Trusting Holy Scriptures Over The Church

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote]If when Jesus said "this rock" He was referring to Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ, "the son of the living God" then the Catholic church has gone astray and it would only be logical for this verse below to refer to the church.[/quote]
Not quite plausible for these reasons:
"You are peter".
Quite simple
"And on this rock"
Even without the greek,it's simple to see that the rock on which Jesus is building is peter,But here it is anyway:
In the bible,the words Jesus uses for "On this rock" Are "Tautee te petra" ,"Tautee" is a demonstrative adjective,which describes the nearest referent,which in this case is Peter.There's no ambiguity there,the rock on which the building is done is peter. Tautee can be translated as "This very",If we have Christ saying "You're peter,and on this very peter,I will build my church.",theres no room for an alternate interpretation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]If when Jesus said "this rock" He was referring to Peter, then I should repent for leaving the one and only Church sanctioned by God himself.

If when Jesus said "this rock" He was referring to Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ, "the son of the living God" then the Catholic church has gone astray and it would only be logical for this verse below to refer to the church.[/quote]

as catholic convert scott hahn said, just before he converted, the catholic church is either the greatest blessing, or the greatest curse to bestow mankind. considering the claims the CC makes, i would have to agree. the irony is thatit's so hard to discern.

i think if you agree it probably means rock, but aren't sure if it's the confession or peter in a new CC sense, i'd think you could go to history and how peter played a large role in the bible authority figure. catholic convert john henry newman said that the CC is wasn't crystal clear in the early days because it grew organically, as would any church you'd expect. it wouldn't just jump out and be like a full functioning system even if it's true. what's hard to discern is whether it grew organically by God or if it grew by man. if you look at the early texts regarding the papacy it's not clearly an infallible sense, it could be a influential authority sense. the orthodox church can remain separate preceisly becase of this ambiguity.

i also have important info on cyprian as he is often a proof text, bishops victor and stephen of rome in the early church. but i am going to stop lest this typing falls on deaf ears.

i think you're more worried about scriptureal research wheras i'm pushing onto soemthing else.

Edited September 19, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[ckozlowski]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1388258' date='Sep 18 2007, 07:11 PM']Not quite plausible for these reasons:
"You are peter".
Quite simple
"And on this rock"
Even without the greek,it's simple to see that the rock on which Jesus is building is peter,But here it is anyway:
In the bible,the words Jesus uses for "On this rock" Are "Tautee te petra" ,"Tautee" is a demonstrative adjective,which describes the nearest referent,which in this case is Peter.There's no ambiguity there,the rock on which the building is done is peter. Tautee can be translated as "This very",If we have Christ saying "You're peter,and on this very peter,I will build my church.",theres no room for an alternate interpretation.[/quote]

huuum.... that didn't help at all.

if millions of people are divided on this, there's clearly room for more than one interpretation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i talk about room for interpretation and you call me a relativist. which i'm not. depending on how you define relativist.....
you say interpretation and it's okay. i guess you didn't see the ambiguity then.

[scardella]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387470' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:35 PM']So with that said, my question is..(only for those who have a good understanding of biblical interpretation) i just want to know why it's not reasonable to believe that "Rock" stands for Christ instead of peter.

who's got this one?[/quote]

In Aramaic, Kephas means Peter and rock. It's the actual language that Jesus spoke. There's none of this Petros/Petra crud in Aramaic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1387744' date='Sep 18 2007, 08:30 AM']it's a lot to assume the translations are so perfect, or the transloars were so perfect so as to say.... lithos instead of petros. as lithos and petros are very similar.

but if your translations are exact and accurate, you got a better argument.[/quote]
To say that Jesus was saying such a thing would be to assume that:
a) The translations were bad, AND
b) Jesus was talking in confusing non-sequitors, AND
c) All Christians misunderstood this verse prior to the Protestant Revolt.

It would be much more logical to assume Christ was referring to Peter here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387998' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:57 PM']As the centuries move on we're learning more and more about the Bible. We're uncovering meanings that couldn't be uncovered without documents such as the dead sea scrolls, etc.. We know more about the bible today than we ever have in all of history.

Mateo just laid it all out in the other thread so if you don't understand this completely, the basis of the argument is available due to Mateo's scholarly rendition.

I gotta be honest this has racked my brain the past few days. I left the church, and say..it is the true church, then i'm clearly failing Christ and I must repent.

I've completely backed up and looked at this without bias because this verse is absolutely crucial.

What it comes down to is the meaning of this verse.. which Mateo clarified and explained to me. And i'm still arguing with myself what exactly it was that jesus was saying. I'm down to (2) plausible choices.

If when Jesus said "this rock" He was referring to Peter, then I should repent for leaving the one and only Church sanctioned by God himself.

If when Jesus said "this rock" He was referring to Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ, "the son of the living God" then the Catholic church has gone astray and it would only be logical for this verse below to refer to the church.

"Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;" Rev. 18:4

I'm not deciding yet! i'm still digging for answers. I'm only arguing to get to the bottom of this, really. This is too significant for me to look over without indiscriminate and extensive examination. it would help if you did this as well, and if you could all take on the character of mateo for this question because it will be factored into the decision that will determine the rest of my life.

The past year of my life has been a roller coaster. What i'm having difficulty with is seeing Jesus referring to peter as "this rock" and not peter's declaration itself, .. i don't know

I have a lot to do tonight so this is def my last input for the day, but if you guys want to share insight that i can read later that'd be sweet. thanks guys

God bless[/quote]
I find your honesty refreshing.

However, claiming that the "rock" on which Jesus built His Church refers only to Peter's profession of faith still does not explain Christ renaming Simon "Rock" (Peter) and His giving Peter the keys of the kingdom.

God bless you in your study of Scripture.

[N/A Gone]

Chris.

What about my arguments?

[Socrates]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1388307' date='Sep 18 2007, 08:14 PM']huuum.... that didn't help at all.

if millions of people are divided on this, there's clearly room for more than one interpretation.[/quote]
However, Christians were pretty unanimous on the meaning of this passage prior to the Protestant Revolt, when people began rejecting the entire idea of the Papacy and an institutional Church. (See the Early Church Fathers quotes Rev provided.) Thus, the Protestants had to come up with an explanation for how this Gospel passage "really" meant something other than its clear and obvious meaning.
People tend to be pretty good at denying the obvious when it conflicts with their own agendas.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]15
11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18
15 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19
16 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
20
17 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."[/quote]

from matthew. i tend to equate binding and loosing as with this. look here, binding and losing wasn't established just for peter. (and take the catho argument to its end then why didn't all the apostles leave successors would could write infallibly) and in the context of this passage, it's about how you act on earth. i think jesus is saying that eternity/heaven is now for you as a christian, and what you do now echos in eternity/heaven.

as per the keys of peter. some say since it was given to him first, he was jsut the first to enter into that. to open the door so to speak. it wasn't limited to him though. others can have that faith to have what it takes to enter heaven. biding and loosing by this passage seems extended to everyone who acts in teh matter proscribed. not even jjust to the apostles.
i guess i'd have ot argue either he was the first to open so he had the keys, or we all have keys, to bind and loose.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think i've ever really looked for the catho interpretatio of that passage i quoted. i'm all ears.

actually ihave cause i remember point this out before. i just forget what was said...

Edited September 19, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387570' date='Sep 17 2007, 11:48 PM']Deo, i'm just referring to the variants of the translation. So if Jesus meant "small stone" then Christ was the bottom stone, and peter was just one that goes on top of that. Which would imply that Peter was not the only foundation.[/quote]

The Apostles spoke Aramaic. Jesus said equivently: "You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church".

We don't need to look at various translations...

First, it's clear that Jesus addresses Peter as "Cephas" because it is kept elsewhere in the Gospels.
Second, the Early Church Fathers wrote about it.
Third, Jesus is speaking directly to Peter before and after the comment, so it's illogical to pull the "Peter in Greek is small stone".
Fourth, the Apostles didn't speak Greek. Cephas has only one meaning in Aramaic, which is Rock.

If you studied the people's writings who were taught by the Apostles, and by the ones the Apostles taught... aka The Early Church Fathers: [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url]

You would have a greater understanding of the Scriptures.

But... if you just grouped the verses by topic and look at history, you would see that the only church that could be the Church is the Catholic Church.

[b]John 1:42 [/b]
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

The argument that Jesus was not calling Peter the Rock is wrong.

[b]John 21:15 [/b]
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
[b]16 [/b]He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
[b]17 [/b]He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

This also shows the same as with St. Matt 16:18 that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus went to Heaven. Peter was the first Pope.


[b]Matt 5:13 [/b] "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
[b]14 [/b] You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
[b]15[/b] Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.

Jesus built a Church that will be visable for all to see, that it has been visible since the time of the Apostles... The Catholic Church is the only Church that is 2000 years old... The Catholic Church is the "City set on a Mountain that cannot be hidden." All through history, the Catholic Church has been there, all other Christian churches are less than 400 years old and they do not have a unity of faith.


The churches of the Scriptures are all Catholic Church....

[b]Ephesus (Ephesians - A Catholic Church) From 27 B.C. till a little after A.D. 297[/b], Ephesus was the capital of the proconsular province of Asia, a direct dependency of the Roman Senate. Though unimportant politically, it was noted for its extensive commerce. Many illustrious persons were born at Ephesus

It was through the Jews that Christianity was first introduced into Ephesus. The original community was under the leadership of Apollo (I Cor., i, 12). They were disciples of St. John the Baptist, and were converted by Aquila and Priscilla. Then came St. Paul, who lived three years at Ephesus to establish and organize the new church; he was wont to teach in the schola or lecture-hall of the rhetorician Tyrannus (Acts, xix, 9) and performed there many miracles..
The Church of Ephesus was committed to his disciple, St. Timothy, a native of the city (I Tim., 1, 3; II Tim., 1, 18; iv, 12). The Epistle of St. Paul to the Esphesians was not perhaps addressed directly to them; it may be only a circular letter sent by him to several churches. The sojourn and death of the Apostle St. John at Ephesus are not mentioned in the New Testament, but both are attested as early as the latter part of the second century by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, iii, 4), Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xx1), Clement of Alexandria, the "Acta Joannis", and a little earlier by St. Justin and the Montanists.

About 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch, having been greeted at Smyrna by messengers of the Church of Ephesus, sent to it one of his seven famous epistles. During the first three centuries, Ephesus was, next to Antioch, the chief centre of Christianity in Asia Minor. In the year 190 its bishop, St. Polycrates, held a council to consider the paschal controversy and declared himself in favour of the Quartodeciman practice; nevertheless the Ephesian Church soon conformed in this particular to the practice of all the other Churches. It seems certain that the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325), confirmed for Ephesus its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole "diocese" or civil territory of Asia Minor.

Ephesus was taken in 655 and 717 by the Arabs. Later it became the capital of the theme of the Thracesians. During the Iconoclastic period two bishops of Ephesus suffered martyrdom, Hypatius in 735 and Theophilus in the ninth century.

[b]Corinth (Corinthians - Another Catholic Church)[/b]
St. Paul preached successfully at Corinth, where he lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts, xviii, 1), where Silas and Timothy soon joined him. After his departure he was replaced by Apollo, who had been sent from Ephesus by Priscilla. The Apostle visited Corinth at least once more. He wrote to the Corinthians in 57 from Ephesus, and then from Macedonia in the same year, or in 58. The famous letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church (about 96) exhibits the earliest evidence concerning the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Church. Besides St. Apollo, Lequien (II, 155) mentions forty-three bishops: among them, St. Sosthenes (?), the disciple of St. Paul, St. Dionysius; Paul, brother of St. Peter, Bishop of Argos in the tenth century; St. Athanasius, in the same century; George, or Gregory, a commentator of liturgical hymns. Corinth was the metropolis of all Hellas. After the Byzantine emperors had violently withdrawn Illyricum from Papal direction, Corinth appears as a metropolis with seven suffragan sees; at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were only two united in one title. Since 1890 Corinth, for the Greeks, has been a simple bishopric, but the first in rank, Athens being the sole archbishopric of the Kingdom of Greece. Lequien (III, 883) mentions twenty Latin prelates from 1210 to 1700, the later ones being only titular. But Eubel (I, 218; II, 152) mentions twenty-two archbishops for the period from 1212 to 1476.

Antioch - Just read all of St Ignatius writings i've posted here, A very Catholic Church
Since the city of Antioch was a great centre of government and civilization, the Christian religion spread thither almost from the beginning. Nicolas, one of the seven deacons in Jerusalem, was from Antioch (Acts, vi, 5). The seed of Christ's teaching was carried to Antioch by some disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene, who fled from Jerusalem during the persecution that followed upon the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts, xi, 19, 20). They preached the teachings of Jesus, not only to the Jewish colony but also to the Greeks or Gentiles, and soon large numbers were converted. The mother-church of Jerusalem having heard of the occurrence sent Barnabas thither, who called Saul from Tarsus to Antioch (ib., 22, 25). There they laboured for a whole year with such success that the followers of Christ were acknowledged as forming a distinct community, "so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians" (ib., 26). Their charity was exhibited by the offerings sent to the famine-stricken brethren in Judea. St. Peter himself came to Antioch (Gal., ii, 11), probably about the year 44, and according to all appearances lived there for some time. The community of Antioch, being composed in part of Greeks or Gentiles, had views of its own on the character and conditions of the new religion. There was a faction among the disciples in Jerusalem which maintained that the Gentile converts to Christianity should pass first through Judaism by submitting to the observances of the Mosaic law, such as circumcision and the like. This attitude seemed to close the gates to the Gentiles, and was strongly contested by the Christians of Antioch. Their plea for Christian liberty was defended by their leaders, Paul and Barnabas, and received full recognition in the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 22- 32). Later on St. Paul defends this principle at Antioch even in the face of Peter (Gal., ii, 11). Antioch became soon a centre of missionary propaganda. It was thence that St. Paul and his companions started on their journey for the conversion of the nations. The Church of Antioch was also fully organized almost from the beginning. It was one of the few original churches which preserved complete the catalogue of its bishops. The first of these bishops, Evodius, reaches back to the Apostolic age. At a very early date the Christian community of Antioch became the central point of all the Christian interests in the East. After the fall of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) it was the real metropolis of Christianity in those countries.

In the meantime the number of Christians grew to such an extent, that in the first part of the fourth century Antioch was looked upon as practically a Christian city. Many churches were erected there for the accommodation of the worshippers of Christ. In the fourth century there was still a basilica called "the ancient" and "apostolic". It was probably one of the oldest architectural monuments of Christianity; an ancient tradition maintained that it was originally the house of Theophilus, the friend of St. Luke (Acts, i, 1). There were also sanctuaries dedicated to the memory of the great Apostles, Peter, Paul, and John. Saint Augustine speaks (Sermo, ccc., n. 5) of a "basilica of the holy Machabees" at Antioch, a famous shrine from the fourth to the sixth century (Card. Rampolla, in "Bessarione", Rome, 1897-98, I-II). Among the pagan temples dedicated to Christian uses was the celebrated Temple of Fortune (Tychæion). In it the Christians of Antioch enshrined the body of their great bishop and martyr Ignatius. There was also a martyrium or memorial shrine of Babylas, a third-century martyr and bishop of Antioch, who suffered death in the reign of Decius. For the development of Christian domestic architecture in the vicinity of the great city see De Vogué, "Architecture civile et religieuse de la Syrie Centrale" (Paris, 1867-77), and the similar work of Howard Crosby Butler (New York, 1903). The very important monastic architecture of the vicinity will be described under SIMEON STYLITES and BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE. The Emperor Constantine (306-337) built a church there, which he adorned so richly that it was the admiration of all contemporaries (St. John Chrys., "Hom. in Ep. ad Eph.", X, 2; Eus., "Vita Const.", III, 50, and "De laud. Const.", c. 9). It was completely pillaged, but not destroyed, by Chosroes in 540. the Church of Antioch showed itself worthy of being the metropolis of Christianity in the east. In the ages of persecution it furnished a very large quota of martyrs, the bishops setting the example. It may suffice to mention St. Ignatius at the beginning of the second century; Asclepiades under Septimius Severus (193-211); and Babylas under Decius (249-251). It produced also a number of great men, who either in writing or otherwise distinguished themselves in the service of Christianity. The letters of the afore-mentioned St. Ignatius are very famous. Theophilus wrote in the latter part of the second century an elaborate defense and explanation of the Christian religion. In later ages there were such men as Flavian, who did much to reunite the Christians of Antioch divided by the Arian disputes; St. John Chrysostom, afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, and Theodoret, afterwards Bishop of Cyrus in Syria. Several heresies took their rise in Antioch. In the third century Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, professed erroneous doctrines. Arianism had its original root not in Alexandria but in the great Syrian city, Antioch; Nestorianism sprang from it through Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius of Constantinople. A peculiar feature of Antiochene life was the frequency of conflict between the Jews and the Christians; several grievous seditions and massacres are noted by the historians from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the seventh century (Leclercq, Dict. d'arch. et de liturg. chrét., I, col 2396).

[b]Rome (Central for Christianity; Peter was the leader of Christians when Jesus went to heaven, authority given to him by Jesus... Peter was the Bishop of Rome; Peter's replacement, would have the same authority as Peter)[/b]
The significance of Rome lies primarily in the fact that it is the city of the pope. The Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Catholic Church. Rome is consequently the centre of unity in belief, the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the seat of the supreme authority which can bind by its enactments the faithful throughout the world.It is here that the history of the Church can be traced from the earliest days, from the humble beginnings in the Catacombs to the majestic ritual of St. Peter's. At every turn one comes upon places hallowed by the deaths of the martyrs, the lives of innumerable saints, the memories of wise and holy pontiffs. From Rome the bearers of the Gospel message went out to the peoples of Europe and eventually to the uttermost ends of the earth. To Rome, again, in every age countless pilgrims have thronged from all the nations, and especially from English-speaking countries. Ancient tradition assigns to the year 42 the first coming of St. Peter to Rome, though, according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City. Under Claudius (c. A.D. 50), the name of Christ had become such an occasion of discord among the Hebrews of Rome that the emperor drove them all out of the city, though they were not long in returning. About ten years later Paul also arrived, a prisoner, and exercised a vigorous apostolate during his sojourn. The Christians were numerous at that time, even at the imperial Court. The burning of the city -- by order of Nero, who wished to effect a thorough renovation -- was the pretext for the first official persecution of the Christian name. Moreover, it was very natural that persecution, which had been occasional, should in course of time have become general and systematic; hence it is unnecessary to transfer the date of the Apostles' martyrdom from the year 67, assigned by tradition, to the year 64 (see PETER, SAINT; PAUL, SAINT). Domitian's reign took its victims both from among the opponents of absolutism and from the Christians; among them some who were of very exalted rank -- Titus Flavius Clemens, Acilius Glabrio (Cemetery of Priscilla), and Flavia Domitilla, a relative of the emperor. It must have been then, too, that St. John, according to a very ancient legend (Tertullian), was brought to Rome. .

The word Catholic comes from the Greek word that means "Universal"...
The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of mia mone, the "one and only" Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. .
Peter was the leader, he was in Rome, he wrote from Rome (1 Peter 5:13), he died in Rome. You have a right to live in err, as for me and the 1 Billion Catholics in the world, I think we'll listen to the first Christians, from the oldest organization on earth, The Catholic Church, built by Jesus.

[b]Ignatius of Antioch[/b]

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). .

[b]Irenaeus [/b]
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189])
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

[b]Tertullian [/b]
"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]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

[b]Pope Clement I [/b]
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

[b]Jerome [/b]
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
...
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

[b]Augustine [/b]
"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).



God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited September 19, 2007 by ironmonk

[ckozlowski]

[quote]The Apostles spoke Aramaic. Jesus said equivently: "You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church".

We don't need to look at various translations...[/quote]

Thanks ironmonk


[quote][b]Ephesus (Ephesians - A Catholic Church) From 27 B.C. till a little after A.D. 297[/b], Ephesus was the capital of the proconsular province of Asia, a direct dependency of the Roman Senate. Though unimportant politically, it was noted for its extensive commerce. Many illustrious persons were born at Ephesus

It was through the Jews that Christianity was first introduced into Ephesus. The original community was under the leadership of Apollo (I Cor., i, 12). They were disciples of St. John the Baptist, and were converted by Aquila and Priscilla. Then came St. Paul, who lived three years at Ephesus to establish and organize the new church; he was wont to teach in the schola or lecture-hall of the rhetorician Tyrannus (Acts, xix, 9) and performed there many miracles..
The Church of Ephesus was committed to his disciple, St. Timothy, a native of the city (I Tim., 1, 3; II Tim., 1, 18; iv, 12). The Epistle of St. Paul to the Esphesians was not perhaps addressed directly to them; it may be only a circular letter sent by him to several churches. The sojourn and death of the Apostle St. John at Ephesus are not mentioned in the New Testament, but both are attested as early as the latter part of the second century by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, iii, 4), Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xx1), Clement of Alexandria, the "Acta Joannis", and a little earlier by St. Justin and the Montanists.

About 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch, having been greeted at Smyrna by messengers of the Church of Ephesus, sent to it one of his seven famous epistles. During the first three centuries, Ephesus was, next to Antioch, the chief centre of Christianity in Asia Minor. In the year 190 its bishop, St. Polycrates, held a council to consider the paschal controversy and declared himself in favour of the Quartodeciman practice; nevertheless the Ephesian Church soon conformed in this particular to the practice of all the other Churches. It seems certain that the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325), confirmed for Ephesus its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole "diocese" or civil territory of Asia Minor.

Ephesus was taken in 655 and 717 by the Arabs. Later it became the capital of the theme of the Thracesians. During the Iconoclastic period two bishops of Ephesus suffered martyrdom, Hypatius in 735 and Theophilus in the ninth century.

[b]Corinth (Corinthians - Another Catholic Church)[/b]
St. Paul preached successfully at Corinth, where he lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts, xviii, 1), where Silas and Timothy soon joined him. After his departure he was replaced by Apollo, who had been sent from Ephesus by Priscilla. The Apostle visited Corinth at least once more. He wrote to the Corinthians in 57 from Ephesus, and then from Macedonia in the same year, or in 58. The famous letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church (about 96) exhibits the earliest evidence concerning the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Church. Besides St. Apollo, Lequien (II, 155) mentions forty-three bishops: among them, St. Sosthenes (?), the disciple of St. Paul, St. Dionysius; Paul, brother of St. Peter, Bishop of Argos in the tenth century; St. Athanasius, in the same century; George, or Gregory, a commentator of liturgical hymns. Corinth was the metropolis of all Hellas. After the Byzantine emperors had violently withdrawn Illyricum from Papal direction, Corinth appears as a metropolis with seven suffragan sees; at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were only two united in one title. Since 1890 Corinth, for the Greeks, has been a simple bishopric, but the first in rank, Athens being the sole archbishopric of the Kingdom of Greece. Lequien (III, 883) mentions twenty Latin prelates from 1210 to 1700, the later ones being only titular. But Eubel (I, 218; II, 152) mentions twenty-two archbishops for the period from 1212 to 1476.

Antioch - Just read all of St Ignatius writings i've posted here, A very Catholic Church
Since the city of Antioch was a great centre of government and civilization, the Christian religion spread thither almost from the beginning. Nicolas, one of the seven deacons in Jerusalem, was from Antioch (Acts, vi, 5). The seed of Christ's teaching was carried to Antioch by some disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene, who fled from Jerusalem during the persecution that followed upon the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts, xi, 19, 20). They preached the teachings of Jesus, not only to the Jewish colony but also to the Greeks or Gentiles, and soon large numbers were converted. The mother-church of Jerusalem having heard of the occurrence sent Barnabas thither, who called Saul from Tarsus to Antioch (ib., 22, 25). There they laboured for a whole year with such success that the followers of Christ were acknowledged as forming a distinct community, "so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians" (ib., 26). Their charity was exhibited by the offerings sent to the famine-stricken brethren in Judea. St. Peter himself came to Antioch (Gal., ii, 11), probably about the year 44, and according to all appearances lived there for some time. The community of Antioch, being composed in part of Greeks or Gentiles, had views of its own on the character and conditions of the new religion. There was a faction among the disciples in Jerusalem which maintained that the Gentile converts to Christianity should pass first through Judaism by submitting to the observances of the Mosaic law, such as circumcision and the like. This attitude seemed to close the gates to the Gentiles, and was strongly contested by the Christians of Antioch. Their plea for Christian liberty was defended by their leaders, Paul and Barnabas, and received full recognition in the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 22- 32). Later on St. Paul defends this principle at Antioch even in the face of Peter (Gal., ii, 11). Antioch became soon a centre of missionary propaganda. It was thence that St. Paul and his companions started on their journey for the conversion of the nations. The Church of Antioch was also fully organized almost from the beginning. It was one of the few original churches which preserved complete the catalogue of its bishops. The first of these bishops, Evodius, reaches back to the Apostolic age. At a very early date the Christian community of Antioch became the central point of all the Christian interests in the East. After the fall of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) it was the real metropolis of Christianity in those countries.

In the meantime the number of Christians grew to such an extent, that in the first part of the fourth century Antioch was looked upon as practically a Christian city. Many churches were erected there for the accommodation of the worshippers of Christ. In the fourth century there was still a basilica called "the ancient" and "apostolic". It was probably one of the oldest architectural monuments of Christianity; an ancient tradition maintained that it was originally the house of Theophilus, the friend of St. Luke (Acts, i, 1). There were also sanctuaries dedicated to the memory of the great Apostles, Peter, Paul, and John. Saint Augustine speaks (Sermo, ccc., n. 5) of a "basilica of the holy Machabees" at Antioch, a famous shrine from the fourth to the sixth century (Card. Rampolla, in "Bessarione", Rome, 1897-98, I-II). Among the pagan temples dedicated to Christian uses was the celebrated Temple of Fortune (Tychæion). In it the Christians of Antioch enshrined the body of their great bishop and martyr Ignatius. There was also a martyrium or memorial shrine of Babylas, a third-century martyr and bishop of Antioch, who suffered death in the reign of Decius. For the development of Christian domestic architecture in the vicinity of the great city see De Vogué, "Architecture civile et religieuse de la Syrie Centrale" (Paris, 1867-77), and the similar work of Howard Crosby Butler (New York, 1903). The very important monastic architecture of the vicinity will be described under SIMEON STYLITES and BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE. The Emperor Constantine (306-337) built a church there, which he adorned so richly that it was the admiration of all contemporaries (St. John Chrys., "Hom. in Ep. ad Eph.", X, 2; Eus., "Vita Const.", III, 50, and "De laud. Const.", c. 9). It was completely pillaged, but not destroyed, by Chosroes in 540. the Church of Antioch showed itself worthy of being the metropolis of Christianity in the east. In the ages of persecution it furnished a very large quota of martyrs, the bishops setting the example. It may suffice to mention St. Ignatius at the beginning of the second century; Asclepiades under Septimius Severus (193-211); and Babylas under Decius (249-251). It produced also a number of great men, who either in writing or otherwise distinguished themselves in the service of Christianity. The letters of the afore-mentioned St. Ignatius are very famous. Theophilus wrote in the latter part of the second century an elaborate defense and explanation of the Christian religion. In later ages there were such men as Flavian, who did much to reunite the Christians of Antioch divided by the Arian disputes; St. John Chrysostom, afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, and Theodoret, afterwards Bishop of Cyrus in Syria. Several heresies took their rise in Antioch. In the third century Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, professed erroneous doctrines. Arianism had its original root not in Alexandria but in the great Syrian city, Antioch; Nestorianism sprang from it through Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius of Constantinople. A peculiar feature of Antiochene life was the frequency of conflict between the Jews and the Christians; several grievous seditions and massacres are noted by the historians from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the seventh century (Leclercq, Dict. d'arch. et de liturg. chrét., I, col 2396).

[b]Rome (Central for Christianity; Peter was the leader of Christians when Jesus went to heaven, authority given to him by Jesus... Peter was the Bishop of Rome; Peter's replacement, would have the same authority as Peter)[/b]
The significance of Rome lies primarily in the fact that it is the city of the pope. The Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Catholic Church. Rome is consequently the centre of unity in belief, the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the seat of the supreme authority which can bind by its enactments the faithful throughout the world.It is here that the history of the Church can be traced from the earliest days, from the humble beginnings in the Catacombs to the majestic ritual of St. Peter's. At every turn one comes upon places hallowed by the deaths of the martyrs, the lives of innumerable saints, the memories of wise and holy pontiffs. From Rome the bearers of the Gospel message went out to the peoples of Europe and eventually to the uttermost ends of the earth. To Rome, again, in every age countless pilgrims have thronged from all the nations, and especially from English-speaking countries. Ancient tradition assigns to the year 42 the first coming of St. Peter to Rome, though, according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City. Under Claudius (c. A.D. 50), the name of Christ had become such an occasion of discord among the Hebrews of Rome that the emperor drove them all out of the city, though they were not long in returning. About ten years later Paul also arrived, a prisoner, and exercised a vigorous apostolate during his sojourn. The Christians were numerous at that time, even at the imperial Court. The burning of the city -- by order of Nero, who wished to effect a thorough renovation -- was the pretext for the first official persecution of the Christian name. Moreover, it was very natural that persecution, which had been occasional, should in course of time have become general and systematic; hence it is unnecessary to transfer the date of the Apostles' martyrdom from the year 67, assigned by tradition, to the year 64 (see PETER, SAINT; PAUL, SAINT). Domitian's reign took its victims both from among the opponents of absolutism and from the Christians; among them some who were of very exalted rank -- Titus Flavius Clemens, Acilius Glabrio (Cemetery of Priscilla), and Flavia Domitilla, a relative of the emperor. It must have been then, too, that St. John, according to a very ancient legend (Tertullian), was brought to Rome. .

The word Catholic comes from the Greek word that means "Universal"...
The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of mia mone, the "one and only" Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. .
Peter was the leader, he was in Rome, he wrote from Rome (1 Peter 5:13), he died in Rome. You have a right to live in err, as for me and the 1 Billion Catholics in the world, I think we'll listen to the first Christians, from the oldest organization on earth, The Catholic Church, built by Jesus.

[b]Ignatius of Antioch[/b]

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). .

[b]Irenaeus [/b]
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189])
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

[b]Tertullian [/b]
"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]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

[b]Pope Clement I [/b]
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

[b]Jerome [/b]
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
...
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

[b]Augustine [/b]
"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).[/quote]

Why didn't you just give me the link to the catholic encyclopedia?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05490a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05490a.htm[/url]

Edited September 19, 2007 by ckozlowski

[N/A Gone]

Why dont you deal with my post? You address others. Do i have cooties?

[thessalonian]

Ckoz,

Your making the old false dichotomy mistake. Is Jesus the rock, or Peter, or Peter's faith. It is not or but and. Peter is the rock based on his faith in Christ. It doesn't have to be either/or and in Catholic thought both and rules the day. Who is the foundation of the Church. It can only be Jesus right? 1 Cor 3:11? But ephesians 2:20 says it is prophets and apostles. Is this a different foundation? No, for there is only one foundation for the Church and so it is Christ working in and through (eph 3:20-21) prophets and apostles that is the foundatoin. It is not two foundations but one. Who is the light of the world? Christians or Jesus. John indicates that both are but both are actually only one, for Christians are the light of the world because they shine Christ's light in the world.

With regard to Matt 16:18 you should also take in to account the transition problem. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail. I give YOU the keys to the kingdom.......". The you in v. 19 is refering to the one whom he is speaking of as the rock in v. 18. Linguistically there is no transition from Peter to his faith and then back to Peter.

One final example. Football practice has just started. The coach is watching his players go through drills and one kid, Joey, has a dynamite arm. He calls the team over and coach says "Joey, you are a quarterback and on this quarterback I will build my team and the Lions will not prevail". Now tell me how one would EVER decide that the quarterback is the coach. Would the team mistake the meaning of what the coach says? Now did the coach mean he himself was going to be the quarterback? Or Joey's arm is the quarterback? It's silly. Don't you agree. Now the coach will teach Joey some things so that in a sense the coach is on the field when Joey is running the team, or maybe the coach calls the plays, but the coach is not the quarterback in an explicit literal sense. He wins games through the team. In a sense he is present by what they do on the field. And is it Joey's arm that is the quarterback? That is the basis for why he is but all of Joey is the quarterback, not just his arm. Separating Peter's faith from Peter doesn't make alot of sense either.

Blessings

Edited September 19, 2007 by thessalonian