Hi,

I've been debating this anti-catholic radio guy. I have gone through the scriptural arguments and he just says nah nah boo boo. Then quotes a bunch of Dave Hunt. I am researching but though some of you might give me some help as well. I am looking more for patristic evidence. Please give me some quotes from Fathers that refute the nonsense below.

Gerald


What would you say to this statement. “None of the early church fathers every thought that thou art Peter and Upon this rock had any thing to do anything other than Peter and his confession of faith in Christ.” “not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a rock or applies to him the promise of the keys.”.
All the councils of the Church from Nicea in the 4th century to Constance in the 15th agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the Church. That is the rock on which the Church rests.
“not one of the fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him. There is no hint of an abiding petrine office. So the early Church did not look on Peter as the Bishop of Rome. Nor did it think that each bishop of rome succeeded Peter. The Gospel did not create the Papacy. The papacy once in being leaned on the gospels. Though it was not there.”

"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. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface I, to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See (Rome) so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision." Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257]

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352]

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the Church's oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)."

Tertullian : "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248] by Origen).

I'd say to the author of the statement that he's a fool. (Absolutes like 'no one,' 'never,' 'always,' etc., usually get one in trouble).

I'll offer one of my favorites from St. Jerome:

1. Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price.” “Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. “Ye are the light of the world,”“ye are the salt of the earth,” ye are “vessels of gold and of silver.” Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron, and eternal fire.

2. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!" Jerome, Letter 15 to Pope Damasus. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XV.html (footnotes omitted; emphasis added)

If to be precise, some of Church Fathers spoke so. In some private letters or solemn speeches. But never — in their exegetic writings. This becomes clear when you read arguments of the both sides. Compare what Janus says and then — what Card. Hergenröther replies to him.

Janus:

All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who have exegetically explained these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi. 18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies to the Roman bishops as Peter's succesors.

Reply of Card. Hergenröther (Anti-Janus)

(I don't quote it here because it's too long).

From the pre-1955 Matins for January 18th (then Feast of St. Peter at Rome)

The Lord asketh His disciples who men say that He is, and He addeth, He, the Son of Man. Let us ever remember to hold fast this truth of our profession, namely, that the Son of God is the Son of Man also. Were He one and not the other, then were He no Saviour for us. The Lord then, having heard the various opinions of men, asketh, But Who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter had weighed the questions. The Lord had asked, Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? That He was Son of Man was sufficiently evident to all who looked upon His Body. But when He spake of His whole Self, and asked, Who do ye say that I am? He showed that the mind had something to grasp beyond That Which was seen, for Son of Man He was manifestly. What judgment did He wish them to give? I think it was not /that which He had owned concerning Himself. That something more, which He wished them to own, was a hidden thing, whereunto the faith of them that believed in Him was to reach.

Peters confession was followed by a proper reward for having seen the Son of God in the Son of Man. Blessed is this holy Apostle, in whose praise it is said that he saw with more than human eyes That Which was unseen, who gazed upon Flesh and Blood, and by the secret revelation of the Heavenly Father recognised the Eternal Son of God; who was the first thought worthy to acknowledge the Divinity of Christ. {Here, if necessary, the Lesson is divided.) God bless thee, O Peter, thou who by uttering for the first time the title of Divine honour, didst lay the goodly foundation of the Church! God bless thee, thou worthy rock whereon she is built, for ever triumphant over the infernal powers, the gates of hell, and the bands of death! God bless thee, happy door-keeper of heaven, to whose keeping are given the keys of the everlasting mansions, whose sentences on earth are already confirmed in heaven so that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

St. Hilary of Potiers, Sermon on Matthew 16

This feast was restored to January 18th precisely as against protestants around 1530

Vadim, are those the only two people you ever mention? There are many fathers who in their exegetic writing understand the rock to be Peter. Indeed, that is manifestly what Christ is saying. Of course you point, while still false (look at the Council of Ephesus!), is different than the anti-Catholic in the OP, who wasn't arguing about Peter's successors, but about Peter himself

Great quotes. Thanks a bunch. This guy is a real clown. But I'll be nice. Typical former Catholic anti-catholic who knows it all. The good thing about it is he keeps pointing his listeners out to his website where I am posting.



If anyone wants to get involved here is the website.

http://www.noiseofthunder.com/





I have been posting under articles:



http://www.noiseofthunder.com/articles/ ... t-xvi.html



I see he has a new article on

UPON THIS ROCK, I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH
That I will likely start posting with your input.



Also if any of you have time go here and listen to the programs on the 19th and 18th where he spent much of his time talking about my comments.



http://www.noiseofthunder.com/noise-of- ... adio-show/


Do join in.

Keep it coming.

Thanks

Here is where the discussion is going on. Tell me what I could do better.

http://www.noiseofthunder.com/process/C ... alize=true

Keep up the good work brother.

Vadim, here is your problem in a nutshell: the covenant of God.

You do not understand covenant structure. Covenant structure is based upon the Trinity. The relationship and union of the Blessed Trinity is the model for all covenant unions. It was the model for the nuclear family as found in Adam and Eve. In a covenant structure, you have the covenant head, the helpmeet, and those who are dependent upon the first two. In a family situation, this third is the child. In the Trinity, it is the Holy Spirit, for He proceeds from the Father through the Son, just as a child proceeds from the father through the mother. (BTW -- Orthodox theologians have stated that this wording in the Nicene Creed would be acceptable.) The existence of the Holy Spirit is possible through the union of love between the Father and the Son, which is mirrored by the existence of children being made possible by the union of love between husband and wife.

(NOTE!!! If I have strayed into any thing even resembling heresy here, I recant, but based on some theologians I read regarding the Trinity, I think I am on safe ground here. Father Horton, you can check me out here if you wish!)


Every covenant structure has this threefold structure -- head, helpmeet, dependent or offspring. (Varies from covenant to covenant, but the basic structure is the same).

Here is the structure of a parish:

Head = priest

Helpmeet = parish

dependents = laity

Likewise with the diocese:

Head = bishop

helpmeet = priests

dependents = parishes

And the church:

Head = Pope

Helpmeet = bishops

dependents = priests.

So we go from families to parishes, to dioceses, to church with the same trinitarian structure in place.

One more thing:

If there is no VISIBLE authority on earth, then Christ does not rule. Your statements about Christ being the Head over the Church are fine and dandy. They are true. But to rule, He MUST have a visible point of reference in which and through which His authority is expressed. The Protestant idea of an "invisible church" is nonsense and the Orthodox idea of "collegiality of bishops" is also wrong. There MUST be a single head over the Church just as in a covenant structure there is a single head over the family, parish, diocese, and church.

Oh, and BTW -- Trinity in Heaven.

Christ = Covenant Head and Last Adam

Theotokos = Covenant helpmeet and New Eve

Saints in Glory = Children of the New Covenant.

No matter where you go, that structure is in place.

Acts of this Council were analyzed by St. Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory, but he didn't pay any attention to speech of papal legate. Doesn't this show, that such speeches were always understood as mere rhetoric?

Kindly answer my post. Your Orthodox paradigm DOES NOT follow the covenant structure found in the scriptures!!!

St. Ignatius, indeed, compared Trinity with the Church, but he never mentioned about the Pope. Only he wrote about bishops, presbyters and deacons in these fragments, where he compares Trinity with the Church:

The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chap. VI

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony,4 while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time,5 and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct,7 pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. <...>

4 Literally, “in harmony of God.”
5 Literally, “before the ages.”
6 Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14, 27
7 Literally, “receiving the like manners of God.”

Chap. VII

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. <...>

Chap. XIII

<...> Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnæans, Chap. VIII

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution 17 of God. <...>

17 Or, “command.”

You still did not answer my post. You need to respond within paradigm that I have shown which corresponds to the Blessed Trinity. The Blessed Trinity IS an eternal covenant of unity/love. That covenant provides us with a structure of the covenant which I clearly showed you.

I am not interested in your cut n paste jobs from selected Early Fathers that supports whatever axe you have to grind against the Catholic Church. YOU, SIR, need to step up to the plate and answer the suppositions presented to you rather than to hide behind the Early Fathers and selective quotes that do not address the issue AT ALL!!! n The Early Fathers were still in the process of developing certain dogma and defining clearly others. For instance, I could find you a number of quotes from Heresiarch Arias proving that Christ is not God, but since the issue was not FINALLY SETTLED until the decrees of Nicea AD 325, his opinions are just that, his opinions with no weight behind them.

In the same manner, if I am debating you on the structure of the Church, the Eucharist, or any other issue within the Christian faith, I expect an answer that falls within the questions that I have asked. You basically ran away from me.

If you want to come play in the big boys sandbox, apologetically speaking, then you better bring your big boy toys with you. So far you have failed miserably.

Now answer my question. Show me definitively from scripture and the writings of the Church throughout the ages where the structure of the covenant that I gave to you, i.e, covenant head, helpmeet, and offspring or dependents, is wrong.

Orthodox theologians also say that Trinity was the prototype of the Church. In particular, bishop Atanasije Jevtic says so, whom you see on my avatar.

But in Trinity the primary feature is love and communion, but not subordination. Everything that was created, was not created by the Father alone, but by the Father with the helf of the Son, John 1.3: "All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made." But Pope does too many things alone in the Roman Catholic Church, so I don't see how structure of the Roman Catholic Church corresponds to the Trinity.

Where did they state so? Proceeding through the Son in this interpretation, i. e. that the Son receives his being through the Son, — was condemned by the Council of Blachernae in 1285.

Not at all. It doesn't 'prove' anything more than the fact that St. Vincent didn't adress it. (Assuming that you represent him accurately, that is.)

Besides, this is not an official document. What does this mean? Imagine that you were a Greek who lived during the time 1000 — 1400 A.D. Where would you get this speech of papal legates, in order to make sure that the Popes are really the successors of Peter? Internet wasn't available at that time; and in apologetical writings of Latins of that time true quotations were mixed with rude forgeries. So you simply couldn't make sure even that this speech really existed. Lastly, Popes for a long time rejected to convoke an Ecumenical Council where these quotations would be analyzed. These facts already show which side was right, so we even don't need to consider patristic quotations about the Pope. We can do it, of course, but this is even not needed.

Thank you. Much better answer.

In any covenant structure, there is only one covenant HEAD! I'm sure that you must have read some of the writings regarding the monarchial headship of the Father within the Holy Trinity. While it is true that the Persons of the Trinity are equal in substance, there is a monarchial structure in which the Father presides over the Son and the Holy Spirit. (I hope I expressed that correctly).

Why do you say that the Holy Father does too many things alone? My understanding is that no pope has ever made a change in dogma that was not first spelled out by the work of an eccumenical council.

Vadim, Pope John Paul II gave a talk on "The Church Lives in the Trinity's Love" in the General Audience of October 9, 1991:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... 009en.html