Catholic and Protestant methodology

1. Hi John,  You said:I must admit, I don’t think I could have possibly asked for a better response to my posts….. We’re talking about what is the ultimate standard, and as such, there can only possibly be circular reasoning on the issue! I will freely admit that I start with God and his word as my foundation, and I end with God and his word as my foundation. Completely circular, and happily accepted as such.
   I’ll have to challenge you on two points you made there.
   1. That appealing to an ultimate standard must be by way of circular reasoning.
   There is more than one way to appeal to an ultimate authority.
   a. The Protestant methodology is circular. It is me and my Bible. If a Protestant is asked a question, the answer is invariably, “The Bible tells me so.”
   b. Whereas Catholic methodology is many and varied. It can be circular, inductive or deductive, depending upon the situation.
   i. Circular reasoning is not necessarily wrong. It is simply not persuasive when it is the only type of reasoning employed.
   ii. Inductive reasoning is reasoning from the specific to the general.
   iii. While deductive reasoning is reasoning from the general to the specific.
   The Catholic methodology is robust and persuasive than the Protestant methodology because we don’t rely upon Scripture alone. But upon Sacred Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.
   So, to contrast the Catholic situation with the Protestant. A Protestant will say, “the Bible tells me so.” Whereas a Catholic will say, “The Bible tells me so and that is confirmed in Sacred Tradition and in the Teaching of the Church (Magisterium). In addition, the Catholic methodology also admits historical and archaeological evidence. In fact, all branches of science are admissible in the Catholic court.
   2. That you begin with God and his word as my foundation, and I end with God and his word as my foundation.
   In practice, you don’t. You begin with your own understanding and end with your own understanding. That is why Protestants accuse Catholics of checking their brain at the door of the Catholic Church.
   Let’s compare the Protestant and Catholic methodology again.
   Say to Christians have a dispute upon what it says in Scripture. If they are Protestant, they debate. If neither is persuaded by the other, they simply go their way.
   If two Catholics dispute about Scripture, they go to the Church for an authoritative decision. The Church tells them which is right and which is wrong. This is confirmed historically. See the debates between St. Athanasius vs Arius; and St. Augustine vs the Pelagians.
   You also said:

   As I mentioned last time, the Roman Catholic Church states that it’s ultimate authority is God. But in actuality, it is not God, but the Roman Catholic Church itself. So I’m starting to see that this is what I need to show my Roman Catholic friend – the Roman Catholic Church makes a subtle authority swap and slips itself into the place of God as the ultimate authority. Hopefully, he’ll be able to see it, and hopefully some of your comments here will help him. They really are quite good at exposing the ultimacy of the Roman Catholic Church in its own beliefs.

   I’ll have to dispute that one also.
   The authority over the Catholic Church is God. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ is God. And it is Jesus Christ who empowered the Catholic Church to be the authority over His flock.
   This is based upon the principle established by Jesus Christ:
   Luke 10:16
   King James Version (KJV)
   16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
   Jesus Christ was sent by the Father:
   John 20:21-23
   King James Version (KJV)
   21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me,…
   And He sent the Church:
   … even so send I you.
   Again, Jesus was sent by the Father:
   Matthew 28:18-20
   King James Version (KJV)
   18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
   And He sent the Church.
   19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
   20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
   And that Church is the Catholic Church.

In regards to the traditions

Anonymous says,

De Maria,
In regards to the traditions mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we don’t know specifically what traditions Paul is referring to.

We do.  All you have to do is trace back to the Missionary journey to Thessalonia and you'll see:

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:  2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Therefore, he passed on Christian Doctrine.  AKA Catholic Doctrine.

We can though get a good idea from his letters what Paul taught. What we don’t see in his letters are things like Mary being sinless, indulgences, papal infallibility.

But those are part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And St. Paul was passing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Not some different version.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Nor are these doctrines taught else in the New Testament. I don’t want to be blind and i hope you don’t either.  This is why exegeting the Scripture is so important because it will tell us if our doctrines are sound or not. So far, we have seen in our discussions that some your doctrines are not.

On the contrary, they are taught throughout the New Testament.

What does James mean in James 2:24? Is James teaching that we must do good works to be saved without faith in Christ?

No one can be saved without faith. 

Is he teaching that when Christ died for our sins that our good works helped Christ and added to it?

No.  But Christ died to give us an example to follow:

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Scripture is clear that Jesus did not expect people to sit around claiming salvation by faith alone and who would neglect to do the work of God.

Heb 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 

How does your church officially exegete this verse?

Basically, that we are justified by faith AND works.  Not works alone without faith.  Not faith alone without works.

It is true that Ephesians 2:8-9 is teaching we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone.

That's not true.  You're just twisting Scripture in order to go against the Word of God.  The word "alone" is nowhere mentioned in that verse.  Let alone twice as you've inserted it.

And also, in order to get the entire idea being presented, you need to include verse 10.  Let's look at it.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
This is the Baptismal formula. It is in Baptism that we are saved by grace which is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, when we proclaim our faith in Christ.

and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

God gives us this grace. It is the first grace which God gives us because without faith we can’t please Him. And faith is a very special type of grace. It is a grace which must be exercised. Faith ALONE is dead (James 2:17).

Faith is a grace.
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;….

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Therefore we can’t boast that we made ourselves faithful nor that we saved ourselves.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We are ALL created in Christ when we are conceived. Christ has created all that is in creation:
John 1:3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

and we were all made to do good. We were all made to keep the Commandments.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

God gave this command from before time began. We were made for God. We were made to be righteous. This is why we are justified by DOING the faith OF Christ.

It is Christ alone who died for our sins and gained salvation for us.

True.  But He didn't die upon that Cross so that you would kick back, sip on your margarita and claim salvation without any effort on your part.  He frequently said:

Matthew 10:38

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 

It is by faith alone in this that we are saved.

Nope.  But it is by faith ALONE that we believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  And the Holy Eucharist is the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ.

Matthew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

From this, as verse 10 says, the good works are the result of salvation and not the cause of it. The good works we do can do nothing to affect our salvation that Christ has already gained and secured for us.

You've misunderstood v 10.  Most Protestants do so.  You should have taken the Scriptural warning seriously:

2 Peter 3:15-17 King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

It is true we are to obey God and work out our salvation (that Christ gained for us) in our lives. But our obedience does not keep us saved. Rather, it is the power of God that keeps us saved.

But the power of God only keeps the obedient saved.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Before you converted to the Roman Catholic church did you talk to your pastor or anyone who was knowledgeable on the Scripture?

Many.  Protestant and Catholic.  I also read many books.

Thanks for the questions.

Aren't you disobeying Christ on Ash Wednesday?

StepHeaven says
Why would Protestants go to the nearest Catholic Church for ashes if they strongly oppose Catholic teachings and doctrines?

There must be many more that don't, judging by the reaction amongst non-Catholics on this forum.

Wouldn't that make hypocrites of those that did so?

One more hypocrite won't hurt anything.

There were plenty of non-Catholic churches offering ashes yesterday, but as somebody who can not explain away the contradiction between the scripture of washing your face when fasting so that nobody knows what your doing, to the man made idea of taking on a clearly visible mark that symbolizes to everybody exactly what you're doing, I'm honestly kind of confused by the whole idea. 

 I understand your confusion. I'll explain below.

Matthews 6:19 "But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that your fasting will not be obvious to men, but only to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Let's look at this in a bit more detail.

Let's start here:

Matt 6:6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.
If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.....

That's the main idea. Let's skip down a bit more.

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standingin the
synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received
their reward in full. ....

16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, ....

Basically, this is preaching humility. In other words, don't stand on a street corner yelling,
"I'm saved by my faith alone." That is boasting in yourself and your abilities. It is trying to get
the approval of men and not of God.

And so, we see a difference between that type of behaviour and that of putting ashes on our foreheads.

First, the ashes do not simply symbolize fasting.

1. They also symbolize dying with Christ. Thus, they proclaim that we hope in the resurrection.

Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

2. And they symbolize the mark of all believers. The ashes are placed on our forehead in the shape of a cross. Thus,
they symbolize the mark that all believers in Christ will receive on the forehead.

Revelation 7:3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads
of the servants of our God.”

3. Finally and most directly answering your question, we profess Christ before men. Anyone who sees us
will know by the very fact that there is a cross emblazoned on our forehead, that we are believers in Jesus
Christ.

Matthew 10:32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.
33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

So, I hope that helps.

St. Peter's confession

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Hello again,

Well.. it does not matter whether Peter, Nathaniel or Thomas made confessions.. the mere fact is St.Peter denied Jesus..

And the other Apostles abandoned him, except St. John. But Jesus forgave them all.

St Paul also rebuked St Peter for preaching wrong doctrine.

True. And in so doing revealed his human failings. St. Peter honorably and humbly never even mentions this episode in which St. Paul rebukes St. Peter for doing something which St. Paul no only recommends doing:
1 Corinthians 9:22
King James Version (KJV)
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And preaches against causing our brothers to sin by eating certain foods:
1 Corinthians 8:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

And neglects to mention that he circumcised St. Timothy because of pressure from the self same group:
Acts 16:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

So, what we have here is a St. Paul hypocritically rebuking St. Peter for actions which he commits on a regular basis and which he advises others to do as though they were virtuous.

Certainly no one will be in position to rebuke the popes’ when they dispense their heretic teachings, since they claim infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra.

1. The Popes have never dispensed heretical teachings.
2. Even so, there are many Saints which through the years have rebuked and advised Popes and Bishops.
3. It is the Protestants who will not listen to rebuke or advise concerning the errors which they have added to the Scriptures.

We also see criminals in court case proceeding make a confession on oath to speaking the truth before the judge, but eventually tell lies to get themselves bailed out. I do believe we have to go out into the world and proclaim the gospel and it is the duty of everyone. Many times it is recorded that Roman Catholics have denied Jesus as the only way (Mother Theresa for example), so it is insincere to make a case for Roman Catholicism by make making imaginary claims.

It is Protestants who deny Christ everytime they reject the Eucharist, the Mass and the Catholic Church. Mother Theresa is one of Christ’s shining stars. Catholics do not deny Christ but live in accordance with His Commandments and submit to His Church and His Sacraments.

Sincerely,

De Maria

St. Peter vs St. Paul and St. Peter vs Jesus

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Someone added these comments:
December 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM
I would also like to add the following…

St Paul makes a claim in Ephesians 3:2-4, that the dispensation of the Grace of God was given to him (St Paul). So, if St Peter was the rock, then surely the dispensation of the Grace of God would be given to him (St. Peter), instead. But it is not the case, which proves that St.Peter is not the rock – the rock is Jesus Christ.

December 2, 2012 at 12:06 PM
It is very clear in Ephesians 3:2-4 that the “revelation” of the dispensation of the Grace of God was given to St.Paul and not St.Peter, effectually shutting down the presumption that St. Peter was the rock and the bishop of Rome claiming apostolic succession is without foundation.

St. Paul received the same revelation which Jesus Christ dispensed unto all the Apostles and disciples before him. The only difference being that St. Paul was set apart that he might focus on the Gentiles. Oh, that dispensation of the Grace of God, is also known as the Mass:

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

This is how the Grace of God is dispensed unto the members of the Body of Christ. And it was revealed to the Apostles and Disciples, long before Christ revealed it to St. Paul:
Mark 14:21-24
King James Version (KJV)
21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

St. Peter is the Rock and the dispensation was given to him long before it was given to St. Paul. Only it was revealed to St. Peter by Jesus Christ in the flesh. Whereas it was revealed to St. Paul by Jesus Christ in a vision.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Evangelicals becoming Catholic by reason

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Hi Erick,

I don’t know how I missed this message of yours. But I saw it and offer my response.

For those Evangelical protestants to have gone over to the Roman Catholic Church for historical and intellectual reasons, I simply cannot see how you made this decision solely on the basis of an intellectual quest.

There are glaring problems with your logic here.
1. What does it matter whether you can see it or not? Must they check their brains in at your door?
2. It is strange how Protestants who claim about their intellectual freedom will complain when someone exercises that freedom and becomes a Catholic.

Despite this fact, I have only heard of evangelicals becoming Catholics by some sort of intellectual historical quest in the early centuries of the church.

There were no evangelical protestants in the early history of the Church, or if there were, please provide an example.

Quite the opposite are the testimonies of those Catholics who become protestants. They are almost never the result of an intellectual quest, but rather are experiential in nature. They were brought up catholics but then they met jesus at some other point in time later in life, after leaving the catholic church.

This is true. But what’s the point? There are many cultural Protestants as well. I’ve met them.

There is something to learn from this that plays in our understanding of the differences that exist in the modern day Catholic church (orthodox as well) and the evangelical protestant churches. In the Catholic Church, the church is grown primarily through children of parents who are already in the catholic Church (via carnal generation) and they are already told they are “born again” through their infant baptism and so there only needs to be a nourishment of the conversion already in them. Therefore, most catholics never see a need to really become radiant for Christ

Whether the word, “most” applies, is questionable. Many Catholics remain faithful Catholics throughout their life.

and obedient to him in the specific context of the fellowship of his church.

On the contrary, “obedience” is a hallmark of Catholic Teaching. Catholics know the value of obedience.

Whereas, Protestants don’t. And many Protestants disdain obedience. Especially because they disparage the Commandments and do not consider them worth obeying anymore.

They most likely integrate into normal carnal society and remain attending catholics churches throughout their life. And they have kids who do the same, etc,etc,etc. This is why people in the Catholic churches are not clearly (on a large scale) on “fire” for God in bible study, Sunday Fellowship, love feasts, evangelism, bible conferences, missions (doctrinal), seminars, books on being studious, etc,etc

I’ve met many Protestants the same way. You are committing the fallacy of division. The car is blue therefore the car’s engine must be blue.

But that is not true. Protestants who attend Church are not the same as the run of the mill Protestant working stiff. The one’s who believe in abortion, contraception, and who don’t know one end of the Bible from the other.

In evangelical protestant churches,

Yeah, in evangelical churches. But not in typical Protestant homes.

it is a community of mainly spontaneous conversions of older people who come out of a conviction to be “saved” and to “serve” Christ. And because of this, it appears they are more interested in God and serving Jesus Christ. They are there, not by ordinary birth, but through the new birth created by the holy spirit.

Its too bad that these people who love Christ have been taught the errors of the Protestants. Spontaneity is not the sole ingredient of faith. More important is obedience and perseverence.

These differences are widely known by both Catholics and evangelicals. This is why if you reside in either camp, you will see Catholics seeing the need to regenerate people who are already catholic and you will see evangelicals trying to get other evangelicals to try and consider the traditions of old.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Because evangelicals are Protestant and they have abandoned the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

St. Peter, the first Apostle to the Gentiles

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Hello,

you said:

In light of scripture in Ephesians 3:2-4, there is no “exclusivity” in the Kingdom of God.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I see nothing there which addresses “exclusivity”.
Ephesians 3:2-4
King James Version (KJV)
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Scripture clearly says that St.Peter was the apostle to the “Jews” while St.Paul was to the Gentiles.

Are you saying that Scripture exclusively appoints St. Peter to the Jews and St. Paul to the Gentiles? If so, then you are contradicting yourself.

And you are also wrong. Who said?

Acts 15:7
And when there had been much disputing,… rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

That’s why the Epistle of St.Paul to the Ephesians church is the”queen” of the New Testament epistles,

Really? Who made that decision? It sounds to me like a decision of men.

because it exhorts what God has wrought for all believers in Christ Jesus.

We find that exhortation in many Epistles:

Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Colossians 2:10-12
King James Version (KJV)
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So, I disagree in your evaluation of Ephesians as the “queen” of the Epistles. My favorite, is Romans 8:
Romans 8:1-5
King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

We are saved by “faith”

But not by faith alone.

and sealed by the Holy Spirit the moment we trusted completely in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13 – In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise).

That is a reference to the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. After one believes, he requests Baptism. After he receives Baptism, he is confirmed and is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.

St.Paul clearly teaches in Ephesians 2:14 that Christ is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us (Jews and Gentiles).

True. And notice that he does not shun the Jews but also teaches them as well as the Gentiles.

Jesus/God chose to reveal the revelation on the Grace of God thru his servant and apostle St.Paul and not St.Peter.

Through both. But mainly by St. Peter. True, St. Paul wrote more books. But St. Peter had been the Prince of the Apostles and leader of the Church for many years before St. Paul came on the scene.

Is St.Peter is the rock, than the revelation would have been given to him (St.Peter) instead, which is not. I trust what the scriptures says. I’m skeptical of what church fathers taught.

You don’t understand what Scripture teaches. Here is what St. Peter says:
2 Peter 1
King James Version (KJV)
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You pit one Apostle against another as though they were from two different Churches. But there is only one Body of Christ. One Church. And He appointed St. Peter its leader and St. Paul one of his followers.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Peter and the Church Fathers

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM

December 2, 2012 at 10:57 PM
If we, being readers far away from the original readers in the 1st century, are so sure thatMatthew 16:16-19 teaches, by the very terminology itself, that Peter’s successors continue the “rock” function for the church, that “keys” denote succession (1 to 1) of a single person to take the office of Peter, and a Petrine Succession is clearly and unmistakably delineated from the text itself, then we are throwing many interpretations of Matthew 16 in the early fathers as if they had no clue what they are talking about.

Nope. I believe we’ve spoken before and if I remember correctly, you are Protestant. And the problem which Protestants have is what we call an “either/or” mentality.

The office of Peter and Petrine succession is not incompatible with anything else the Early Fathers have said. If you have one with which you are having a problem, post it and we can discuss it.

Having said that, the Church Fathers are not infallible. The Catholic Church is. Therefore, if it comes to a decision between what a Church Father may have said or what the Church says, we always follow the teaching of the Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Sincerely,

De Maria

Mary cooperated with God’s will.

De Maria March 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM

jason fernandes March 5, 2013 at 11:32 PM

It was God’s will for Mary to bear Jesus, not hers. Mary said to the angel – Thy will be done.

Mary cooperated with God’s will. If Mary had not done so, Jesus would not have taken flesh and become man. And man would not be saved.

Mankind “is spirtually” dead in sin after the fall of Adam and Eve and is unable to come to God in repentance and faith both of which God grants it.

True. But in order to be saved, man must make the conscious decision to accept God’s will:
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Salvation is of the Lord.

Only to those who obey:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Repentance and faith to believe comes from the Lord.

True. They are gifts of God that must be accepted and exercised.
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Arminianists wrong believe man has a “free will” to make decisions to accept or reject. The scriptures do not support such view.

You are wrong. Scripture teaches that man must cooperate with God or be lost.
Ezekiel 18:23-28
King James Version (KJV)
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

St. John and the successor of Peter

De Maria December 2, 2012 at 9:00 PM

To whoever wrote the referenced comment,

Hi,

You said,

The basic problem here is that the authors are assuming that St John means the same thing by “successor of Peter” as what the modern RCC view of the papacy take it to mean. However, there is every reason to believe that St John did not mean this in the same sense.

The basic problem is not that the authors assume that St. John is accepting the proper interpretation of the phrase, “successor of Peter”.

The problem is that you and all EO (Eastern Orthodox) who disagree with the Catholic Church on this point, are assuming the modern and erroneous EO view of the Papacy.

I think to properly understand this from an Orthodox perspective, we need to go back toMatthew 16:18-24.

That is precisely what we need to do in order to understand the term correctly. I agree.

According to Whelton (p.61), the 17th century RCC scholar Jean de Launoy surveyed the Fathers and found that 17 considered Peter to be the rock, 44 considered his confession to be the rock, 16 considered it to be Christ and 8 considered it to be the apostles. However, what these raw statistics fail to show is that these interpretations are all interlinked: In reality, the rock is all of these:

-Christ is the rock (this is known from elsewhere).
-The confession is the rock because it is a confession about Christ, Who is the rock.
-Peter is the rock because he made this confession.
-The apostles are also the rock because they made the same confession.

I would disagree. Jesus is the Rock, in another Biblical metaphor. But in Matt 16:18-19, Jesus is speaking to Simon and the Apostles, about Simon Bar Jonah. And Jesus is describing Simon as “the Rock” upon whom He will build His Church. He is not speaking about anyone else. And when He gives away the keys, He uses a singular pronoun, addressing the person to whom He gives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Simon Bar Jonah, aka as Cephas, Rock or Peter. He does not hand the keys to anyone else. He is not describing anyone else.

But the important thing to note about all of these interpretations is that they centre on the confession, and not on the person of Peter.

On the contrary, by centering on the confession, you center upon the man who uttered the confession. St. Peter is not the first man to utter this confession in the New Testament. Nathaniel does it the very first time he sees Jesus:

John 1:47-49
King James Version (KJV)
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Yet Jesus does not give Nathaniel any keys.

Another man also does it, Thomas:
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

So, the simple confession is not enough. The confession was uttered by a particular man and that man is the subject and object of the Master’s lesson.

And its not as though Jesus Christ only did this once. What I mean is that, this is not the only time Jesus singled out St. Peter and made it clear that He considered St. Peter the Leader of the Apostles and of His Church.

Luke 22:30-32
King James Version (KJV)
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

If Jesus had only done it once, it could be dismissed as coincidence. But Jesus reiterated the fact that He considered St. Peter the Leader of His Church, several times. Here’s another:
Matthew 17:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

For me and thee.

But wait. In order to understand this verse, you must understand the verse you are questioning. Why did Jesus give Simon the name, “Rock”? Perhaps you never wondered. Here’s why.

Because He wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture:

Exodus 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Exodus 18:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

Exodus 19:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.

God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name, Rock along with the keys to the Kingdom (Matt 16:18-19) and appointed him Shepherd over the Church (John 21:15-17).

Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.

This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in the God’s name.

And that is why, the coin is for Jesus and for Peter. Because Jesus knows that Peter is His representative to all mankind. Amongst men, St. Peter is the person of Christ in a very special way.

Peter, being the first to make this confession (remembering that the Latin for first is prima) quite literally has the primacy.

The primacy falls to him for other reasons. But not for being the first to make that confession. Nathaniel made it first as already mentioned.

Those that made the same confession after him are his successors.

Nope. He whom he appointed was his successor and the one appointed by that person, his successor.

And given that Peter’s authority rests on the confession that he made, his successors have the same authority that Peter does.

Many have made the same confession. But to none but St. Peter did Jesus turn and say, “you are Rock”, “I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”, “strengthen your brethren”, “this coin is for you and I”, and also, “feed my sheep”.

But the important thing to note in the above is the answer to the following question: who is Peter’s successor? ….

Non sequitur. That which you mentioned above is your line of reasoning. YOU proposed it. Now you are arguing against it. It is a classic “straw man argument.”

According to the above line of reasoning, those who made this confession is a successor of Peter. In short, every bishop is a successor of Peter – not just the bishops of Rome. Every bishop is a shepherd and must “feed Christ’s sheep” – that is, the Church that is placed under his guidance.

Nope. Successors of Peter are those who sit on the See of Rome. They are the ones to whom the Keys are passed down.

This understanding of the “successor of Peter” (which is also the Orthodox understanding) is also reflected in the writings of St Cyprian (another oft-miscited Father) – who uses the phrase “Chair of Peter” to refer to an episcopate. As far as St Cyprian is concerned, every bishop is the successor of St Peter.

I’d have to see the writings to which you refer. I believe it was St. Cyprian who wrote eloquently about the authority of the Pope. Until he found himself at odds with the Pope. Then, he changed his tune. But the fact that he recognized the truth until it was inconvenient to do so, proves that he understood the doctrine correctly before he changed his mind. The fact that he is considered one of our Saints, proves that he accepted the truth in the end.

There is every reason to assume that this is exactly the same interpretation that St John Chrysostom himself had in mind here, and the authors are jumping to conclusions and not considering the wider context.

Not if the comment which the author posted is compared to John 21:15-17. The reference to Jesus appointing Peter as the Shepherd of the entire Church, is unmistakable.

And just to put the final nail into the coffin,

You’ve put to rest the EO’s erroneous understanding. The Catholic doctrine stands tall.

and confirm that the Orthodox reading of St John Chrysostom is the correct one, let me tell you a little story…The most sensible way to understand his above words, then, is not as an argument for papal supremacy, but in-line with the Orthodox view – that is, every bishop is a successor of Peter (and not just the bishop of Rome).

Since you have shown a propensity to misunderstand the Scripture and the words of St. John Chrysostom, I take that story of yours with a mouthful of salt.

The argument which you attribute to the EO, has been proven false by a very simple review of the Scriptures and by referring St. John Chrysostom’s statement back to the Scripture to which he was obviously making reference.

The only way to come to the conclusion which you draw is by ignoring the Scripture to which St. John was referring and by purposesly rejecting Jesus’ intent in naming St. Peter the Leader of His Church and Shepherd over His Flock.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

PG said:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is ]perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
..............
CCC-85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” [47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
==============================
I'm simple; therefore, Scripture will give me wisdom and understanding.

Prov 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

DS responded:

Makes me think of this quote:

“I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” - Willam Tyndale
Luke 10:21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

DE MARIA SAID IN REPLY:

Its amazing then that Jesus did not write any Scripture.

In fact, what He did was establish a Church and command that Church to pass down His Traditions:

Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In fact, let's review what Jesus did. 
Jesus Christ did not write anything down. He established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Teachings. Another word for Teachings is Traditions.

That Church then wrote down the Traditions and called that the New Testament.

This is why valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. 

And invalid doctrines are found neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Take for instance, Sola Scriptura. You will find it neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Sacred Traditions taught by the Catholic Church also contradicts the Sacred Scriptures.


Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM

malbert February 18, 2011 at 6:26 AM
...i am malbert from goa can you please tell me how can u say that the bible belongs to us…where it is given in the bible…thanks.

I’m not sure if these will answer your question:
2 Pet 1:
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.