question from a protestant

[Aloysius]

that's because the latin word is carnis, which means the flesh of warm blooded animals

technically, and I've always wanted to start doing this, you could eat lizard as well as fish. anything cold blooded is fair game.

[phatcatholic]

hmm, interesting, thank you

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, thats cool. Thanks!

[LouisvilleFan]

Here's a source for beginning some mock debate: [url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/"]Mike Gendron's Proclaiming The Gospel[/url] web site. I was gently prodding a Protestant friend of mine with some questions related to Catholicism when he mentioned this guy, who gave a presentation here at Southeast Christian (Louisville's mega-church). My friend was there and said Gendron made a lot of good points, so I looked up his site. Click on Related Topics on the left side. Here are a few that might serve as a starting point:

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-008.php"]Who Holds The Keys?[/url]

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-003.php"]Justification[/url]

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-010.php"]Sola Scriptura[/url]

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-019.php"]John 6:53 - Unless You Eat My Flesh[/url]

Okay... those four articles alone are probably more than enough, but there is a long list of probably 50+. It would be fun to pick apart these arguments.

[phatcatholic]

his article on the death of JPII is..................amusing
[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-027.php"]http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-027.php[/url]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='Dec 21 2005, 06:44 PM']Here are a few that might serve as a starting point:

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-008.php"]Who Holds The Keys?[/url]

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-003.php"]Justification[/url]

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-010.php"]Sola Scriptura[/url]

[url="http://www.pro-gospel.org/01/ea-019.php"]John 6:53 - Unless You Eat My Flesh[/url]

Okay... those four articles alone are probably more than enough, but there is a long list of probably 50+. It would be fun to pick apart these arguments.  [right][snapback]833107[/snapback][/right][/quote]
lets take the first one, shall we?


[quote]The Vatican teaches that Peter's keys have been handed down to his successors throughout the centuries. This has given credence to the papacy to govern the kingdom of God, which they believe, is the Roman Catholic Church. [/quote]
well, not quite. this last sentence is not very theologically precise. it would be more correct to say that the "kingdom of God" is comprised of all who make up the Body of Christ (which can include Christians of other traditions) but that the kingdom is experienced in the realest or most profound way in the Catholic Church.


[quote]Proponents of the Roman Catholic tradition point to history as supporting evidence for their interpretation of the keys of the kingdom. However, most of their historical support comes from tradition dating back only the fourth century. [/quote]
here are a few quotations from before the fourth century that i was able to put together just real quick:

[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]).

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19a] or 'whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? 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, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (On Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

[b]Cyprian[/b]
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]). . . . On him he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17]; and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

[b]Firmilian[/b]
"But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: 'Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:19]" (Letter to Cyprian 74[75]:16 [A.D. 255]).

"And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Pope] Stephen I, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18], should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority . . . . [Pope] Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against [Donatist] heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver [Titus 3:5]" (ibid., 74[75]):17).


also, why this arbitrary requirement from the early church fathers? only the testimony from before the fourth century is credible? were we to provide testimony from before then (which we have) would he really accept it? he's demanding we fulfill criteria that he himself does not fulfill. where's HIS church this early in history?


[quote]An accurate historical and grammatical interpretation must consider the use of terms at the time of the writing of the original text. The concept of the kingdom and the keys must be understood from their usage in the first century. Peter and the disciples understood the kingdom to be the visible rule of Christ over the earth, not the spiritual rule of Christ over His invisible church. The king would rule from Jerusalem, free Israel from political bondage and destroy her enemies. After Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom, Christ began to teach about it from a different perspective. He taught that it would be a mystery, invisible, and progressive. It would be both present and future and could be entered only by regeneration. The kingdom would not be limited to the church, but would work through the church to proclaim the good news of God's redemptive rule. [/quote]
i should really make a list of all the "either-or" propositions of protestantism. anyway, he seems to imply here that an understanding of the kingdom as a visible body is at odds with an understanding of the kingdom as an invisible one. i disagree. the church is visible b/c of its hierarchy. she is (or, rather, exists more fully) where the pope, bishops, and priests are. however, she is invisible b/c all her members do not reside in one building in one location. they are scattered all over the world, yet are held in communion by the "invisible" (or spitirual) bonds of baptismal grace. they are also united by their common worship and their participation in the Eucharist, which add further visibility to the Church while at the same time strengthening her "invisible" (or spiritual) bond.

i also find it interesting that he emphasizes the importance of understanding the keys as Jesus' audience did but he fails altogether to address the keys in Isaiah. this is a glaring omission. it is quite plain, from the parallels that exist between Mat 16 and Isaiah 22, that Jesus is borrowing familiar language from Isaiah to institute his new kingdom on earth. even our most reputable [i]protestant[/i] bible scholars make this connection:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=40791&view=findpost&p=746631"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...ndpost&p=746631[/url]

so, a true historical-grammatical interpretation must take into account this old testament context.


[quote]After the events of Pentecost, Christ's teaching and the indwelling Holy Spirit, gave the disciples a clearer understanding of this kingdom. The real authority of the keys given by Christ is ultimately in the revelation of God's principles from the Scriptures for His theocratic kingdom. Men of God were able to discern the correctness of doctrine and practice using the whole counsel of God (Acts 17:11). An example of this is found in Luke 11:52, where Jesus denounces the Pharisees for misrepresenting God and the Scriptures with a religion of their own making. As a result they were shutting the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

The ultimate power to open and close the gates of heaven is the Gospel, which "is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe" (Romans 1:16). Peter's first proclamation of the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2, opened the door of the kingdom to thousands. Since then, the disciples, and all Christians who have succeeded them, have been opening and closing the doors of the kingdom with the Gospel. Those who hear it and believe it are forgiven (loosed) of their sin and enter the kingdom, while those who reject the Gospel remain unforgiven (bound) of their sins and can not enter the kingdom (John 3:36).[/quote]
what he is basically saying here is that the keys represent the truth and that it is the gospel that opens and shuts, binds and looses. i simply find no basis for this. please note here that i do not question the fact that the truth convicts in and of itself. but, when i speak one thing that is "true" and you speak something contradictory that you think is "true", you both believe that you have been convicted by truth, but who has really been convicted and who hasn't? in order to "test all things and hold fast to what is good" we must have an objective authority to settle the matter. this objective authority rests in the man who holds the keys.

i have already mentioned Isaiah, in which the keys represent authority over the household and from which Jesus borrows his language for conferring authority on Peter. if you hold the keys, your word goes. its not what the steward says but the fact that the STEWARD says it that makes it authoritative. also, we see from [url="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1073&letter=B"][b]this article[/b][/url] that the "binding" and "loosing" that is associated w/ the keys is rabbinical terminology that refers to an authoritative office. we see this in the rebuke of the pharisees by Jesus, when he accuses them of abusing their office by binding heaven burdens on the people. finally, many protestant bible scholars attribute to the keys ([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=40791&view=findpost&p=746629"][b]here[/b][/url]) the same perogatives that catholics affirm, understanding them as "the symbol of authority," "the office of teaching the word," the "delegation of God's sovereignty," "the authority to teach in [Jesus'] name," "plenary authority," the authority "to be over the Church," to "establish rules" and to "put under the ban," "making halakhic pronouncements" and "regulating the affairs of the household," making "decisions based on the teachings of Jesus," "legislative authority in the church," and "appointment to full authority." i think all of this shows that the keys represent [i][b]authority[/b][/i] to lead the Church and settle doctrinal matters.

that was just a quick response, and not as comprehensive as it could have been. i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Guest JeffCR07]

you rule phat.


...just throwing that out there

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:31 PM']you rule phat.
...just throwing that out there
[right][snapback]833751[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
dude, i don't hold a candle to you, for real

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:39 AM']that was just a quick response, and not as comprehensive as it could have been. i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic
[right][snapback]833700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks for the information! A friend of mine who is a relatively new Christian who's been attending the Baptist church with me for a year or two has been searching for what he really believes. I taught him about the rosary and gave him an extra one I got from Youth 2000 in Covington, which he wears around his neck all the time. He still has a lot of hesitation about praying to Mary and the saints, understanding papal authority, and a few other things. I showed him your post to explain the "your name is Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" passage. He isn't convinced yet that "this rock" refers to Peter since the Greek words are different, but with time and prayer God will hopefully grant him the faith.

You know, the interesting thing is that you can debate all aspects of Catholic vs. Protestant doctrine all you want, but it all boils down to that one passage where Christ promised to build his Church on Peter, the Rock. If one accepts this, they much accept everything the Catholic Church teaches because it's founded on the Rock of Peter. But if they reject it, they will search elsewhere for doctrinal and moral authority... and find more questions than answers.

Edited December 31, 2005 by LouisvilleFan

[phatcatholic]

LouisvilleFan..................here is a one-on-one debate i engaged in on the authority of the papacy. it focuses mostly on Peter as the Rock. it is quite lengthy but also very informative. maybe it will help.

[url="http://www.sphereofhiphop.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=17377&sid=0b4ae4e8fe4114e79adb94e935ca86be"]http://www.sphereofhiphop.com/bb/viewtopic...adb94e935ca86be[/url]

[Diamond]

My problem with what was said above about "On this rock I will build my Church" is that as a Protestant, I see myself and my church as still on that rock. The Protestant Church is somewhat different from the Catholic Church,but it is still in many ways something of a branch-off from this Church. After all, the founders were formerly Catholic. When we became seperate from the Catholic Church, we didn't "jump off the rock." We just took a few steps away and built our own little house on the rock.

I'm not educated much on the differences between the Catholic Church and I'm very young, but this is simply the way I see it. I've attended Catholic mass, attended and even slept and eaten in a Seminary, and have some great (though much older) friends who are Priests and Monks within the Church. Every single Priest I've yet to meet has been agreeable, kind and just generally accepting. I see no problem with the Catholic Church, it's just a slightly different way of attempting to grow closer to Jesus.

I don't put much stock in the belief that any difference between our Churches is extremely important. I just wish people didn't view it as such a big deal. Whether Mary was sinless or not, we are connected by our beautiful worship to the same Jesus, and I believe certain Protestants can be just as holy and devoted to the Lord as the Pope himself.

Again, these are just the musings of a young, not-very-knowledgable person who has the benefit of knowing both amazingly devoted Protestants and amazingly devoted Catholics.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Diamond' date='Jan 2 2006, 08:26 PM']My problem with what was said above about "On this rock I will build my Church" is that as a Protestant, I see myself and my church as still on that rock. The Protestant Church is somewhat different from the Catholic Church,but it is still in many ways something of a branch-off from this Church. After all, the founders were formerly Catholic. When we became seperate from the Catholic Church, we didn't "jump off the rock." We just took a few steps away and built our own little house on the rock. [/quote]
well, first of all, welcome to phatmass i'm glad that you are here and i hope that through your stay you are able to learn more about those things that both unite us and divide us.

now, as for having your own little house on the rock, i suppose it depends on what you understand "the rock" to be. we believe that the rock is Peter, and so we stand on the rock when--and only when--we are united to him and his successors.

.

[quote]I don't put much stock in the belief that any difference between our Churches is extremely important. I just wish people didn't view it as such a big deal. Whether Mary was sinless or not, we are connected by our beautiful worship to the same Jesus, and I believe certain Protestants can be just as holy and devoted to the Lord as the Pope himself.[/quote]
i hope that through your stay here you will come to see how important [i]every one[/i] of our Catholics beliefs are to us, to be one with the Church on [i]all matters[/i] of faith and morals, and to hold fast to [i][b]one[/b][/i] truth, without contradiction.



[quote]Again, these are just the musings of a young, not-very-knowledgable person who has the benefit of knowing both amazingly devoted Protestants and amazingly devoted Catholics.[right][snapback]843756[/snapback][/right][/quote]
this particular board isn't the place for debate (we reserve that for the Debate Board), but if you have any questions about Catholicism, just let me know. i appreciate your humility. i can guarantee you that you will learn alot here : also, don't forget to check out the [b][url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory"]Directory[/url][/b] for a ton of articles that defend and explain the Catholic faith.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Diamond' date='Jan 2 2006, 08:26 PM']My problem with what was said above about "On this rock I will build my Church" is that as a Protestant, I see myself and my church as still on that rock. The Protestant Church is somewhat different from the Catholic Church,but it is still in many ways something of a branch-off from this Church. After all, the founders were formerly Catholic. When we became seperate from the Catholic Church, we didn't "jump off the rock." We just took a few steps away and built our own little house on the rock.
[right][snapback]843756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Many Protestants interpret "this rock" as referring to Jesus rather than Peter. However, I have trouble reading the sentence that way... why would Jesus name him Peter, which means Rock, if there wasn't a purpose behind it?

Putting that aside, in a way the Protestant Reformers did "jump off the rock" by rejecting papal authority. To believe that Peter is the rock on which Christ founded the Church is to be a Roman Catholic. After all, how can one believe Peter is the Rock and reject the teachings of Peter or his successors? However, you might also say that while the Reformers tried to jumped off the rock, the Church pulls them back on even though they don't realize it, or accept the Popes as successors to St. Peter. There are some Protestants who truly hate the Roman Catholic Church and even go as far as to say that anyone who accepts Catholic teaching has denied Christ and will not go to Heaven. Despite their protesting, it is their faith in Christ and their Baptism that still joins them -- though imperfectly -- in communion with the Catholic Church.

In other words, because he is the successor to Peter, the Pope is charged with the authority and the responsibility to not only teach and maintain the fullness of Christian faith that is found in Catholicism, but also to declare that basic pearl of truth that is necessary for salvation: faith in Christ. You can outright reject everything else, but if your faith and hope are founded on Christ, you are accepted as a "separated brethren" by the Catholic Church. In that sense, you are right because no Christian is capable of jumping off the rock, except by denying Christ.

[Diamond]

The only thing I DON'T believe out of all that is that Peter has successors. I've read through several of the articles in the CDD. I see some mild Biblical allusion but I don't see why it is argued that Peter could not have founded the Church in general rather than just the Catholic Church. I believe that Peter basically founded the Church, but I don't believe he had any sucessors. Peter is the rock because he began the Church. After that, it branched out as it grew, leading to Protestants and so on. I can believe Peter is the rock and deny that the Catholic Church has any special stance among Chrisitians because there is no clear Biblical basis for Peter, as far as I can tell, having any sucessors.

If you can offer me any persuasion otherwise, I'd be happy to accept. I'm not very informed on the matter; I'm something of a beginner as to knowing the difference between the Catholic Church and my own. If you could offer some explanation as the basis for this to clear it up, I'd be glad to hear.

Thanks for the help.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Diamond' date='Jan 2 2006, 07:26 PM']My problem with what was said above about "On this rock I will build my Church" is that as a Protestant, I see myself and my church as still on that rock. The Protestant Church is somewhat different from the Catholic Church,but it is still in many ways something of a branch-off from this Church. After all, the founders were formerly Catholic. When we became seperate from the Catholic Church, we didn't "jump off the rock." We just took a few steps away and built our own little house on the rock.

[right][snapback]843756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Welcome!

I hope that I don't sound rude (and if I do please forgive me) but here's my question to what you said.

If what you just said is something like (paraphrased) "Christ started the Church -and that was the Catholic Church (because you can trace
your Denomination back to the Catholic Church) but then some men started different denominations and preached what they personally believed", why would you follow a religion that a [i]man[/i] started (not Christianity, but that certain Denomination) instead of one that God Himself started?

Again, no meanness intended. Or I hope, implied, and Welcome from a young, still learning Catholic!