| |||
 Did the Early Church Fathers deny Peter's Papacy?Hello all  I was reading a few arguments against Catholicism earlier in order to get a better idea what I'd be refuting in discussions with Protestants, and I came upon this, an article stating and offering proof that the ECF denied the Papacy. How would i refute this? By the way, I'm firm in my faith, just simply trying to learn |
Today, 12:54 am | |||
| |||
| Re: Did the Early Church Fathers deny Peter's Papacy? Quote:
|
Today, 1:39 am | |||
| |||
| Re: Did the Early Church Fathers deny Peter's Papacy? I can't help but comment on this kind of reasoning when I see it. Imagine that you come up with a really good reply to Webster's arguments from the link, and you present them to him. In response, he goes to his protestant buddies and says "Can someone show me how to refute this?" Has he done anything wrong in assuming your response was false before he'd found a good reply? Ordinarily, we tend to think so. I mean, think about it...if you presented your strongest case for Catholicism to someone, and were told in response that you were wrong, he just has to find out where you went wrong, would that sit well with you? As far as his material, I give two thumbs up to his arguments I mean, he's made mistakes; but, so has every apologist of any denomination. Trying to engage his arguments about the ECF's and the papacy as honestly as I could largely resulted in my leaving the RCC. So, I'm curious to see how others reply to his points. |
Posts
10 comments:
I wonder how long it will take 'Perplexity' to get one of these?
Forum Message
Your account has been locked for the following reason:
Contempt for Catholicism and proselytizing
This change will be lifted: Never
Hi Algo, this is an interesting series. I spent some time over there; seems like there are hundreds of people who all come at you.
My hope is to go back and respond to some of their questions, if I have some time. It's not a very high priority though.
Hi John,
I thought you were banned from CAF as well.
I recall the lengthy thread they had on you, it was about 100/1 all ganging up on you.
Hah, I got warned a few times, but not yet banned!
Lol @ Algo! Something tells me I'm not too far away from receiving the same message!
αγριόχοιρος
Get ready for the Big C.A.F Boot.
Perplexity said:
"I don't see how a single one of these is an example of the Roman interpretation of Matt. 16. The Roman interpretation of Matt. 16 is not that Peter is the rock, or that it was Peter who received the keys, etc. tout court. The Roman interpretation of Matt. 16 as stated by Vatican 1, Sess. 4, ch. 2 (and Leo XIII's explanation of this) is that here, jurisdictional primacy was immediately and directly conferred upon Peter by Jesus."
This is a fascinating point since Leo XIII used Cyprian as his prime example for proving jurisdictional primacy.
However Jurgens concludes:
“Cyprian, indeed, recognized that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of special and primatial position; but he had not thought of it as implying a universal jurisdiction.”
(Jurgens, pp. 219-220)
I haven't kept up with Mr. Webster. Has he done any recent works against Romanism?
James,
I know that Mr. Webster has been very busy with his business and preaching weekly. I have not seen anything new since his excellent response to Dr. Francis Beckwith.
PaulC said:
Quote:
Your personal beliefs have no impact on what is true. Like everyone on the planet, your soul is at stake by how you react to the graces God gives you, whether you chose to believe it or not. The historical claims that there are a documented line of Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI is unassailable. Likewise, the Early Church Fathers attest to the continuity of the Doctrines of the Church as well. There are many scholastic works that demonstrate this, most recently one by Jimmy Akin.. The Fathers Know Best."
I think PaulC is is referring to Jimmy Akin's 'quote book'.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/review-of-fathers-know-best-by-jimmy.html
Post a Comment