, Exfabrico. n.9, 225 A.D.)
Origen:
Peter, likewise, on whom the Church was founded by the good pleasure of the Lord, lays it down in his epistle… (Origen, De Bono Patient, p.484, 230 A.D.)
St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria:
Peter, set above the Apostles… (Peter of Alexandria, Canon.ix.Galland, iv.p.98, 306 A.D.)
St. Cyprian:
The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," He says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19) And again He says to him after His resurrection: "Feed my sheep." (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, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 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 still be confident that he is in the Church? (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4, 246 A.D.)
The Early Church Fathers and the Papacy
______________________________________________________
Isaiah 22:22I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Sorry; but I've posted Scripture time and time again that SHOWS that Simon was ALREADY called Peter BEFORE the CC claim that Jesus changed his name.
From Protestants.
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.