Debating with Catholics

[winsome]

Debating with Catholics

In this, and other forums that I have posted in, the discussions between Catholics and Protestants often degenerates and exchanges can become angry and charity levels fall. There are many reasons and I would like to offer some thoughts regarding discussion between Protestants and Catholics.

This is of course from my own experience and perspective, but I think some of the points I can risk generalising. And please note - I am NOT getting at anyone in particular.

Firstly there are many quite virulently anti-Catholic websites that convey (to our perspective) misleading quotes, half truths, distortions and downright lies. There seems to be no equivalent attack by any denomination on others, for example Lutherans, Baptists or Methodists, or even Orthodox who are very close to Catholics on many doctrines and practices, and particularly in their veneration of Mary. This can lead to two effects:

1. People who get their information about Catholic from such web sites come to the discussion with an anti-Catholic perspective and instead of asking Catholics what they actually believe about x or y, they assume they know and that Catholics are wrong. They often therefore enter the debate with what seem to Catholics to be provocative accusations and deliberate distortions of our beliefs and practices. It would seem much more sensible to me to actually ask Catholics first about an issue – and listen to the answer.

2. Catholics can become defensive and prickly because they see this as yet another attack on them. I'm not saying we have a persecution complex, but it can become quite wearing to have the same things thrown at us with (apparently) no attempt to try and understand our point of view, and understanding of scripture.

Secondly Catholics seem to have a much greater sense of history that many Protestants. We believe that our Church started in apostolic times and has continued in unbroken continuity since then. You may dispute this but this, but it is part of our worldview that you need to take into account. We regularly celebrate feast days of the Saints of the past and remember them and their work for the Church.

Thirdly it is useful to distinguish between doctrine and practices. Doctrine is what we believe and once formally formulated it becomes dogma and is unchangeable. Practices can and do change. Doctrines & Dogmas are universal, practices can be local and "inculturated

[JustChristian]

When I was Catholic on message boards I didn't mind when people disagreed.  I just preferred when they disagreed with something that Catholic Church actually taught. 

In  Christ,
Nancy :)

[desertknight]

When I was Catholic on message boards I didn't mind when people disagreed.  I just preferred when they disagreed with something that Catholic Church actually taught.  

In  Christ,
Nancy :)

And that is what is so frustrating for us.  I just don't know where that comes from.  I wouldn't think to engage a Presbyterian in debate and when he explained "total depravity" to me, say, "Oh, no, that isn't what you guys actually believe, you believe this!"  As an example, I had an erroneous notion of what a person who was a Methodist believed, when we were discussing the nature of the Eucharist and he told me about how even though they do not believe in the "Real Presence" as such, they do believe that Christ is "truly" present as an undefined "mystery".  Now, I still disagreed with the person but I found a new understanding with them and learned something about Methodists beliefs which I would not have otherwise known.  For some reason, that sort of thing just doesn't seem to happen in this forum.  I think if that sort of debate happened more often in this forum, people would realise that far more is shared in common among all Christians, then what separates us. 

[Selene]

And that is what is so frustrating for us.  I just don't know where that comes from.  I wouldn't think to engage a Presbyterian in debate and when he explained "total depravity" to me, say, "Oh, no, that isn't what you guys actually believe, you believe this!"  
[/quote] 

Exactly!

[zoonance]

And that is what is so frustrating for us.  I just don't know where that comes from.  I wouldn't think to engage a Presbyterian in debate and when he explained "total depravity" to me, say, "Oh, no, that isn't what you guys actually believe, you believe this!" 

Exactly!
[/quote]

same with my tradition!   "You of the coc believe this...."

[zoonance]

When I was Catholic on message boards I didn't mind when people disagreed.  I just preferred when they disagreed with something that Catholic Church actually taught. 

In  Christ,
Nancy :)

And that is what is so frustrating for us.  I just don't know where that comes from.  I wouldn't think to engage a Presbyterian in debate and when he explained "total depravity" to me, say, "Oh, no, that isn't what you guys actually believe, you believe this!"  As an example, I had an erroneous notion of what a person who was a Methodist believed, when we were discussing the nature of the Eucharist and he told me about how even though they do not believe in the "Real Presence" as such, they do believe that Christ is "truly" present as an undefined "mystery".  Now, I still disagreed with the person but I found a new understanding with them and learned something about Methodists beliefs which I would not have otherwise known.  For some reason, that sort of thing just doesn't seem to happen in this forum.  I think if that sort of debate happened more often in this forum, people would realise that far more is shared in common among all Christians, then what separates us.

Real presence only occurs if the humans gathering believe it occurs?     Forgiveness of sins only occurs if the human believes it does during immersion?  Jesus only rose from the grave if humans believe he did?   etc etc etc.   Debate and doctrine.   Can't it really turn into a human intellectual pursuit which develops obstacles which prohibits the unity that Jesus prayed for?   Jesus didn't pray for intellectual purity of doctrine in the details.  He did pray for unity which was based on love, not doctrine.   The church is failing in the biggies from demanding intellectual pursuit of the details.

[winsome]

When I was Catholic on message boards I didn't mind when people disagreed.  I just preferred when they disagreed with something that Catholic Church actually taught. 

In  Christ,
Nancy :)

And that is what is so frustrating for us.  I just don't know where that comes from.  I wouldn't think to engage a Presbyterian in debate and when he explained "total depravity" to me, say, "Oh, no, that isn't what you guys actually believe, you believe this!"  As an example, I had an erroneous notion of what a person who was a Methodist believed, when we were discussing the nature of the Eucharist and he told me about how even though they do not believe in the "Real Presence" as such, they do believe that Christ is "truly" present as an undefined "mystery".  Now, I still disagreed with the person but I found a new understanding with them and learned something about Methodists beliefs which I would not have otherwise known.  For some reason, that sort of thing just doesn't seem to happen in this forum.  I think if that sort of debate happened more often in this forum, people would realise that far more is shared in common among all Christians, then what separates us.

Real presence only occurs if the humans gathering believe it occurs?     Forgiveness of sins only occurs if the human believes it does during immersion?  Jesus only rose from the grave if humans believe he did?   etc etc etc.   Debate and doctrine.   Can't it really turn into a human intellectual pursuit which develops obstacles which prohibits the unity that Jesus prayed for?   Jesus didn't pray for intellectual purity of doctrine in the details.  He did pray for unity which was based on love, not doctrine.   The church is failing in the biggies from demanding intellectual pursuit of the details.

Jesus prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 17:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17)

And the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42)

Do you believe that the Father would honour Jesus' prayer? I do.

I am therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.

That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ's one fold (Jn 10:16).

If you are not part of the Church that Jesus founded on the Apostles (Eph 2:20), the Church that was described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), then you need to join it to preserve the unity that Jesus prayed for his Church.

[zoonance]

History and scriptural evidence doesn't support at all that Peter was much of a head.

[desertknight]

History and scriptural evidence doesn't support at all that Peter was much of a head.

Matthew 16:18-19  "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 21:15  "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

[ex cathedra]

History and scriptural evidence doesn't support at all that Peter was much of a head.

Matthew 16:18-19  "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 21:15  "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Read the Lutheran confessions on the primacy and power of the pope . Scripture clearly shows that Jesus HIMSELF SOUNDLY rebukes any and every idea and attempt by any apostle that any apostle or follower of JESUS is head over any of the others.

In fact he holds up a little babe as an example they must follow .
and that's not the worst of it either-- - see further how he rebukes them. For even trying to be more important or head over the other. listen to their squabbles over this and how easily Jesus REBUKES THESE POOR DUMB stupid CREATURES OF HIS . Jesus Being God really has no trouble rebuking poor stupid peter for his silly stupid attempts at this to. One almost feels sorry For poor dumb stupid peter as God so easily makes OF him the fool He really is
The pope should have picked st Paul To be a successor of

at least he had a little more dignity in holy scriptures  .

but now the pope is a good comedian and a great clown IN his own right that we can laugh at, rather than with   .
For we see how he misuses and appeals to Holy scriptures
when its to his advantage . But when it Is not we see also how he shuns them and acts as if they have no importance , what so ever.

[pointmade]

desertknight: "Matthew 16:18-19  "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Did Peter ever claim that he was the Pope or the foundation of the church that Jesus said, "I will build my church"?  There can be no doubt of the high place which was given to Peter at the establishment of the church. He was given the keys of the kingdom and most defiantly used the "keys" or "words".to unlock the kingdom that Jesus spoke. When the church or kingdom came with "power" at Pentecost to the Jews it was Peter's words that were to be "harkened to ." (Acts 2:14). Approximately 10 years later Peter was sent to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and unlocked the kingdom to the uncircumcised.

I note that neither occurrence required him to claim authority over the church or kingdom that he held the "keys".  At both places in history Peter informed the "hearer,"  Jew and Gentile the requirements of pardon or entrance. "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38).

As the Roman Catholic Church developed and finally in the sixth century Gregory 1 (A.D. 590-604) came to power as the "First Pope." He established for himself complete control over the churches of Italy. Spain, Gaul, and England whose Conversion to Christianity was the great event of Gregory's times. Effort was made to justify the office by saying that Peter was the first Pope and was appointed at Caesaea Philippi. But even as late as Augustine there was no unanimity of interpretation of this passage in various ways, with Christ as the rock or with Peter as the rock. The attempt to make out that the church was founded on Peter was a view which grew up with the Catholic church. They emphasize the similarity of the words for Peter and rock and the prominence of Peter in the church.

A fact overlooked in Matthew's recording of 16:16: There are two Greek words used for the name of Peter. "Petros," a masculine noun meaning a piece broken off a great mass of rock; the name for the foundation of the church is "patra," a feminine noun meaning a solid mass of virgin rock like the cliffs along the seacoast. Some have said that "petros' meaning a pebble. The word is used at times to mean a stone so small it could be used in a slingshot. But it is also used of a stone large enough to set up as a boundary marker. In either case is is a piece broken off a mass of rock.

The fact that Matthew uses two words shows that there was this discrimination made in Jesus' original statement in Aramaic. Any attempt to show that there is no distinction is a direct attack upon the veracity of Matthew. He was present and heard what Jesus said. A change of tone or a gesture by Jesus could have underscored the different words used. But there was the difference. Matthew affirms it. Christ is the living "Stone" on whom the church is founded and Peter informs us in 1 Peter 2:3-4 late in his life. Interesting that Jesus would call this apostle by his given name, "Simon, son of Jonas" in John 21:17.

[desertknight]

Did Peter ever claim that he was the Pope or the foundation of the church that Jesus said, "I will build my church"?  There can be no doubt of the high place which was given to Peter at the establishment of the church. He was given the keys of the kingdom and most defiantly used the "keys" or "words".to unlock the kingdom that Jesus spoke. When the church or kingdom came with "power" at Pentecost to the Jews it was Peter's words that were to be "harkened to ." (Acts 2:14). Approximately 10 years later Peter was sent to the Gentiles (Acts 10) and unlocked the kingdom to the uncircumcised.

I note that neither occurrence required him to claim authority over the church or kingdom that he held the "keys".  At both places in history Peter informed the "hearer,"  Jew and Gentile the requirements of pardon or entrance. "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38).

I'm uncertain as to your question here as you seem to agree with me, but as to the only one you asked, "Did Peter ever claim...?", I can only answer, is it not enough that our Lord clearly did?  It was not simply being given the keys, but our Lord's clear statement that it was Peter that was to be the rock of foundation of His Church.  Peter who's authority would bind in heaven what he did on earth.  Peter who the Lord told to "feed my sheep" as His earthly shepherd.  Surely our Lord was not mistaken.

As the Roman Catholic Church developed and finally in the sixth century Gregory 1 (A.D. 590-604) came to power as the "First Pope." He established for himself complete control over the churches of Italy. Spain, Gaul, and England whose Conversion to Christianity was the great event of Gregory's times. Effort was made to justify the office by saying that Peter was the first Pope and was appointed at Caesaea Philippi. But even as late as Augustine there was no unanimity of interpretation of this passage in various ways, with Christ as the rock or with Peter as the rock. The attempt to make out that the church was founded on Peter was a view which grew up with the Catholic church. They emphasize the similarity of the words for Peter and rock and the prominence of Peter in the church.

That is an interesting take on history.  How does one explain all of those Popes who came before Gregory I and left such prolific writing and such well known histories as the chief bishop of the Church?  You have Clement I, who was likely ordained by Peter himself and who exercised the earliest record we have of petrine primacy outside of the NT canon with his intervening in the church at Corinth.  His epistle concerning that occasion, 1st Clement, was widely considered part of the NT canon until it was eventually excluded over time.  Pius I reigned from AD 140-154.  He decreed that Easter only be celebrated on Sunday, and opposed the Valentinians and Gnostics under Marcion, whom he excommunicated.  Pope Eleuterus reigned from AD 174-179.  During the violent persecution at Lyon, in 177, local confessors wrote from their prison concerning the new movement to the Asiatic and Phrygian communities, and also to Pope Eleuterus. The bearer of their letter to the pope was the presbyter Irenaeus, soon to become Bishop of Lyon.  Odd thing for a man who wasn't Pope, don't you think?  Pope Cornelius, elected 21st Pope in AD 251, so angered a dissident theologian, Novatian, who had failed to be elected, that he proclaimed himself the anti-pope and set off a schism over their differing views on how to deal with Christians who had lapsed and wished to return.  Damasus I ordered Jerome to begin the translation of Greek texts into what would become the Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate.   I could go on and on, suffice it to say, your accounting has , Soviet style, airbrushed out of history 63 Popes before Gregory, many of them involved with well known ecclesiastical events and conflicts recorded in history.  Pretty tough to simply pretend it doesn't exist.

You claim there was no unanimity of agreement as to Peter's Primacy in Matt. 16.  Can you please post some link to a valid source from the early Church fathers who disagreed on the subject?  All I can find is a great unanimity of opinion.    St. Cyprian, well before Pope Gregory, speaks to that opinion...

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the Church's oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

A fact overlooked in Matthew's recording of 16:16: There are two Greek words used for the name of Peter. "Petros," a masculine noun meaning a piece broken off a great mass of rock; the name for the foundation of the church is "patra," a feminine noun meaning a solid mass of virgin rock like the cliffs along the seacoast. Some have said that "petros' meaning a pebble. The word is used at times to mean a stone so small it could be used in a slingshot. But it is also used of a stone large enough to set up as a boundary marker. In either case is is a piece broken off a mass of rock.

The fact that Matthew uses two words shows that there was this discrimination made in Jesus' original statement in Aramaic. Any attempt to show that there is no distinction is a direct attack upon the veracity of Matthew. He was present and heard what Jesus said. A change of tone or a gesture by Jesus could have underscored the different words used. But there was the difference. Matthew affirms it. Christ is the living "Stone" on whom the church is founded and Peter informs us in 1 Peter 2:3-4 late in his life. Interesting that Jesus would call this apostle by his given name, "Simon, son of Jonas" in John 21:17.

Uh, no.  1.  No distinction is possible in Aramaic.  2.  No distinction exist in the Koine Greek that the NT was written in and that was used in Palestine at the time.  Only Attic Greek has any such distinction...

"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew's Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary's argument didn't work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar's admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368)."

"What's more," I said, "in Paul's epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon's new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn't Greek. That's a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn't mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: 'You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.'"

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

[zoonance]

History and scriptural evidence doesn't support at all that Peter was much of a head.

Matthew 16:18-19  "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 21:15  "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Scriptural evidence that he was quite the binder and looser (a word?)?   There is no evidence of a "following" but rather he disappears rather quickly.  Paul eventually does too and leaves John with the final word.  History nor sctipture supports the idea that he was much of a head despite the misguided musing of the generations trying to grasp at a meaningful history in the midst of newfound freedom from persecution.

[desertknight]

...Scriptural evidence that he was quite the binder and looser (a word?)?

Hmmm....are you just not seeing it?    

Matt. 16  "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I mean, you keep asking for "scriptural evidence" and I keep thinking, "Does this guy just not believe those words of our Saviour in the Bible which is in plain language?"  How much more clear can Scripture get?

There is no evidence of a "following" but rather he disappears rather quickly.

Again, hmmmmm......To the contrary, Peter is always mentioned first in the lists of the Twelve given in the canonical gospels.  Peter is the spokesman in the Gospels of all the apostles in almost every account.  Both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. He conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial, etc, etc.  

History nor sctipture supports the idea that he was much of a head despite the misguided musing of the generations trying to grasp at a meaningful history in the midst of newfound freedom from persecution.

And again...

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the Church's oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)."

"Stephen, 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...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257]

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352]

I keep posting these writings from the Church Fathers and you keep asserting that no such evidence exist in history and so I am a bit baffled.  You are reading them, are you not?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Secondly Catholics seem to have a much greater sense of history that many Protestants. We believe that our Church started in apostolic times and has continued in unbroken continuity since then. You may dispute this but this, but it is part of our worldview that you need to take into account. We regularly celebrate feast days of the Saints of the past and remember them and their work for the Church.

Many protestants are acutely interested in the Pre-Nicene era.  Far more so than the Catholics I've met, it seems.

And, if we'll be honest, nobody is really interested in the Dark Ages, as the whole era is just an embarassment to Christianity generally.

[zoonance]

...Scriptural evidence that he was quite the binder and looser (a word?)?

Hmmm....are you just not seeing it?   

Matt. 16  "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I mean, you keep asking for "scriptural evidence" and I keep thinking, "Does this guy just not believe those words of our Saviour in the Bible which is in plain language?"  How much more clear can Scripture get?

There is no evidence of a "following" but rather he disappears rather quickly.

Again, hmmmmm......To the contrary, Peter is always mentioned first in the lists of the Twelve given in the canonical gospels.  Peter is the spokesman in the Gospels of all the apostles in almost every account.  Both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that Peter had an authority that superseded that of the other apostles. He conducts the election of Matthias, his opinion in the debate over converting Gentiles was crucial, etc, etc. 

History nor sctipture supports the idea that he was much of a head despite the misguided musing of the generations trying to grasp at a meaningful history in the midst of newfound freedom from persecution.

And again...

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the Church's oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)."

"Stephen, 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...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257]

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352]

I keep posting these writings from the Church Fathers and you keep asserting that no such evidence exist in history and so I am a bit baffled.  You are reading them, are you not?

What did he bind and what did he loose?

[zoonance]

I recognize the need to quote the "fathers"

[desertknight]

I recognize the need to quote the "fathers"

Good.    Many non-Catholics do not and so are led to commit errors in the faith that have long ago been addressed by the Fathers.

[desertknight]

What did he bind and what did he loose?

I don't know specifically as to your question other than what Holy Scripture gives us as some evidence.  Is it your position that even though the Lord, God incarnate as flesh Himself, specifically gave him that power, that it somehow, didn't take? 

I'm still uncertain as to your point.  Obviously Peter was the leader of the Apostles and obviously he was specifically singled out by Our Lord, so what is your position, then?

[winsome]

Uh, no.  1.  No distinction is possible in Aramaic.  2.  No distinction exist in the Koine Greek that the NT was written in and that was used in Palestine at the time.  Only Attic Greek has any such distinction...

"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew's Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary's argument didn't work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar's admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368)."

"What's more," I said, "in Paul's epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon's new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn't Greek. That's a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn't mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: 'You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.'"

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Another point on Peter the Rock.

Jesus gives Peter his new name right back at the beginning:
Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas

[zoonance]

What did he bind and what did he loose?

I don't know specifically as to your question other than what Holy Scripture gives us as some evidence.  Is it your position that even though the Lord, God incarnate as flesh Himself, specifically gave him that power, that it somehow, didn't take? 

I'm still uncertain as to your point.  Obviously Peter was the leader of the Apostles and obviously he was specifically singled out by Our Lord, so what is your position, then?

I do not see ANY evidence that supports that he was the leader of the Apostles.  I see the preeminence of Paul and the "so called leadership" (Paul's words) of James et al. but Peter was not portrayed as a leader of the Jerusalem church, though he was a witness whose testimony gave Paul the right hand of fellowship.    The fathers that were quoted do not give the scriptural evidence any meat.

[zoonance]

Peter's name change is at least a biblical point.   He did preach the first sermon recorded post resurrection.   However, there is no evidence otherwise that HE was the rock the other apostles stood on...  There simply isn't.  I didn't intend to debate by the way. Just an observation.   I get it.  Yes he was.  No he wasn't. Yes he was. No he wasn't.  sounds more like two kids on the playground rather than godly men doing being the light and salt of the earth.   I don't see any reason to "Come Home" based on doctrine.  Unity as evidenced by love is far more biblically convincing.

[Selene]

I do not see ANY evidence that supports that he was the leader of the Apostles.  I see the preeminence of Paul and the "so called leadership" (Paul's words) of James et al. but Peter was not portrayed as a leader of the Jerusalem church, though he was a witness whose testimony gave Paul the right hand of fellowship.    The fathers that were quoted do not give the scriptural evidence any meat.

St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles.  In the Bible, Christ selected twelve apostles from his many disciples and these 12 are recorded in all the Gospels except John and also in the Acts of the Apostles (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).  In these four places, the names of the Twelve are given, but not in the same order.  Peter is at the head of all four lists although he was no tthe first follower of our Lord (John 1:40), nor the oldest (Andrew was older, according to tradition), nor the most beloved one (John 21:7,20).  

St. Peter always acted as the spokesman of the Twelve (Matt. 15:15; 17:23; 18:21; Mark 10:28; John 6:69).  

He was the only one who was given the keys, which symbolized power and authority (Matt. 16:18-19).  

He was also the only one whom Christ told three times to take care of His sheep (John 21).  The Lord told St. Peter and only St. Peter to take care of His entire flock.  

When John and Peter ran to the empty tomb, it was John who reached Jesus' tomb first, but John didn't enter the tomb. He waited outside and allowed Peter to enter the tomb first (John 20:3-6).  This is shown as a sign of respect.  John allowed Peter to enter first as a sign of respect because Peter was the leader of the Apostles.  There are many other verses showing that St. Peter was chosen as leader.  The one in John 21 is clearly the best example because in that biblical scripture, Christ told St. Peter and only St. Peter to take care of His flock. 

[zoonance]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them.

[Selene]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them. 

The same sheep feeding that Jesus did.

[zoonance]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them. 

The same sheep feeding that Jesus did.

The same sheep feeding we all do.    Peter had just denied his Savior a few days earlier after swearing he never would.  Peter needed to hear from Jesus that he was forgiven and needed to know he was still trusted.  I don't see any evidence that sheep feeding is only through one man.

[Selene]

The same sheep feeding we all do.    Peter had just denied his Savior a few days earlier after swearing he never would.  Peter needed to hear from Jesus that he was forgiven and needed to know he was still trusted.  I don't see any evidence that sheep feeding is only through one man.

When Christ died on the cross, all sins were forgiven.  The fact that Christ told St. Peter and only St. Peter is the evidence that only one man was entrusted to take care of Christ's sheep.  Where in the Bible do you see Christ telling Matthew or Paul or even John to take care of His sheep?  It was only to St. Peter that he told to take care of His sheep.  

[winsome]

I do not see ANY evidence that supports that he was the leader of the Apostles.  I see the preeminence of Paul and the "so called leadership" (Paul's words) of James et al. but Peter was not portrayed as a leader of the Jerusalem church, though he was a witness whose testimony gave Paul the right hand of fellowship.    The fathers that were quoted do not give the scriptural evidence any meat.

St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles.  In the Bible, Christ selected twelve apostles from his many disciples and these 12 are recorded in all the Gospels except John and also in the Acts of the Apostles (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).  In these four places, the names of the Twelve are given, but not in the same order.  Peter is at the head of all four lists although he was no tthe first follower of our Lord (John 1:40), nor the oldest (Andrew was older, according to tradition), nor the most beloved one (John 21:7,20).  

St. Peter always acted as the spokesman of the Twelve (Matt. 15:15; 17:23; 18:21; Mark 10:28; John 6:69).  

He was the only one who was given the keys, which symbolized power and authority (Matt. 16:18-19).  

He was also the only one whom Christ told three times to take care of His sheep (John 21).  The Lord told St. Peter and only St. Peter to take care of His entire flock.  

When John and Peter ran to the empty tomb, it was John who reached Jesus' tomb first, but John didn't enter the tomb. He waited outside and allowed Peter to enter the tomb first (John 20:3-6).  This is shown as a sign of respect.  John allowed Peter to enter first as a sign of respect because Peter was the leader of the Apostles.  There are many other verses showing that St. Peter was chosen as leader.  The one in John 21 is clearly the best example because in that biblical scripture, Christ told St. Peter and only St. Peter to take care of His flock. 

Add in that that when Jesus asked the apostles "But who do you say that I am?

[winsome]

However, there is no evidence otherwise that HE was the rock the other apostles stood on...  There simply isn't. 

But there is. It is standard grammar that a pronoun such as "this" in "this rock" refers to the nearest noun, which is Peter, and not to some noun several clauses away, or two sentences away. Any other suggestions are not grammatical. And in addition to that there is the obvious pun on "rock".

[desertknight]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them.  

The same sheep feeding that Jesus did.

The same sheep feeding we all do.    Peter had just denied his Savior a few days earlier after swearing he never would.  Peter needed to hear from Jesus that he was forgiven and needed to know he was still trusted.  I don't see any evidence that sheep feeding is only through one man.

But only one man was given the specific designation that Peter has.  I am utterly baffled when you say, "There is no evidence of Peter's leadership.", given that Christ gave him that very specific authority in Matt. 16.  That Christ very specifically told him that he was to be the rock of foundation of His Church and what he bound on this earth would be bound in heaven.  I guess what you are at least inferring, is that the Son of God's word is just not good enough.  Like Thomas, you won't believe His words alone.  

Are the word's of the Son of God good enough for you?

[winsome]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them. 

The same sheep feeding that Jesus did.

The same sheep feeding we all do.    Peter had just denied his Savior a few days earlier after swearing he never would.  Peter needed to hear from Jesus that he was forgiven and needed to know he was still trusted.  I don't see any evidence that sheep feeding is only through one man.

Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?

[mclees8]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them. 

The same sheep feeding that Jesus did.

The same sheep feeding we all do.    Peter had just denied his Savior a few days earlier after swearing he never would.  Peter needed to hear from Jesus that he was forgiven and needed to know he was still trusted.  I don't see any evidence that sheep feeding is only through one man.

Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?

[zoonance]

Sorry to waste everyone's time.

[winsome]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them. 

The same sheep feeding that Jesus did.

The same sheep feeding we all do.    Peter had just denied his Savior a few days earlier after swearing he never would.  Peter needed to hear from Jesus that he was forgiven and needed to know he was still trusted.  I don't see any evidence that sheep feeding is only through one man.

Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?

[mclees8]

What sheep feeding did he do?  (evidence)  I recognize the sound bites.  We all have them. 

The same sheep feeding that Jesus did.

The same sheep feeding we all do.    Peter had just denied his Savior a few days earlier after swearing he never would.  Peter needed to hear from Jesus that he was forgiven and needed to know he was still trusted.  I don't see any evidence that sheep feeding is only through one man.

Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?