Has Vlad ever read the book?
“Your post 352 completely takes the legs out of any arguments catholics have regarding Peter being the first pope.”
Actually it does nothing of the kind. We’ve been over this again and again. Here’s an example of the constant problem of Protestant anti-Catholics trying to discredit a faith they know almost nothing about:
This was posted:
““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.”
Now, this quote is in several places on the internet with EXACTLY THE SAME OTHER QUOTES. It is repeatedly cut and pasted by people who have clearly never read the original source - as I have - or who are deliberately hiding what else comes after it in the same book. Is there any point to rehashing what has already been shown to be a misrepresentation? The whole book is available online for free. Has Elsie ever read the book? I seriously doubt it. And therein lies the problem. Elsie couldn’t even spell the archbishop’s name correctly! All he/she did was cut and paste it from other source which also had it misspelled. What’s the point of trying to engage someone in conversation about a source he/she clearly can’t get right?
“I’ve noticed old vladimir998 has no reply when confronted with the facts.”
Again, what’s the point of trying to engage someone in conversation about a source he/she clearly can’t get right?
“To be quite honest...catholics have written so much over time I’m not sure they even know what they’re supposed to believe.”
That’s hilarious coming from you considering your own predicament. Elsie believes all of the dead believers are in “sleep”. They’re not in heaven (Elsie said Mary is not in heaven for instance). Is that what you believe? If you believe differently than he/she does then clearly one or both of you is wrong. Which is it? So what is a Protestant to believe? How is it that you all say you believe in sola scriptura yet you can’t agree on what the Bible actually teaches? Most likely - as has happened before - I will not get any answers to those questions. And if I ask them again, then the Religion Moderator will tell me I am badgering you. There’s too much fear here on the Protestant side to allow Protestantism to be exposed as the man-made thing it is.
“I’d love to know how catholics continue to cling to catholicism when the claims upon which it is supposed to be based repeatedly are shown to be false.”
None of them have been shown to be false. Again, look at the rest of the book which contains Kenrick’s quote (please note the correct spelling of Kenrick).
“Ready for the strawman argument and personal attacks.....”
Oh, so any response will be that, right?
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://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm
So the question becomes: were all of the fathers in unanimous consent?
Unless catholics redefine unanimous it means all agree upon....all are one mind.
So were the fathers all in agreement on this? The answer is no as exhibited by the work Elsie did.
I will add this to the disussion also. This is from The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles. https://books.google.com/books
p471.
the ancient Fathers gave no fewer than five interpretation of the the word "rock".
The first declared that the church was built on Peter, an interpretation endorsed by 17 Fathers.
2) the second understood the words as referring to all Apostles, Peter being simply the Primate. This was held by 8 Fathers.
3)The third view asserted that the words applied to the faith which Peter professed, a view held by no less than 44 Fathers.
4) the words were to be understood of Jesus Christ, the Church built upon Him. This was the view of 16 Fathers.
5) the fifth understood the term "rock" to apply to the faithful themselves, who, by believing in Christ, were made living stones in the temple of His body. Very few held this opinion.
It is also impossible to overlook the fact that in the Roman Missal itself the Collect for the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul's Day reads thus: "Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that Thou wouldest not suffer us, whom Thou established on the Rock of the Apostlic Confession, to be shaken by any disturbances."
Based on this it sure looks like ol' Pius, at best, erred, in his statement regarding, nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
This is where the quote from Archbishop Kenrick comes into play regarding following the majority.
The man-made teachings of the catholic church are built, and continue to be built, upon a bunch of lies and distortions.
What say you vladimir998?
Has Vlad ever read the book?
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
I have not been following this debate closely, but here your response is more of a rant rather than dealing with the support for the alternative interpretation (which was/is not necessarily mutually incompatible in the eyes of all, incldg. Kenrick as it appears you are not reading all that Elsie posted, for that quote is prefaced by,
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock , stated that,
Emp. mine. Here it is clearly stated that Kenrick supported Peter as the rock, and the spelling is correct, even if the end attribution has a k instead of an r, while the quote proved a link to the source (cached here ).
Thus nothing is being "hid," is misrepresented, which charge is another overreach by you, at best. It is perfectly valid to use such a statement from an author while noting that the author does not share the same conclusion as the writer who uses it, and who even provides access to the source. Some RCs authors do likewise in citing Prot authors.
You yourself invoked a edited quote of Luther that appears on some RC sites (indicating you never read the context), unaccompanied by any note stating what his argument and conclusion was, as well as utterly failing to even provide the source, let alone a link:
As Luther said, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
RCs authors also sometime cite ECFs as if they are supporting the RC apologist when they are not. And do not even mention many other RC quotes of Luther, which also abound on the Internet.
And what would be misrepresenting Kenrick would be to invoke him as one who always supported the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it.