St. Peter And The Fight For The Keys

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1655863' date='Sep 15 2008, 12:57 PM']Most church's ignore it. They don't preach on a rotation of scripture like we do. Mostly, they preach on what they want to, and just never get around to this section.[/quote]

Well, perhaps most churches in North America since Baptist, Presbyterian, non-denomational, etc. types are predominant in many areas, but fact is most Protestants worldwide are Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, or some other liturgical tradition that does preach a rotation of Scripture, even the same rotation we use. And, obviously the Eastern Orthodox have their interpretation based on their view of Tradition.

[quote name='BG45' post='1655892' date='Sep 15 2008, 01:59 PM']To reiterate CatherineM's point, I never heard this verse even until I thought about converting and was trying to disprove Catholicism.[/quote]

Interestingly, the first time I heard any reference to this verse was from a Baptist girl's t-shirt that said "faith like cephas" across the front. She explained to me that "cephas" was the Aramaic of Peter's name and means "rock."

My experience as a Protestant is that good pastors and preachers do not shy away from difficult verses like this one. I don't recall hearing my former church preached on Matthew 16:18 specifically, but they never skipped over verses that didn't make sense at first glance. Truth be told, I hear more quotes from the Church Fathers when I go to my old Baptist church than I ever hear during a homily at Mass. In fact, several of the Fathers interpret this verse as Jesus referring to Peter's faith -- not Peter himself -- so that is a large reason why non-Catholics are comfortable with this interpretation.

Edited September 18, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Balthazor]

I really do not know if you can scripturally refute apostalic succession......I brought this up with protestants before and I have been given two reasons though by various protestants as to why they do not follow it.

1. Is based on Revalations chapter 17 whereby the protestants interpret the Church of Rome to be the false church and the Pope to be the anti-Christ. Needless to say this interpretation discourages them from becoming Catholic....

2. The other is a general refutement of the priesthood in general which would include the Pope. Where they refer to the phrase in Matthew chapter 23: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven".

However I find no direct refutement of apostalic succession... just these two general refutements interpreted in regard to the Catholic Church and the Pope as it's leader. And in regard to the preisthood in general.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1658213' date='Sep 18 2008, 11:31 AM']It's not a known fact, and obviously isn't a matter of dogma, but the language of common Israelites during Jesus' time was Aramaic so it stands to reason this is the language he spoke. I'm pretty sure "Maranatha" is an Aramaic word.[/quote]

Simon bar-johna is an aramaic way of stating a name and there are many other evidences of it in the NT so it seems very likely.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Balthazor' post='1658220' date='Sep 18 2008, 11:47 AM']I really do not know if you can scripturally refute apostalic succession......I brought this up with protestants before and I have been given two reasons though by various protestants as to why they do not follow it.

1. Is based on Revalations chapter 17 whereby the protestants interpret the Church of Rome to be the false church and the Pope to be the anti-Christ. Needless to say this interpretation discourages them from becoming Catholic....

2. The other is a general refutement of the priesthood in general which would include the Pope. Where they refer to the phrase in Matthew chapter 23: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven".

However I find no direct refutement of apostalic succession... just these two general refutements interpreted in regard to the Catholic Church and the Pope as it's leader. And in regard to the preisthood in general.[/quote]

The problem with with interpreting Revelation 17 to be including the Roman Catholic Church is that then you are saying that the church Jesus started is in fact the anti-Christ church.

A point to be made.

[b]1. Jesus set up one church[/b]

In Matthew 16: 18-19

[i]18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will never overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' [/i]

Jesus sets up a church-not churches. Does Jesus say that only Peter is to have this key and not pass it on? Does the leadership position (Pope) just evaporate after Peter dies and then it's a free-for-all in terms of interpretation. Remember the Bible will not be set for at least 300 years so we only have the Church and Not Scripture. Also note in Acts the prominent role Peter plays. His name is mentioned way more than anyone else and he is usually listed first. Would Jesus create a leadership position that would evaporate after he died so not only would Jesus not be on earth, but then the church that Jesus set up has no leader? Would Jesus set up a church to begin splitting immediately when people differed on interpretation and what was correct and what was not? I think not.

Matthew 28:18-20

[i]19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.' [/i]

John 20:21

[i]21 and he said to them again, 'Peace be with you. 'As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.' [/i]

Note in Matthew 28:18-19 Jesus is given all authority by God the Father and then Jesus sends the apostles out as the Father has sent him. Note also how Jesus says he will be with them until the end of time. Now, the apostles Jesus sent out, are they still around? Did they make it to the end of time or did they die? If you say that Jesus was talking about being with the church until the end of time, it makes sense. Otherwise, it does not. Jesus would otherwise be saying that he will be with the apostles who were right there, but he would not be with the church.

This church that Jesus formed is the Catholic Church. This Apostolic Succession thing is the Catholic Church. If you cannot refute Apostolic Succession, then you sure as heck cannot interpret Rev 17 as being the Catholic Church being the anti-church. Then you are saying that Jesus formed the anti-church. How many Christians will stand by that theory?


[b]The 2nd argument about calling no man father is in...[/b]

Matthew 23:9

[i]Call no one on earth your father; you have but one father in heaven.[/i]

...is quickely and easily refuted. I am surprised this still comes out.

The first quick way to attack this is to question the fourth commandment.

Exodus 20:12

[i]Honor your father and your mother that you may have a long life in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.[/i]

Is God talking about honoring God and your mother or your biological father and biological mother? Last I heard, every Christian takes this as honoring your biological father and biological mother.

Acts 7:2

[i]2 He replied, 'My brothers, my fathers, listen to what I have to say. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, while he was in Mesopotamia before settling in Haran, [/i]

"father Abraham?" This does not fit into what Jesus was saying.

1 Thessalonians 2:11

[i]As you know, we treated each one of as a father treats his children,[/i]

Another infraction, or maybe we misinterpreted Matthew 23:9

What about Matthew 23:8

[i]As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.[/i]

Matthew 23:10
[i]
Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah[/i]

So we can't use Father, Rabbi/Teacher, or Master? Do the Christians who say we cannot use the title 'father' also not use 'teacher' and 'master?'

Or maybe there is some context going on.

Matthew 23:1-13

[i]
1 Then addressing the crowds and his disciples Jesus said,
2 'The scribes and the Pharisees occupy the chair of Moses.
3 You must therefore do and observe what they tell you; but do not be guided by what they do, since they do not practise what they preach.
4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but will they lift a finger to move them? Not they!
5 Everything they do is done to attract attention, like wearing broader headbands and longer tassels,
6 like wanting to take the place of honour at banquets and the front seats in the synagogues,
7 being greeted respectfully in the market squares and having people call them Rabbi.
8 'You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.
9 You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.
10 Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.
11 The greatest among you must be your servant.
12 Anyone who raises himself up will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be raised up.
13 'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut up the kingdom of Heaven in people's faces, neither going in yourselves nor allowing others to go who want to. [/i]

Context makes all the difference. The 'father' argument does not hold any water.

Edited September 19, 2008 by eagle_eye222001

[BG45]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1658217' date='Sep 18 2008, 12:42 PM']Interestingly, the first time I heard any reference to this verse was from a Baptist girl's t-shirt that said "faith like cephas" across the front. She explained to me that "cephas" was the Aramaic of Peter's name and means "rock."

My experience as a Protestant is that good pastors and preachers do not shy away from difficult verses like this one. I don't recall hearing my former church preached on Matthew 16:18 specifically, but they never skipped over verses that didn't make sense at first glance. Truth be told, I hear more quotes from the Church Fathers when I go to my old Baptist church than I ever hear during a homily at Mass. In fact, several of the Fathers interpret this verse as Jesus referring to Peter's faith -- not Peter himself -- so that is a large reason why non-Catholics are comfortable with this interpretation.[/quote]

Nice! The shirts I tend to see around here are along the lines of "idk my bff God" and "Warning: Radical Christian". That and the Fish on every vehicle that drives insanely.

I think the last time I heard about one of the Early Church Fathers in church was at mom's Methodist church when the minister and I were discussing after. I brought up something or another by Ignatius of Antioch and he asked me if we could talk about something else, our conversation was reminding him too much of seminary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's tons of ways to interpret the keys that isn't necessarily catholic. it's like eagle asks "are there any other interpretations" then hears them, and keeps asking without addressing the ones he hears, it's like in one ear and out the other.


catholic encylopedia itself contradicts his notion of hte keys:

QUOTE
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock
QUOTE
(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm[/url]

[quote]several of the Fathers interpret this verse as Jesus referring to Peter's faith -- not Peter himself -- so that is a large reason why non-Catholics are comfortable with this interpretation.[/quote]

binding and losing.
if this person could bind and lose (the verse that's often said to refer to the pope, but then read completely shows opposite in fact), maybe what catholics think isn't necessarily what is true:

[quote]QUOTE
22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.[/quote]

matthew 18, binding and losing was given to all.

now that the keys means the papal supremecy has been deconstructed. some plausible interpretations. peter was the first to confess faith. that means he'd be the leader in going to heaven, the first. the keys could just be a way of saying "binding and losing" and that it was referred as keys to peter does't negate it to anyone else... there's no reason it'd have to be. the keys could mean the way of faith, his confession, a christian's confession is the "key".
none of this is rationalization either, it's all totally plausible once you accept tht the catholic interpretation isn't necessarily the right one.

Edited September 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1658802' date='Sep 18 2008, 11:41 PM'][/quote]

[quote]
there's tons of ways to interpret the keys that isn't necessarily catholic. it's like eagle asks "are there any other interpretations" then hears them, and keeps asking without addressing the ones he hears, it's like in one ear and out the other.[/quote]

Maybe because people listed interpretations but not evidence backed up interpretations. This goes back to my earlier debate with you on Apostolic Authority where you refused to give a evidence backed interpretation of keys and binding. Why should I give interpretations that are not backed up my attention?


[quote]catholic encylopedia itself contradicts his notion of hte keys:

QUOTE
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock
QUOTE
(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm[/url][/quote]

The above is a shortened quote from an article to make it appear as if it is contradicting Catholic teaching. It is in fact not. I would also note that the two sections quoted do not appear in the order quoted.

Here is how it is really presented on the website of New Advent. We begin with the second portion of the quote of the website.

[i](1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc.[/i]

This is where the quoted part abruptly ends.

[i]Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).
[/i]

Let's look at where the first part is quoted.

[i]It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock[/i]

This is where the first quoted part abruptly ends.

[i]on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world. [/i]

And the contradiction dies. At the end of day you still have the office of Pope.

[quote]binding and losing.
if this person could bind and lose (the verse that's often said to refer to the pope, but then read completely shows opposite in fact), maybe what catholics think isn't necessarily what is true:[/quote]

You did not show me anything to back this up in our last debate thread on Apostolic Authority and you have not shown me anything in this thread. I have nothing to respond to except you try to slyly quote a Catholic encyclopedia to make it appear as if it is contradicting Catholic teaching when it does not when you read it without skipping huge parts.

[quote]matthew 18, binding and losing was given to all.[/quote]

Evidence? I don't see any.

[quote]now that the keys means the papal supremecy has been deconstructed. some plausible interpretations. peter was the first to confess faith. that means he'd be the leader in going to heaven, the first. the keys could just be a way of saying "binding and losing" and that it was referred as keys to peter does't negate it to anyone else... there's no reason it'd have to be. the keys could mean the way of faith, his confession, a christian's confession is the "key".
none of this is rationalization either, it's all totally plausible once you accept tht the catholic interpretation isn't necessarily the right one.[/quote]

The Catholic interpretation has a strong argument with evidence to back it up. You present no evidence and expect me and others to subscribe to vague interpretations that don't have a wing to fly on. Give the other interpretations wings and it may fly. Until then. There is nothing to say.

[dairygirl4u2c]

only now do you respond to the catholic eyncyl even though ti's been shown to you repeatedly. i think this is an impicit admission on your part that you were being evasive, since you didn't address it before.
not that now that you addressed it did you say anything logical.

you act as if i was hiding something. what you quoted as extensions didn't have anything to do with contradicting my point about how keys historically doesn't mean what you say it does.

the extended quote only says that it has to do with forgiving sins, not the power of infallibility. what exactly is your point? are you just trying to sound smart by pretending like i'm hiding something when i'm not? it's like smoke and mirrors but no substance. what exactly is your point in this extended quote? you never said, but acted like it's self evident, which it's not, and in fact could only show you have difficulty reading or are deceptive.
[quote](1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc.

This is where the quoted part abruptly ends.

Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).[/quote]

same with this quote. you post it, but really it simply goes on to say what keys really means,,,, ie forgiving sins, again my point all along. there's an important point that people debate whether augustine meant that all have that power, but as to the keys, which is the point of my thread, this debate is irrelvant. so what's your point? the extended quote just gave more detail ot what i was arguing all along.
(i think there's more to that augustine debate than the catholic encyclopedia would suggest, but that again is beside the point)
[quote]It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock

This is where the first quoted part abruptly ends.

on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world.[/quote]


you state that at the end of the day, there's the office of peter etc. that's true, as i acknnowledged in the quote, based on the rock. it's not based on the keys as you illogically argued in your last post. even the catholic encyclopedia suggests as much. you've yet to respond to it with anything other than substanceless pretense.

also, i gave plenty of biblical arguments for alternatives to the catholic church. then i went into history of the catholic church. you ignored both of em. how can you hide from the history of the church? do you have something to hide? but that's the other thread. this thread is about the keys only, and you've yet to provide a coherent argument.

Edited September 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you were to argue the church fathers were pretty much wrong, then go for it. that would be an argument that's addressing hte point that the catholic encyclopedia itself contradicts your interprtation.
of course, you'd have to argue why, which i doubt you could or would do.

even louisvillefan, a strong catholic here, concedes the other possible interpreations of keys as not what you say.
QUOTE
several of the Fathers interpret this verse as Jesus referring to Peter's faith -- not Peter himself -- so that is a large reason why non-Catholics are comfortable with this interpretation.

Edited September 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1659096' date='Sep 19 2008, 12:54 PM'][/quote]


[quote]if you were to argue the church fathers were pretty much wrong, then go for it. that would be an argument that's addressing hte point that the catholic encyclopedia itself contradicts your interpretation.
of course, you'd have to argue why, which i doubt you could or would do.[/quote]

Do you have those thoughts in context? Do you have scripture evidence to back your opinion up?

Maybe Jesus was not making Peter Pope. Maybe this leader of the church does not exists and we just made it up. Would Jesus leave his Church on earth leaderless? What good is a group without leadership? How long do groups without leaders last?

So there is an argument that keys is Peter's faith. Fine. Back it up. Read the entire passage I quoted though and tell me how your interpretation works better than mine does. And, find me other passages in the Bible that back your interpretation up. I have argued a point, and you have yet to provide a reasonable arguement against it. You find a couple church fathers statements and you think that's enough to back up your arguement. It's not.

Matthew 16:18-19

[i]18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will never overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'[/i]





[quote]even louisvillefan, a strong catholic here, concedes the other possible interpreations of keys as not what you say.[/quote]

He concedes other interpretations but I don't think he said how strong those interpretations are.

[quote]several of the Fathers interpret this verse as Jesus referring to Peter's faith -- not Peter himself -- so that is a large reason why non-Catholics are comfortable with this interpretation.[/quote]

Was Jesus referring to Peter's faith when he said the gates of hell will never overpower it? And when he said the binding thing?

I am still waiting for your backed up interpretation and not the comments that seem to have been taken out of nowhere.

[dairygirl4u2c]

lousiveille didn't say whether it's a meritorious argumetn necessasirly granted, but i think that he'd entertain it the way he did shows he thought it at least plausible.
neither of us really knows though.

if you dn't have the keys and the "bind and lose" argument, the catholic interpretation falls to pieces. well, it's still debatable.... but you lose pretty much your whole basis in the bible the catholic encyclopedia is the one taking your keys and bind and lose interpreatio away from you,,,, not just me. since you didn't respond to the keys argument that the catholic encyclopedia stated,,, i'll take that as an admission on your part that it contradicts yours.

your whole biblical argument from the bible, hinges on the keys verse. if you don't have it, what do you have? everything else in the bible is too debatable without that one verse that you put so much weight on. your whole argument rises and falls on it, so it's important you defend it well.

the other points you now are bringing up are really beside the point of your keys verse, which i'm still waiting for your to address, but i'll move on to your other issues.

aside from the keys verse,,,, all you have is that peter was called rock, and took a lead role. notice, abraham was called father of many nations,b ut wasn't infallble. other apostles took lead positions, james at the counsel of jeruselum etc. that peter didn't take a bigger role i think speaks louder than debates about what keys mean or that he took a lead role. he simply acted like an elder in a church would act from a morre protestant perspective,,, or like the head would act from an orthodox. not how someone who's infallible would act. these are practical examples of how the church would be set up based on the bible,,,, based on the same verses you seem to think proves your position.

-timothy was told to take the truth, guard it, and pass it on. this didn't involve peter. to argue it does, is totally reading into it. granted, it doens't rule out peter... but there's no situations in the bible where peter is referred to as the end of discussion... and we should simply take the verse for what it says. christianity is about taking the truth, guarding it, and passing it on. there's an argument to be made about how the church should be set up, orthodox, protestant with elders etc.... but to add an infallible head is starting to get pretty far out there from what the bible alone says.

-jesus said thsoe who say "lord lord" but do not follow him are not christians. that some are bad only means they are wrong to think they're doing right. not that non-catholics are wrong. saying that we need the pope to say murder is wrong for example,,, or whatever,,, is ridiculous. truth can be known without the pope. it could be argued whether it's better to have a pope, or whether that's what God intended.... but the point is that an alterantive to the CC system of truth is totally plausible. jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against hte church, he said the sprit of truth would come, he said the truth will set you free, he said the church is the pillar of truth.... to say that we can't know that murder is wrong, or that Jesus is lord, without the pope, is silly.

i'm citing verses. i really don't know how you think what i'm saying is wrong necessarily. i suppose it's a matter of an inherent disagreement, as to whether it's right or wrong to believe the pope is infalible,,,, that's understandable. but i simply cannot see how you think it's so obviously true biblically that the pope is infallible and that you can't concede the plausibility in other arguments.

(so it seems at this point, that the early church should be gotten into. like, if the eucharist is what cahtolics say,,, you think you'd see it in the church. if the eope is what cahtolics say, you think you'd see it in the church. but for some reason, you seem intent to avoid the early church. if it's true,, you think it's be at least a little clearer than it is in the early church, that that pope is infallible)

Edited September 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[eagle_eye222001]

You didn't cite any verses and explicitly show me why.

I have laid out [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=84554&st=20"]my argument in another thread[/url] where you did not respond with a counter-argument that was backed up with anything.

I am not going to respond to your attacks when you have failed to prove and show adequately why my arguement fails. My argument makes sense, and is supported several other places in the Bible. Until you do the same there is nothing for me to go on.

Take my responses anyway you want to. I have laid out an argument backed with logical evidence. I suggest you do the same if you want anyone to consider your theory.

[dairygirl4u2c]

your arguments are illogical. you still have not addressed the catholic encylopedia for crying out loud. it's not just "my interpreation" that says your keys and binding verse isn't what you say... it's the catholic encylcopedia. how can you so surely say i'm wrong, when i'm backed up in having intereprtations that contradict yours by the catholic encyclopedia? talk about not taking anyone serious,,, your arguments are an incoherent joke.

you keep saying "you're wrong". but you don't say why what i'm citing as verses and interpretations are wrong, why specifically they are wrong. i'm saying why specifically the verses you cite and interperations you give, are not necessarily true.... unlike you,,, i'm not just saying "you're wrong" but i'm saying why you are. i'd suggest you do the same.
this debate isn't where you put your finger in your ears and go lalalalla and then put your head in the sand. this is a big boys and girls conversation, where if you want to be taken seriously, you address the issues at hand.

if you think i'm evading your responses, i'd like to know what you think i'm evading. i will specifically address anything you specifically want me to address. (don't just cursorarily say "prove me wrong" or "you're wrong, now prove that you're right"... tell me what you want me to address and i will)

Edited September 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[princessgianna]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1659962' date='Sep 20 2008, 01:15 AM']your arguments are illogical. you still have not addressed the catholic encylopedia for crying out loud. talk about not taking anyone serious,,, your arguments are an incoherent joke.

you keep saying "you're wrong". but you don't say why what i'm citing as verses and interpretations are wrong, why specifically they are wrong. i'm saying why specifically the verses you cite and interperations you give, are not necessarily true.... unlike you,,, i'm not just saying "you're wrong" but i'm saying why you are. i'd suggest you do the same.
this debate isn't where you put your finger in your ears and go lalalalla and then put your head in the sand. this is a big boys and girls conversation, where if you want to be taken seriously, you address the issues at hand.

if you think i'm evading your responses, i'd like to know what you think i'm evading. i will specifically address anything you specifically want me to address. (don't just cursorarily say "prove me wrong" or "you're wrong, now prove that you're right"... tell me what you want me to address and i will)[/quote]

i don't see the illogic of eagle eye! In fact i see the logic and it makes sense!
he makes sense and points out various passages in the bible to back it up! As for as the catholic encyclopedia thing again eagle eye wrote what what he read and showed how you might have faltered! or read it wrong!

but your arguments to why he is wrong does not give a better or (possibly) more accurate interpretation. i don't see why you are having to result to telling eagle eye that this is a big boys and girls discussion! he states his point and offers a various bible passages and references to a way bigger degree that you are (with all due of respect)! eagle eye is addressing the issues at hand! I fail to see your attacks at him!

Pax~

[eagle_eye222001]

I have stated my case as best as I can.

I stand by what I have said.

Perhaps [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm"]this article[/url] outlines it better.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also 'chair of peter' often means just the roman church, in the early church writings. nothing hinting at infallibility.
and, 'see of peter' was applied a lot to many churches back then.
and, the argument that the keys gives the popes infallibility or something akin to that without using that word, is not present in the early church.

[quote][quote]Eastern Orthodox view

Eastern Orthodox theologians agree that in Matthew 16:18, "rock" is a likely reference to Peter personally.[15] Moreover, Eastern Orthodox theologians follow such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom by clarifying that "rock" simultaneously refers to Peter (instrumentally) as as well as Peter's confession of faith which has ultimate significance in establishing the Church.[16]

Some Orthodox scholars do not see Peter has being in any way above the other apostles, arguing that Peter did not have power and authority over them during Christ's public ministry. There were no positions of power between the twelve, only "degrees of intimacy" or "degrees of honor." According to this view, Peter has a weak symbolic primacy or primacy of honor (in the sense of a purely honorary primacy). Other Orthodox scholars follow St. John Chrysostom and the Byzantine[17] tradition in seeing Peter as the icon of the episcopate[18] with his title of protos (first) implying a certain level of authority over the other apostles. In this traditional Orthodox and Patristic view, the Church is the local Eucharistic assembly ("the diocese" in today's terminology) and the one who holds the "Chair of Peter" (St. Cyprian's expression) is the bishop. As a result, the primary of Peter is relevant to the relationship between the bishop and the presbyters, not between the bishop of Rome and the other bishops who are all equally holding Peter's chair.

As John Meyendorff explained: "A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saint, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter... There exists, however, another succession, equally recognized by Byzantine theologians, but only on the level of the analogy existing between the apostolic college and the episcopal college, this second succession being determined by the need for ecclesiastical order. Its limits are determined by the Councils, and - in the Byzantine practice – by the “very pious emperors.” (The Primacy of Peter, p. 89)

Orthodox historians also maintain that Rome's authority in the early Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) empire was recognized only partially because of Rome's Petrine character, and that this factor was not the decisive issue. Moreover, the Orthodox view is that Rome's privileges were not understood as an absolute power (i.e. the difference between primacy and supremacy). In the East, there were numerous "apostolic sees", Jerusalem being considered the "mother of all churches," and the bishop of Antioch could also claim the title of successor to Peter, being that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. "Canon 28 of Chalcedon was for [the Byzantines] one of the essential texts for the organization of the Church: 'It is for right reasons that the accorded privileges to old Rome, for this city was the seat of the Emperor and the Senate.' ... The reason why the Roman Church had been accorded an incontestable precedence over all other apostolic churches was that its Petrine and Pauline 'apostolicity' was in fact added to the city's position as the capital city, and only the conjunction of both of these elements gave the Bishop of Rome the right to occupy the place of a primate in the Christian world with the consensus of all the churches."[19][/quote][/quote]

Edited April 27, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

this thread is also proof that my position is right

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=84554&pid=1849368&st=80&#entry1849368"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1849368[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's actually funny, in a sad way, reading these past threads, that eagle never conceded anything about the the 'keys' verse.
he doesn't have to stop being catholic. he can even say it's all clear as day otherwise without the keys verse.
but for some reason, he continues to evade that issue. intellectually dishonest? scared to face reality? difficulty comprehending? i have no idea, but he's got issues here, per 'the keys', for sure.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Revelations:
7"And to the angel of the church in (T)Philadelphia write: (U)He who is holy, (V)who is true, who has (W)the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:
8'(X)I know your [a]deeds Behold, I have put before you (Y)an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and (Z)have not denied My name.[/quote]

there's many ways one could take this verse.
i suppose it doesn't negate the catholic interpretation.
but, i think it does look more like it would negate it, if anything.
at any rate, the keys still refer to confession, according to the early church, according to the catholic encyclopeida. this argument hasn't really been addresed by anyone, how they deal with that fact.

Edited April 27, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

The following excerpt from Augustine illustrates the Fathers' interpretation of the keys. He writes:
[quote]"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church."

-The City of God, by St. Augustine[/quote]