Debating Catholicism

What do you believe and why? Here's the place to discuss anything relating to church and God.
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4766
Joined: February 2013

Post

Church History Volume one From Christ to Pre-Reformation Everett Ferguson

Have you read any good Church Fathers lately?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
John Henry
Peach Cobbler
Posts: 1430
Joined: June 2014

Post

No, not yet - though I wish to someday.
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4766
Joined: February 2013

Post

Which ones do you want to read?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Emma
Peach Cobbler
Posts: 1410
Joined: August 2014
Location: Procrastinating, to be sure

Post

I think that Catholics are wrongs in a lot of things, but I think that they, if they are truly saved, will go to heaven. Also I am a Christian and wish everyone was, because it is truly awesome.
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4766
Joined: February 2013

Post

What are they wrong about? And how is one truly saved?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3342
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

Blitz wrote:*Coughs*
Peter was most likely never a bishop of Rome according to history. If he was, he was one of the bishops not the bishop singular.
The author of the curriculum you mentioned in another post is, obviously enough, either Protestant or Orthodox, but certainly not Catholic. Which is something like turning to a Democrat to give you their opinion on Republicans.

But anyhow, if your prefer the perspective of those of those with your own mindset, it's doubtful you'd take the word of a Catholic author. Even though the highest authority on science is after all a scientist. So... I give you the Encyclopedia Britannica. It makes clear there is a distinct possibility Peter was indeed in Rome, and perhaps Bishop.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... er-in-Rome

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... lic-Church
So forget Catholic sources, even secular sources admit there may be something to what we say.

Further, for the record...

The Catholic Church believes Peter may, perhaps, indeed have not been Bishop of Rome. As Catholic Answers puts it:

"At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.

On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome."

The Catholic claim rests not on where Peter lived, but on the authority Christ gave Peter and that Petr passed onto his successors.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
John Henry
Peach Cobbler
Posts: 1430
Joined: June 2014

Post

Why do Catholics pray to Mary? I've seen a woman pray to Mary's statue. The Catholics say they venerate her, not worship...hmmm...confusing.
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4766
Joined: February 2013

Post

I thought we had been over the difference between praying and venerating already?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3342
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

Hallo, Good Dr. Remember this? I believe we stopped because of the whole matter of Vigilius and if you recall we cleared that up. So, let's get to it.

So, here's the scriptural case again.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, or Cephas. Peter, as you know, means rock. This wasn’t even a name back then. No Jew had ever been called Rock. Many other names came from nature, such as “Deborah” (bee) or Rachel (ewe) but there was no rock. It was like telling him, “Simon, henceforth, you are Chocolate Bar.” It clearly had a special meaning, a calculated intention. And right after that, Jesus says, “… and on this rock, I build my Church.”
“I will give you the keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.” Cities in those days, entirely surrounded by a wall, had keys that opened the gates. To be selected to own them was a great honor and sign of ultimate trust. The keys given to Peter, as Jesus said, are to Heaven itself! This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere as well: cf Is. 22:22; Rev. 1:18.

It is hard to see how this symbolism for authority could be interpreted as only honoring him as the "First Among Equals."

Now, you really want to look at the historical case. Here again is one of the quotes Catholics like to use.

'" Roma locuta; causa finita est," derives from a statement Augustine made early in the fifth century.

In a sermon to his flock, Augustine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said "The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished (Sermon 131:10).'"
Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church are authoritative only if approved by the bishop of Rome.”
Source: Catholic Answers.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4766
Joined: February 2013

Post

I read the Scriptural verses as First Amongst Equals, nothing more. Your analysis does nothing new to convince me.

You need to give me the actual text of St. Augustine's sermon. There is no "Sermon 131" by St. Augustine.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Blitz
Moose Tracks
Posts: 3787
Joined: February 2013

Post

*Chuckles and rubs his hands* I've been reading a book on this topic. I've been dying to debate this.

I'll quote the verse, "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church."
Why would Jesus use this instead of you? Jesus was referring to what Simon said earlier declaring Jesus Christ Son of God as the foundation of the church. He obviously was not referring to Peter because of the change of words first Christ used Petros when referring to Peter then petra as in upon petra will I build my church. Peter, unlike his name, was not a stable figure in the Bible.

The keys were not directed to Peter solely. He was talking about all of the apostles, and He was talking in the future tense. The 'keys' are never used in the Bible unless he was talking to all of the disciples as in starting the spread of the Gospel.

Any who enough for now. Prepare for war PF!
Debate Vampire

Everyone (Blitz doesn't count) fears ninjas, except for one: I, Ninjahunter

Can you change me from the monster you made me? Monster: Starset
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Post

So if the keys were given to the apostles, how do we know those apostles had the right to pass them on?

Also what is "keys" exactly?
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4766
Joined: February 2013

Post

So Blitz which authority figures in your denomination were given the keys given to all the Apostles?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Blitz
Moose Tracks
Posts: 3787
Joined: February 2013

Post

We don't believe the keys were passed down.
Debate Vampire

Everyone (Blitz doesn't count) fears ninjas, except for one: I, Ninjahunter

Can you change me from the monster you made me? Monster: Starset
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4766
Joined: February 2013

Post

Why not? Were they disposable one use only keys?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Blitz
Moose Tracks
Posts: 3787
Joined: February 2013

Post

Eleventh Doctor wrote:Why not? Were they disposable one use only keys?
In our doctrine, yes. Or at least they were only given to the apostles. There is no mention or reference to the enduring of them.
Debate Vampire

Everyone (Blitz doesn't count) fears ninjas, except for one: I, Ninjahunter

Can you change me from the monster you made me? Monster: Starset
User avatar
jehoshaphat
Cookies & Creme
Posts: 228
Joined: May 2012

Post

Then why would the apostles choose a replacement of Judas if there authority didn't pass on? The succession of Judas by Matthias is a clear example of how the apostles had special authority and they could pass it on to others.
Image
Tarol
Peach Cobbler
Posts: 1413
Joined: June 2015

Post

Why did the Apostles say the replacement for Judas had to be one of the longest-followers of Jesus? Why didn't they just pass their apostleshipness down to whoever they wanted?
xo eht haiasi-
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3342
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

Eleventh Doctor wrote: I read the Scriptural verses as First Amongst Equals, nothing more. Your analysis does nothing new to convince me.
Admittedly so, it's only what I said before. What would be nice to address though is elsewhere in the Bible, the keys to the kingdom are a sign of authority, specifically the authority of exceptional trust by the king and also the position of Chief Steward. Why isn't it here? Why does the symbolism suddenly change here?
Eleventh Doctor wrote:You need to give me the actual text of St. Augustine's sermon. There is no "Sermon 131" by St. Augustine.
Very good, I'll get back to you.
Blitz wrote:Why would Jesus use this instead of you?
Because He wanted to emphasize as heavily as possible the hugeness of what He was saying to Peter. In scripture, God changing a name always means big doin's. It's a particularly big deal in this case because, in the Old Testament, Abraham is the only human being to be referred to as a rock and then only once (in Isaiah 51:1-2.) Apart from that, only God is referred to as a rock.
Blitz wrote:He obviously was not referring to Peter because of the change of words first Christ used Petros when referring to Peter then petra as in upon petra will I build my church.
Petros certainly used to be a distinct word from Petra in some some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before Jesus walked the earth. The difference in meaning can be found on only in Attic Greek, while the Greek of Jesus' time would've been Koin Greek. A very different dialect. In Koin Greek, Petros and Petra are synonyms. If Jesus wanted to call him something else, such as a pebble, lithos would've been used.

Your book shows a very poor understanding of Greek.

All this really matters little though. Jesus wouldn't be speaking in Greek but in the language of the land, Aramaic. Everyone understood Greek but they didn't speak in it day to day. Further, there's pretty good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us so in the second century. In Aramaic, the meaning is even more indisputable.
Blitz wrote:The 'keys' are never used in the Bible unless he was talking to all of the disciples as in starting the spread of the Gospel.
Nope. In Acts 15-16, its only Peter who uses the "keys" (doctrinal authority.) Only he makes a doctrinal (spiritual) statement about salvation. After he speaks, James and others speak on how "by my judgment" it's best to implement it in practical terms, making no doctrines.

@Jehosophat good point, comrade in arms.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
Blitz
Moose Tracks
Posts: 3787
Joined: February 2013

Post

jehoshaphat wrote:Then why would the apostles choose a replacement of Judas if there authority didn't pass on? The succession of Judas by Matthias is a clear example of how the apostles had special authority and they could pass it on to others.
Hello, they threw lots. And for all that, Mattias was never mentioned again. Paul on the other hand went on to really be Judas's replacement.
Because He wanted to emphasize as heavily as possible the hugeness of what He was saying to Peter. In scripture, God changing a name always means big doin's. It's a particularly big deal in this case because, in the Old Testament, Abraham is the only human being to be referred to as a rock and then only once (in Isaiah 51:1-2.) Apart from that, only God is referred to as a rock.
Ah then why would Peter be referred to at this? And if it such a big deal why do we never hear about it again?

Petros certainly used to be a distinct word from Petra in some some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before Jesus walked the earth. The difference in meaning can be found on only in Attic Greek, while the Greek of Jesus' time would've been Koin Greek. A very different dialect. In Koin Greek, Petros and Petra are synonyms. If Jesus wanted to call him something else, such as a pebble, lithos would've been used.

All this really matters little though. Jesus wouldn't be speaking in Greek but in the language of the land, Aramaic. Everyone understood Greek but they didn't speak in it day to day. Further, there's pretty good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us so in the second century. In Aramaic, the meaning is even more indisputable.
Even if they are synonyms, would you really refer to someone by a synonym of their name? Then you could call me trickster.
I quote Kurt Aland, a New Testament scholar, "There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the NT were originally written."

There is no Aramaic Original. And who knows what it would say in Aramaic?
Nope. In Acts 15-16, its only Peter who uses the "keys" (doctrinal authority.) Only he makes a doctrinal (spiritual) statement about salvation. After he speaks, James and others speak on how "by my judgment" it's best to implement it in practical terms, making no doctrines.
"while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, bore them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost even as He did unto us,"
That isn't quite what it says. He simply says God chose him to be the first to deliver the message, after which Paul and Barnabas carried on. Number two, James was in direction of the proceeding. If Peter were Pope or supreme, he would have headed it up. James confirms what Peter says; it is not taken just because Peter said it as supposedly "Pope". James suggests the letter to be written and it is written in the name of the "Elders and apostles".

Anyway, why is it if Peter was the 'Pope' did he never use his power or refer to his power? In 1 Peter 5:1-2, he treat the elders of the church he is writing as equals not as head honcho.

Paul criticizes Peter, something he wouldn't do if Peter were God's divine representative on earth like in Galatians 2.
Debate Vampire

Everyone (Blitz doesn't count) fears ninjas, except for one: I, Ninjahunter

Can you change me from the monster you made me? Monster: Starset
Post Reply