/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Yes.

>>564611

Is there any reasons as to why? Historical evidence or so?

>>564609

Katholikos was the earliest term used to describe the faith meaning whole and universal. The apostles creed and nicean creed profess belief in the holy catholic church. And all the church fathers held this creed and held to the unity of the seat of peter in Rome. It is the church founded by Christ so if you believe Christ to be God then it is indeed the one true faith and churcg

Yep!

As you have pointed out, we don't have to go much further than Matthew 16:18 to know that. The papacy started with Saint Pope Peter and here we are 265 popes and about 2,000 years later. The apostolic succession has been preserved this entire time, each Catholic priest (which includes the popes) can trace their ordination right back to the apostles and thus to Christ who ordained them.

We actually have quite a few converts here to Catholicism from Pentecostalism, hopefully one of them will show up soon.

If you haven't read this already, I highly suggest this article: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-church-christ-founded

>>564613

Yes, of course! :D In the past few months I have come to realize that the best argument for the Church is the Church Fathers (the earliest Christians, those men who were often trained in the faith by the apostles themselves or the pupils of their pupils).

The most knowledgeable Catholic I know is a former Baptist who converted after starting to read the Church Fathers and a week ago or so I met another Baptist on this board who was reading the Church Fathers and he mentioned becoming more and more convinced of Catholicism.

Basically look at the Early Church and compare it to modern Catholicism. You will see most of the Early Church has been preserved in Catholicism (especially the sacraments). This is something that is often missing in Protestantism.

Here are some Church Fathers to read about: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Here's a great article about the papacy: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

May God bless you! I'm going to pray for you right now. Please let us know if you have any further questions.

You should also note that this thread is probably going to explode soon in terms of posts and there will be lots of trolls attacking you and the Church, so just try to ignore the uncharitable posts. :D

NO

>>564617

That is a great video! I hadn't realised the correlation between Jesus' kingship, and the passing of the role to St. Peter.

So the Catholic Church is simply the psychical reincarnation of God's Kingdom in heaven?

>>564613

Christ instated his Church on earth through Peter (Mt 16:18) and granted him and all his successors (i.e. the Popes) power. He specifically stated that the gates of hell/hades shall not prevail against it. Furthermore did literally every single Church Father argue and acknowledge not only the Catholic Church (with head in Rome - and for some time Avignon) to be the one true Church (obviously, I'd say) but also affirmed of the supremacy of Pope (see my first point), i.e. Patriarch of Rome, over all the others. This can also be seen throughout the history of the ecumenical councils - where the Pope had the last word. This climaxed in the council of Calcedon, where the Pope - being absent - affirmed 27 of the 28 agreed canons respectively - even raged about the 28th - thus, the 28th was not only rejected and never instated but the other patriarchs literally begged for forgiveness for this blunder.

Coming back to Christ's promise that the gate of hell shall never prevail: History has proven that, no matter how much degeneracy was prevalent in the clergy - with some of the worst Popes having been Borgia and Medici Popes - and no matter how power hungry they were, Dogma has never been corrupted.

I know orthos like to twist that point to "but you made up new (false) dogma later on", but that is a blatant lie. Again, Christ promised this - and I'm sure not even orthos would call Christ a liar, do they ?

And last but not least - so that orthos get some love, too: Every major heresy from the first 1000 years - that is: before the schism - sparked in the East. Which is pretty funny if you consider these people being like "ayo da faith of tha

I'm sorry if I may have been clunky, I am but a funny man of Christ.

>>564619

>uses the Bible

>Bible exists because of the Church

>uses the version that is named after a homo degenerate and has intentional errors

>>IM THA AUTHORITY

kek'd man

>>564624

Addition to the first point:

That is, of course other apostles founded other branches of the Church - therefore the Eastern churches are not invalid or illicit by default or anything (infact, the opposite) - but as they are politically driven national churches, and not in communion with the Pope, they are simply in the wrong - as Christ explicitely "burdened" the Church on Peter's back.

>>564626

'nuda addition: Of course I'm speaking about the schismatics, not the Eastern Catholic churches.

>>564609

No. They preach a gospel of works. They are not a true church at all, let alone the "one true faith".

>>564630

>sola scriptura

>ignores half of it

I'm not impressed

>>564625

I remember seeing somewhere in the Bible that people like the first Apostles would still come, that there would still be great biblical figures even after Christ's death. Is this true at all, are the Saints of the Church basically the great men/apostles Jesus said would still come?

>>564632

What half would that be, anon?

>>564626

>but as they are politically driven national churches

lies and slander

>as Christ explicitely "burdened" the Church on Peter's back.

Something all the writers of the Church have agreed on, but what exactly does it mean for the Church to be built upon Peter?

Let us ask a few people, whether saints or heretics…

<<<to be continued

>>564637

>Let us ask a few people, whether saints or heretics…

Please make sure to not spam the thread with quotes (many of which will probably be out-of-context…). I can already feel them coming.

God bless.

>>564635

Does the Catholic Church also believe in the power of miracles? I'm aware of a few bodies of Saints in the Vatican that have not decomposed, (incorrupt Saints)

and one of the churches that was in one of the nuclear bombings over Japan, and the men survived… but does the Catholic Church as a whole believe in miracles through the Holy Spirit?

>>564640

Why aren't you concerned about the gospel?

>>564640

We do, they happen all the time.

>>564655

>>564639

I appreciate your guy's input, it really is great being on this board.

Two more Questions: Does the Catholic Church have its own scripture/bible? If so, is it better to use this bible/scripture instead?

>>564659

I repeat my question: Why are you so unconcerned about the gospel? Or have you already embraced justification through works of the law?

yes

>>564644

>James being a homo is just one guy's claim

>>564674

>Steven Anderson

This is the same guy who believes that he is a prophet sent by God…

>>564639

Not trying to do apologetics - just pointing out what exactly it is that the Fathers said about Peter and his relation to the Church, to the Keys of Heaven, and to the rock. Pro-tip - it'll be more pleasing to you than you think. But also, there was no single united view as there is today in Catholicism (or in Orthodoxy for that matter), and so my point here is exactly to avoid putting them out of context.

>>564637

John Chrysostom:

>Peter is "the zenith of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ . . . the solid rock, the tranquil foundation, the great apostle, the first disciple, the first one called by Christ, and the first one to obey" (Homily 3 on Repentance and Almsgiving)

>". . . the holy leader of the blessed company, the lover of Christ, the good shepherd, the man put in trust with the keys of heaven, the man who received the Spiritual Wisdom" (Homily 6 on the Acts of the Apostles)

>". . . the coryphaeus of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, [and] th ardent lover of Christ" (Homilia in Apostolicum Dictum)

>Peter alone was entrusted with "the primacy over his brethren" (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John)

>"After that, when God's anger was placated, crossing the sea, daring the waves, we went to the chief apostles (coryphaeus) Peter, the fundamental of our faith, and Paul the vessel of choice" (Against the Games and Theatres)

>"Taking the leaders (coryphaeus), then, he led them up a high mountain and was transfigured in their presence . . . Why does he only take these disciples? They were superior to the others!" (Homily 56 on Matthew)

>The Beloved Disciple is "the pillar of all the churches in the world, . . . possess[ing] the keys of heaven" (Homily 1 on the Gospel of John)

>Paul is "the world's teacher" for his missionary activity (Homily 24 on Genesis; De Laudibus Sancti Pauli)

Jerome:

>Peter is the 'prince of the apostles" (De viris illustribus)

Ephrem the Syrian:

>Peter is the 'gate of sinners . . . tongue of the disciples, voice of the heralds . . . keeper of the heavens, [and] first-born of the key-bearers" (Ecom. in Petrum et Paulum)

Origen:

>Peter made "the msot solid rock upon which Christ founded the Church" (Homily 5 on Exodus)

Ambrosiater:

>Peter is "chief among the apostles, to whim the Savior had entrusted the care of the churches"

Ambrose of Milan:

>Peter enjoys a "primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank" (The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord)

>"Neither was Paul inferior to Peter, although the latter was the foundation of the Church" (On the Holy Spirit)

Augustine of Hippo:

>Peter is "a type of the Church" (Exposition 13 on Psakl 118.3)

<<<to be continued

Watch this.

>waiting for Orthodox to come along since most potshots are against Protestants

>Remember the nativity fast and the apparent restrictions on arguing they put on themselves

Wew

Lad

No. It is the one true works and that's about it.

>>564697

what

>>564677

Quote?

>>564698

One last question:

Was Jesus White? Black? What is he racially?

>>564679

>Psakl 118.3

I of course mean Psalm, silly Orthodog that I am.

<Peter as a model of Christian virtues:

Augustine of Hippo:

>"Which of the two disciples is better, he who loves Christ less than his fellow disciple and is loved by Christ more than his fellow disciple (i.e., John) or he whom Christ loves less than his fellow disciple although he himself loves Christ more than his fellow disciple (i.e., Peter)? . . . [A]s far as I understand it, I would easily answer that he who loves Christ more is better, but he whom Christ loves more is happier." (Tractates on John 12.4)

>Peter "represents the church" for although he "staggered on the waves" "he turned to prayer and supplication" and his faith "was made fast and all doubts and hesitations were laid to rest" (Sermon 75.10)

John Chrysostom:

>"I speak his praises, that you may learn that he truly loves Christ, for the care of Christ's servants is the greatest proof of devotion to Him . . . Let us see whether he has truly the primacy of a shepherd, whether he really cares for and truly loves the sheep and is a lover of the flock, that we may know he also loves the Shepherd." (Homilia in Apostolicum Dictum)

>When Jesus told the apostles of his upcoming death Peter, "in his ardor, alone ventures to discourse of these things," refusing to permit Christ's suffering and death as being "disgraceful" and "unmeet." (Homilies on Matthew 54.6)

>Peter, "acting out of his great love" also objected to the washing of the feet at the Last Supper, but eventually relented, "vehement in his refusal, and even more so in giving consent; and in both cases he acted out of love" (Homily 70 on the Gospel of John; see also Augustine's Sermon 296)

>"Do you see the hot-headed lover of Christ? For do not focus on the fact that his manner of coming to Christ's help was not well considered; think instead of how fervent he was, how consumed he was by the love of Christ!" (Homily 56 on Matthew)

>During the Council of Jerusalem, while "James was invested with the chief rule, [Peter and Paul] did not begrudge him, so free was their soul from love of glory" (Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles)

>Peter spoke at the council "as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock [and] as having precedence in honor . . . But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously . . ." Unity among the apostles prevailed because "there was no distinction among them" (Homily 3 on the Acts of the Apostles)

>"See how on all occasions he goes about, foremost. When an Apostle was to be chosen, he was the foremos: when the Jews were told that these were not drunken, when the lame man was to e healed, when harangues to be made, he is before the rest: when the rulers were to be spoken to, he was the man . . . when there was danger, he was the man, and where good management (was needed); but where all is calm, there they all act in common, and he demands no greater honor than the others." (Homily 21 on the Acts of the Apostles)

Severian of Galaba:

>Peter is a man "always impetuous and quick to profess his faith . . . [but] also quick to recognize the tuth . . . Out of reverence, Peter would not permit it [i.e., the footwashing] . . . H had the right feelings, but not understanding the full meaning of the incarnation, he first refused in a spirit of faith and afterward gratefully obeyed . . . [this is] how religious people ought to behave" (Homilia de lotione pedum)

Basil of Caesarea:

>Peter "was charged with the building-up of the church . . . because of the superiority of his faith" (Against Eunomius 2:4)

Jerome:

>"Peter is found to be a man of an intensely burning faith . . . plung[ing] headfirst into the waves . . . with the same ardor of faith he always has." (Commentary on Matthew 2.14.28)

Maximus of Turin:

>Jesus chose Peter's boat (i.e., the "faithful church") over that of the "faithless synagogue" so that just a the ark saved Noah and his family during the flood, "this boat of the Church, in which Peter is proclaimed pilot by the Lord's words: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church' . . . will bring back unhurt everyone whom it embraces when it goes up in flames" (Sermon 49)

>"This boat is not a boat that is given to Peter to be piloted; rather, it is the Church, which is committed to the apostle to be governed" (Sermon 110)

>"Peter's church sails upon the deeps of this world . . . delving, as it were, into the profund mysteries of the heavens . . . into the depths of reflection upon the divine generation" (Sermon 49)

>>564706

Ambrose of Milan:

>Christ's command to "launch out into the deep" meant "the depth of arguments . . . [and so] the Church is launched by Peter onto this deep of disputation . . . [where] the Apostolic tools are aptly named fishing nets, which do not kill their catch, but save them, and bring them from the deep to the light" (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 4.72)

Ephrem the Syrian:

>Simon is praised for "obey[ing] the One who said to him 'You have caught for death [now] make disciples for life." Peter once "caught and gave fish for food" but now he was called "to deliver people from the Devourer. His nets made human mouths rejoice, his gospel made the mouths of death mourn" (Hymn 45)

Gregory the Great:

>"By God's authorization" Peter "held the position of leadership in the holy Church" but he "refused immoderate veneration from Cornelius (though the latter had done well by humbly prostrating himself before Peter) . . . He had the self-awareness that he was head of the Church in the battle against sin, but he did not acknowledge this honor when he was in the presence of upright brethen" (The Book of Pastoral Rule 2.6)

>In his "humility of heart" Peter even accepted fraternal correction from Paul "for he desired . . . as yet not to trust himself in those points in which he was wrong," submitting in gentleness to the good counsel of his younger brethen. (Moralia in Job 28.11.27)

>Peter "freely accepted the censure of Paul," becuse he knew that "no one who lives does not sin occasionally" (The Book of Pastoral Rule 2.8)

>Peter recognized that he was wrong, and thus he "who had shone forth with such great brightness of faith, and of miracles . . . while he was imposing the weight of circumcision on the converted Gentiles, knew not what to say aright" (Moralia in Job 29.22.42)

Arator:

>Peter was "always watchful in keeping his guard over the sheepfold which has been entrusted to him . . ." He is "foremost among the band of apostles . . . To the hand that had borne the fish-hook was transferred the key . . . To him the Lamb entrusted the sheep which he saved by his passion; and he enlarges his flock throughout the whole world under his shepherd" (De Actibus Apostolorum)

<<<to be continued

>>564705

>>564705

Look at the Holy Shroud and decide for yourself

>>564703

Ah yes I remember this. I really wish the person who made this would have used longer clips, it would have made it much more effective. With random 5 second clips, who knows what the context is? That seems pretty uncharitable.

>>564706

<Peter as a model of Christian virtues:

Acts 10:25-26

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

>>564705

He was Jewish. A lot of the representations of him are wrong but each culture is know to take liberties with his appearance to feel closer. As long as His message gets accross, this is okay.

>>564705

Only decription of him is in his glorified body in Revelation. So there's no way to know

>>564707

<Peter as a man in need of forgiveness:

Porphyry:

>"Tell us, how would Peter - a man of feeble judgment on innumerable occasiosn - be able to serve as foundation of a church? What sort of sober reasoning do we see in him? Where does he show himself to be a man of discrimination and firm resolve?" (Against the Christians)

Origen:

>"If they [i.e., the evangelists] were not honest, but, as Celsus thinks, composing fictitious stories, they would not have recorded Peter's denial. [For] these matters probably ought not to have been mentionned" (Contra Clesum 2.15)

Eusebius:

>Having in mind that the gospel of Mark was dictated by Peter, he says that the apostles "handed down in writing slanders against themselves to unforgetting ages, and accusations of sins, which no one in after years would ever have known of unless he had heard it from their own voice. By thus placarding themselves [they] may justly be considered to have been void of all egoism and false speaking and to have given plain and clear proof of their truth-loving dispotion" (The Proof of the Gospel 3.5; see also John Chrysostom's Homilies on Matthew 85.1)

Proclus of Constantinople:

>Peter "rush[ed] forward with lowly ideas and insult[ed] godly things with human considerations," failing to "seek that which is above . . . because he simply did not know what he was saying." "If it were good [for Christ] to be on earth, it is no purpose that you have been called the holder of heaven's keys! For what use, I ask you, would the keys of heaven be? Since you long for the mountains, say goodbye to heaven!If you want to raise tents, give up being the foundation-rock of the Church!" (Homily 8 on the Transfiguration of the Savior)

Gregory the Great:

>Peter's actions sprang from a "carnal mind" and "hence he is justly rebuked, because he was not yet confirmed in perfection of heart" (Moralia in Job 8.52.92)

Pantoleon the Chartophylax:

>Peter schemed, trying to postpone the journey to Jerusalem "not by saying openly what he desires, but lobbying Jesus that by being here, they might not depart from there . . . Truly the Apostle's fear is beyond bounds!" (Sermon on the Most Glorious Transfiguration of Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ)

Cyril of Alexandria:

>Peter's threefold denial is a failure caused by "the cowardice of human nature" that made him flee from death. (Commentary on Luke, Homily 149)

>Satan desired to defeat Peter who was "foremost and sat at the head of the company . . . [a man] of more than ordinary excellence." Peter "erred from what was right" by thinking that he could triumph over this attack without help, which is why instead of boasting he "ought to have asked strength from [Christ], that either he might not suffer this or be rescued immediately from harm" (Commentary on Luke, Homily 144)

>"[This is why] we are taught the fault of the saints . . . that if by chance we too prove weak in aught that is necessary for salvation, we may not despair of being able once again to mount up into fortitutde . . . fir as rapid as was his descent into sin, so quick were his tears because of it" (Commentary on Luke, Homily 149)

Romanos the Melodist:

>Peter allowed his love, which was once "boiling over," to be quenched by his "cowardly . . . denial and flight" (On Peter's Denial)

>"Peter, look to me as to how you educate; remembering your own fall, sympathize with all; mindful of the maiden who caused your fall, do not be harsh; if conceit attacks you, hear the sound of the cock's crow, and remember the tears with whose streams I washed you" (Kontikon on the Mission of the Apostles)

>>564743

John Chrysostom:

>Peter was so "overcome with fear" that unlike Christ, Peter cannot endure "the threat of a miserable and mean girl" (Homilies on Matthew 85.1)

>"Why does it happen that you cannot bear up under questioning of the portress? It is not a soldier who is asking the question, is it? Or one of those who have just arrested Christ? It is merely a portress asking a casual question . . . the question of a sympathizer, rather than a fault-finder" (Homily 83 on the Gospel of John)

>"Alas, how great is the weakness of human nature, when God leaves it to itself . . . [W]hy in the world did the evangelists all universally record this denial of Peter? It was not to condemn the disciple for this, but in the desire to teach us how great an evil it is not to place one's confidence completely in God but to trust oneself" (Homily 83 on the Gospel of John)

>It was the Holy Spirit, "who makes men of gold out of men of clay," who enabled Peter to speak "with great boldness in front of the hostile crods at Pentecost" when formerly he could not "endure the questioning of a poor girl" (Homily 4 on the Acts of the Apostles)

Augustine of Hippo:

>"How many later, . . . [including] old men and old women, . . . [and] youth of each sex . . . bravely and violently entered the kingdom of heaven - a thing which then this man who received the keys of that kingdom could not do!" (Tractates on John 113, 2)

>In the denial, "the prediction of the Physician has been proven out and the presumption of the sick man [i.e., Peter] has been proven wrong" (Tractates on John 113.6)

>Peter's "bitter tears" were like those of David, "who did penance for his mortal sins and yet remained in his position of honor" (Letter 185 to Boniface)

>The Church "ought willingly to forgive her children once they have made amends" just as Christ had forgiven him who "had faltered upon the waters, . . . had called back the Lord from His suffering by human sentiment, . . . had cut off the servant's ear with his sword, and had thrice denied the Lord Himself" (On the Christian Combat 32)

>"Who can be so vain as to think that the Apostle Peter had that in his heart which he had on his lips when he denied Christ? Surely in that denial he held the truth within and uttered the lie without . . . Why [else], speaking the truth in his heart, did he punish with so bitter weeping the lie which he brought forth with his mouth?" (To Consentius: Against Lying 13)

>Unlike contemporary penitents, Peter, when he denied Jesus, "had not yet been strengthened by the resurrection of the Lord, and by the coming of the Holy Spirit . . . or by the conferral of the Spirit that the Lord made known after he rose from the dead, when he breathed into their face and said 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" (Letter 265)

Ambrose of Milan:

>The story of the denial teaches us "that we should know that no-one must boast of himself . . . [for] if Peter fell . . . what other person can rightly take himself for granted?" (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 10.91)

>"Peter wept bitterly so that he could purge his sin with tears. If you too want pardon, you should wash away your guilt with tears" (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 10.90)

>Peter represents Adam, who was "wickedly deceived" by a woman, while the servant girl represents Eve. But Adam's sin was unpardonable because it occured in Paradise, while Peter's sin occured in the "Jews' official residence, where innocence is difficult" (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 10.75)

>"What has he denied? . . . Indeed [only] that he is one of those who were with Jesus the Galilean . . . Surely he did not deny that he had been with the Son of God. In other words, [he was saying] 'I do not know the Galilean. I do not know the Nazarane. Whom I know is the Son of God.'" (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 10.79)

Cyril of Jerusalem:

>"Therefore let no man despair of salvation. Peter, the chief and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord thrice before a little serving maid; but moved to repentence he wept bitterly. His weeping revealed his heartfelt repentance, and for that reason not only did he receive pardon for his denial, but retained his Apostolic prerogative" (Catechical Lectures 2.19)

Leo the Great:

>Peter's tears were "productive . . . [for] they had the power of holy baptism for washing away the guilt of the denial . . . tears flowed out since love had not given way and the fountain of love washed away the words of fear" (Sermon 60)

>>564744

Gregory the Great:

>Christ, "as an act of goodness" had allowed Peter, "the one he had decided to put over the entire church" to stumble "so that he who was going to be shepherd of the church might learn through his own fault how he ought to have mercy on others . . . [and] perceive through his own weakness how mercifully he ought to put up with the weakness of others" (Homily 21)

>At Pentecost, "Peter, who had feared a woman's question before the coming of the Holy Spirit, . . . [now] scorned the power of princes and kings" (Homily 30)

Epiphanius of Salamis:

>"Perfect penitence comes with baptism, but if someone falls [afterwards] God's holy church does not lose him. She gives him a way back, and after repentence, reform . . . The Lord recalls Peter too after his denial, and in the place of the three denials, challenges him three times to confession" (Panarion 59.1.6)

Optatus:

>Peter was forgiven "for the sake of unity . . . [but also] had the reward of being preferred to all the apostles, and was the only one to receive the keys of heaven and vouchsafing them to others. . ." Peter sinned, "he himself proves that it happened by grieving bitterly and weeping abundantly" and if "unity and charity" allowed the apostles to forgive him, so too the lapsi should be forgiven, "who, in comparison with blessed Peter have done a lesser wrong" (Against the Donatists, 7.3)

Origen:

>"Surely anyone who has learned to refer the root causes of sin to the devil, the father of sin, will not say . . . that Peter denied Christ three times before the cockcrow apart from his influence" (Commentary on Matthew 12:36-43)

>While Peter represents the Church, the inquisitors who made him deny Christ represent the Church's enemies: the first serving girl represents the Jews "who have frequently forced the faithful to deny him [i.e., Christ]", the second girl "stand[ing] for the assembly of the Gentiles who also, in persecuting Christians, have forced them to deny the Lord" and the bystanders recalling the "ministers of different heresies who also compel others to dney the truth of Christ" (Commentary on Matthew 114)

>Peter had not received yet the Spirit later granted to him at Pentecost when he denied Christ. "For this reason, neither was it possible for Peter at this time to profess belief in Jesus nor was he able to be criticized for not professing belief in him, since it is said of those who profess belief 'It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you'" (Commentary on Matthew 114)

Tertullian:

>Even the devil's power could not "endanger the faith of Peter" because of Jesus's prayer in Luke 22:31-32. (On Flight in Time of Persecution, 2.4)

Hilary of Poitiers:

>Jesus' sorrow in Gethsemane stemmed from his fear that the disciples might commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by denying that he is God "when they saw him being killed, spat upon, and crucified. This is the reason he preserved Peter when he denied him: 'I do not know the man,' since any word against the Son of Man will be forgiven." (Commentary on Matthew 31.5)

Jerome:

>Against the interpretation that by denying to know the man Jesus Peter confessed him as God, Jerome said this was an argument made out of "pious feeling for the apostle Peter . . . A prudent reader knows how frivolous this interpretation is. By defending the apostle in this way these people make the Lord guilty of lying" (Commentary on Matthew 4.26.72)

<<<to be continued

>>564745

So you were being told to not spam the thread with quotes, you say "ok", and then spam the thread. Top notch

>>564745

<Matthew 16:

Hilary of Poitiers:

>The title of rock is the "appropriate reward" given by Jesus to Peter for his confession of Jesus' messiahship. (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 16.7)

Cyril of Alexandria:

>Peter is the one who "cried out 'You are the Son of the Living God'" and who "as a gift matching his thought . . . was given the keys of heaven" (Festal Letter 8: On Pascha)

Cyril of Jerusalem:

>Peter is "the chief of the Apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 17.27)

Proclus of Constantinople:

>Peter "insulted godly things" but is nonetheless "the chief and leader of the disciples, . . . holder of heavens' keys, . . . and the one who said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.'" (Homily 8 on the Transfiguration of the Savior)

<THE TYPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

Origen:

>"And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,' . . . we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church" (Commentary on Matthew 12.10)

>"But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My church'? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which ae subjointed as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?" (Commentary on Matthew 12.11)

Ambrose of Milan:

>"Strive that you may be a rock. Therefore seek the Rock, not outside you, but inside you. Your action is your rock, your mind is your rock. Your house is built upon this rock . . . Your Faith is a rock, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you will be a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is upon a rock" (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 6.98)

>>564789

<THE "EASTERN" INTERPRETATION

Didymus the Blind:

>"How powerful is Peter's faith and his confession that Christ is the only-begotten God, the word, the true Sun of God, and not merely a creature . . . he recognized the consubstantial and coeternal branch of God, thereby glorifying that uncreated root . . . Peter believed that Christ was one and the same deity with the Father . . . Upon this rock the Church was built, the Church which the gates of hell - that is, the arguments of heretics - will not overcome. The keys to the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter in order that . . . he might open the gates of God's kingdom to those whose faith agreed both with his own confession and with those things which he and the other apostles heard from Christ" (De Trinitate 1.30)

Theodore of Mopsuestia:

>Being the rock "is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is the rock, he [i.e., Jesus] stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church on the same confession and faith . . ." The confession of Christ, found in the Church alone, is the "key to the kingdom of heaven, . . . [so that] he who is counted as belonging to the Church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven" (Fragmenta in Matthaeum 92)

John Chrysostom:

>Christ said to Peter "'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'; that is, on the faith of his confession" (Homilies on Matthew 54.3)

Gregory of Nyssa:

>"We do not extend our praises to Simon for his fishing, but rather for his firm faith, which is at the same time the foundation of the whole Church" (Altera Laudatio S. Stephani Protomartyris)

Maximus the Confessor:

>"The God of all pronounced that the catholic church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him" (Letter to Anastasius)

Basil of Seleucia:

>"Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one confessed it 'Peter' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession" (Oratio 25.4)

John of Damascus:

>"O blessed mouth! O richly privileged lips! O soul that speaks of God! O mind inspired by God, worthy of sharing divine mysteries! O instrument on which the Father plays his song! . . . This is the upright unshakeable faith on which - as on a rock - the Church is established; you have been right named for it" (Oration on the Transfiguration)

Ambrosiaster:

>"The Lord said to Peter: 'On this rock I will build My Church,' which means 'On this confession of the catholic faith I establish believers in life'" (Commentary on Ephesians 2:20)

Hilary of Poitiers:

>It was "upon the rock of this confession [i.e. Jesus' divine nature] that the building of the Church rests" (The Trinity, 6.36)

>"This faith is the foundation of the Church, and therefore the gates of hell are powerless against her. This faith possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven. What this faith bound and loosed on earth will also be bound or loosed in heaven . . . [T]his is the revelation of the Father, this is the foundation of the Church" (The Trinity, 6.37)

Ambrose of Milan:

>The proper confession of Christ as God was "the foundation that prevails against all heresies" and this "faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.'" (The Sacraments of the Incarnation of the Lord, 5.34)

Augustine of Hippo:

>"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer" (Sermon 229P)

>>564791

<THE CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

Ambrose of Milan:

>"Christ is a Rock . . . [and] did not deny the grace of even this title to His disciples, so that he is a true Peter because from the Rock he has the firmness and sontancy, the steadfastness of faith" (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 6.98)

Jerome:

>"The foundation that the apostle, as the builder, laid is our one Lord Jesus Christ. Upoj this foundation, stable and firm . . . the Church of Christ is being built . . . Upon this rock the Lord founded the Church; from this rock also the apostle Peter was allotted his name" (Commentary on Matthew 1.7.25-26)

>"[Jesus] gave [his name] to his apostles (apostolis suis) that they too should be called rocks (petrae)" (Commentary on Amo, 6.12/15)

Augustine of Hippo:

>Jesus tells Peter "'Upon this rock . . . which you have confessed, I shall build my Church.' For the rock was Christ and upon this foundation Peter himself was also built" (Tractates on John 12.4)

>"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built' . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable" (Retractions 20.2)

>The Church cannot be built upon men, which is why Paul rebuked those "who wanted to build on human beings merely, and they would say, "I'm Paul's man, I'm Apollo's. I'm Kephas' - that's Peter, or Rocky . . . And others, who didn't want to be built on Rocky, but on the rock and said, 'But I'm Christ's'. Not in Paul's name, not in Rocky's either, but in the name of Christ, so that Rocky might be built up on the rock, not the rock on Rocky . . . [he who] held chief place in the apostolic ranks" (Sermon 76)

Aphrahat:

>"The foundation for our whole faith is our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true stone. And upon this very stone the faith is laid . . . For when any person is brought near to faith, he is placed on the stone, which is Jesus Christ our Lord" (Demonstration 1.2)

Theodoret of Cyrus:

>"It is impossible for him who wishes to build knowledgeably to lay another foundation. Blessed Peter also set this foundation in place, or rather the Lord himself . . . So do not name yourselves after human beings: Christ is the foundation" (Commentary on First Corinthians 3)

>"Surely he is calling pious faith and true confession a 'rock'" (Commentary on Canticle of Canticles 2.14)

Cyril of Alexandria:

>"The Church is immovable, and 'the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,' in the Savior's words, having him for a foundation" (Commentary on Zachariah 14)

Basil of Seleucia:

>Peter's confession is "the rock, for this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus" (Oratio 25.4)

<THE "ROMAN" INTERPRETATION

Tertullian:

>"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the 'rock on which the church should be built' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and earth'?" (Prescription Against Heretics, 22)

Cyprian of Carthage:

>Peter is the one "whom the Lord chose first and upon whom he built His Church" (Epistle 71, 3.1)

>"Peter, upon whom the Lord had already built the Church" (Epistle 59:7)

>"Peter, upon whom the Church had been built" (Epistle 66:8)

>"Upon him [i.e., Peter] he builds his church, and to him hands over in trust his sheep to be fed and, although he might assign to all apostles equal power, he established one Chair and ordained by his own authority that Chair as the source of unity and its guiding principle. The remaining apostles were of necessity that which Peter was, but the first place was granted to Peter . . . Can anyone believe that he himself sticks fast to the faith without sticking fast to the unity of Peter? Can someone be confident that he himself is in the Church if he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church is founded? . . ." "On one man he builds his Church and although he assigns to all the apostles after the resurrection equal power . . . nevertheless in order that he might reveal their unity, he ordained by his own authority that the source of the same unity should begin from the man who began the series. The remaining apostles were necessarily also that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership both in honor and of power, but the starting point from which they begin is from their unity with him in order that the Church of Christ might be exemplified as one" (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 4-5)

>Peter is ultimately the source of all episcopal authority from whom "flows the appointment of bishops and the organization of the church, with bishop succeeding bishop down through the course of time" (Letter 33)

Jerome:

>Peter, "who believed in Christ the rock [petra] was granted the name of Peter [Petrus]. And in accordance with the metaphor of rock [petra], it is rightly said to him 'I will build my church upon you.'" (Commentary on Matthew 3.16.18)

>"The Church is founded upon Peter, although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one of the Twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed there may be no occasion for schism" (Against Jovinianus 1.26)

Hilary of Poitiers:

>Praise is due for "blessed Simon, who after the profession of the revealed doctrines became the foundation for the building of the Church and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (The Trinity, 6.20)

>"Oh happy is the foundation of the Church, worthy is the rock upon which the Church is built, against which the laws of Hell and the gates of Tartarus and all prisons of death are broken. O blessed porter of heaven, by whose decree the keys of eternity's entrance are handed over, and whose earthly judgment with heavenly authority has already been decreed" (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 16.7)

Origen:

>Peter is the one "on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Commentary on John 5.3)

Epiphanius of Salamis:

>Peter is "First of the Apostles, the solid rock upon which the Church of God would be built . . . For in every way the faith was made firm in him who received the key of heaven, is the one who looses upon the earth and binds in heaven" (Ancoratus 9)

Aphrahat:

>Peter is "the foundation . . . the edifice of the Church" (Demonstration 7.15)

Basil of Caesarea:

>The apostles and prophets are "holy mountains" upon which the "foundations of the Church" are built, and "one such mountain was also Peter, and the Lord promised to build his Church upon this rock . . . the soul of blessed Peter has been called a high rock because it is firmly rooted in faith" (Commentary on Isaiah, 2.66)

>>564609

No.

>>564794

Gregory of Nyssa:

>Peter is memored because he is "head of the apostles . . . [and] in virtue of the gift that the Lord conferred upon him, the firm and most solid rock upon which the Savior has constructed the Church" (Altera Laudatio S. Stephani Protomartyris)

Ephraim the Syrian:

>"My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, ebcause you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples" (Sermones in Hebdomadam Sanctum 4.1)

Isidore of Seville:

>"After Christ the order of priesthood began with Peter. For to him the pontificate in the Church was given first . . . He was therefore the first to receive the authority of binding and loosing . . . And since the other apostles also became equal sharers with Peter in honor and authority, they also preached the gospel dispersed throughout the world. Coming after them, there succeeded the bishops, who have been set up in the seats of the apostles" (De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, 2.5-6)

Bede:

>"Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other apostles . . . Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests" (Homily 1.20)

Augustine of Hippo:

>It's clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you I will hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ" (Sermon 149.5-6)

>"It is not without reason that, among the apostles, it is Peter who represents the Catholic Church. For the keys of the kingdom of haven were given to this church when they were given to Peter. And when it was said to him, it was said to all: 'Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep'" (The Christian Combat )

>"If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys And what am I to say? That it is only we who bind, only we who loose? No, you also bind, you also loose Anybody who's bound, you see, iN)s barred from your society; and when he's barred from your society, he's bound by you; and when he's reconciled he's loosed by you, because you too plead with God for him" (Sermon 229N)

>"After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged pre-eminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, "To you I am entrusting,' what has in fact been entrusted to all" (Sermon 295)

>>564753

I didn't say "ok," I said the opposite of that…

I just thought it'd be interesting to see what it meant for various writers of (or against) the Church for the Church to be formed by God's command through St. Peter…

Do you really want me to stop now? Is it uninteresting? What's left after that is their exegesis of John 21:15-19, and St. Leo the Great's particular interpretation.

Then there's the way Peter and Rome were actually understood to be related in the history of the Church, but I guess that's too long…

>>564796

>>564796

And throwing literally 100 quotes will achieve what ? That I'm bored after the first post and don't bother to go ahead ? Yeah. That, sure you did accomplish.

Additionally, it was no slander to say "orthodoxy" is politically driven, because it is. Back then, you were busy making sure to get protection of the muslim hordes in Istanbul - literally preventing the mending of the great schism - now the Russians literally make politics as "spirital arm" of Putin. Or why do you think does patriarch Kiril throw shit on the West in almost every sermon ? Or that high ranked clergy write a letter to the Pope, literally throwing memes at him ? You sure will acknowledge that this is unbearable behavior in the face of massive degeneracy in front of your own door, right ? And not only that, but do you see catholic clergy regularly throwing shit at you, your churches or your clergy ? No ? Exactly, because they don't care for political memes.

Or how about the monks on Mt. Athos not recognizing /any/ baptism, not even the Catholic one ? Or that the laity gets to vote whether new dogma is appropriate and shall be instated or not ? Or that you litearlly cannot assemble an ecumenical council (jokes on you, it's not ecumenical without the Pope in first place) over issues such as "which patriarch sits where" ? Or how about that there are "orthodox" churches that aren't recognized by one bunch or the "orthodox" community, but by the others ? Macedonian "orthodoxy" is a great example. Now they're even begging the Bulgarian church to pose as some kind of "mother church" in order to get recognized.

"Orthodoxy" is not catholic. Not even in the sense of "katholikos". "Orthodoxy" is the original protestant denomination. And until you overcome the struggle, swallow your pride and fimally get back to Rome, there's no reason to talk to you other than asking every 10 years whether you're ready to come back home or not.

>>564806

I see… Sorry I tried to have a discussion. Allow me to retire. Please pray for me.

>>564808

So you think that overwhelming someone with copy pasted quotes, which literally take hours if not days to properly read and comprehend - and I will not assume you did rip them out of context … I won't - in fully, not just the parts you posted, makes a discussion ? Do you seriously think that ?

>>564810

I did not copy-paste them, I wrote them down. Considering that the Fathers' commentaries on the Old Testament are unavailable online, I couldn't possibly have copy-pasted them, anyway.

Yes, I did think that it would help make an interesting discussion, to dive into what it means precisely for the Church to be built through Peter, this formidable apostle, since the OP mentionned it. I do not see why it seems shocking to you, and your claim that it takes hours or even days to read these citations is dishonest.

But, I'm sorry if I disturbed the thread.

>>564813

>Fathers' commentaries on the Old Testament

Everything's available online, son.

>>564754

T- Tweetman?

>>564609

It kinda depends on the standard of the "one true faith". If you place the time and teachings apostles as the absolute way to live for Christians, then no, Roman Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy) isn't the true faith, even Peter D. Williams when defending the Marian dogmas fully admits that RCatholic dogmas have developed over time.

But Protestants (expect for few groups, like Anglicanism) try to keep the primordial tradition of God, our savior, as they were taught to His followers.

>>564854

>even Peter D. Williams when defending the Marian dogmas fully admits that RCatholic dogmas have developed over time

So?

>>564854

No salvation outside the Church.

>>564856

>We follow what the apostles taught(traditions)

>Development over time

YOU HAD ONE JOB!

>>564859

The thing is, when people think they're smarter than the Church as a whole (heresy, in plain terms), you have to set things in stone so that normal people won't be swayed as easily. It's that simple. Dogma doesn't evolve, it's defined.

>>564859

The Church lives; just as Our Lord and Savior does.

Unless you think Christ giving the Church the authority to bind on Heaven and Earth was just…a very round-about way of telling them to never change…or something?

>>564861

>1500 years of Christians are hell-bound because of a liar monk.

it's such a bad joke.

>>564609

that's what I believe. But is a hard accusation against me since I am a very bad christian.

>>564813

You did fine.

>>564861

Emphasizes on "try to". Every Christian who utilizes the primordial traditions of Christ and His followers as their basic standard of dogmatic faith is of apostolic origin. Question is; do the "early churches" follow that, I believe that they did-up to the the rise of monasticism as the predominate method of faith for church leaders . Thing is about monasticism (or having access to the bible) however is that not everyone had the capability. If one has a demanding job or just physically incapable of doing so, so, there is always hope that there were people who still kept the primordial faith in the mist of these normalizing heresies we see closer into our timeline.

>>564866

>The Church lives; just as Our Lord and Savior does.

Have you ever noticed whenever Christ speaks about positions of authority in the church He always follows up a quality of character rather than a specific person (expect for John the Baptist)?

What kind of authority to bind on Heaven and earth was explained in Matthew 18 as to accept to reject people into the kingdom-not feeling which direction of the wind is facing to determined what development of dogma we should have.

>>564632

Ayy another Maronite. Are you Lebanese man?

>>564863

>>565021

Here's what makes me scratch my head about Catholicism. How can a human be the infallible mediator for God? Humans are not infallible. We are fully saints and fully sinners as I believe Lutheran puts it. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is only without sin. That's why I believe there to be room for "corruption", so to speak in the Catholic Church.

>>565662

It's not the Pope, in his person, who is infallible. Rather, it is the institution of the Papacy - the chair of St. Peter - that is infallible, because of Christ's special promise to Peter alone, which transfers to the bishop of Rome alone.

And St. Peter is not infallible on his own either - he is infallible because Christ, the only infallible one, has appointed him to be his vicar, the shepherd of His flock until He returns.

>>566732

It was clearly understood by the 9th century that, while Peter, Alexandria, and Antioch enjoy a Petrine primacy over the other churches, this is even more so true of Rome because Peter had not only founded it, but also "sanctified it with his blood" (ie, he got martyred there).

Antioch may have the honors of being founded by Peter and being where we were first called Christians, but Rome has something that no other Church has - Peter's martyrdom.

>>565662

>How can a human be the infallible mediator for God?

Omnipotence of God.

>>565662

Also, perhaps you might have a wrong impression of papal infallibility - it doesn't mean that the pope has a supernatural knowledge of the truth not accessible to your average Catholic; rather, it means that God will protect the faith by preventing the pope from proclaiming a heresy ex cathedra. Even if the pope tries to do this, it will be impossible for him, because God won't allow it.

>>566749

What counts as "ex cathedra"?

>>566750

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

>>566758

>>566756

Why are Catholics panicking right now that the pope may be a heretic if his addition of a particular interpretation of Amoris Laetitia to the authentic Magisterium was not ex cathedra?

Why is it not ex cathedra? I don't see how it doesn't fulfill these conditions.

>>566795

>Why are Catholics panicking right now

SSPX LARPers aren't Catholic.

>>566812

In this thread

>>566795

>Why is it not ex cathedra? I don't see how it doesn't fulfill these conditions.

Read some previous statements universally held to have been proclaimed ex cathedra - perhaps this will give you a better idea of the content of this doctrine than a definition alone (and if you want to get an even better idea, read also the debatable and uncertain ones like the John Paul II's declaration about the impossibility of female ordination, together with the reasons people give to argue that they have not been ex cathedra).