Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: RogerThat on September 28, 2016, 06:06:37 PM
-
So a friend of mine is arguing that in Matthew 16:18, Our Lord does establish his church on Peter but never confirms that it will never fall or that it wouldn't move or Christ's Church wouldn't be at one see forever.
Here is the line from Sacred Scripure:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Basically, he is using this argument to say that at some point in recent history, it could be possible that the "See of Peter," Christ's Church "moved" to one of the orthodox sees, like the Russian Orthodox Church. He believes that the Russian Orthodox Church might be the "New Rome" or the continuation of Christ's Church. He sites that the lack of a unified/definitive.true Magisterium in the church today makes its ministry invalid along with the bastardized sacraments.
I was wondering if any of you have heard such an argument before or know how to properly respond to it? I had never in my life heard anyone site Mathew 16:18 as a verse to support the validity/justification of a non-ROman church so I'm a little confused.
When I asked him if he considers himself a sede he said that he doesn't but because he believes the Russian bishops along with their Patriarch to be "successors" of that church which Jesus founded on Peter.
-
Tell your friend that it is more likely the SSPX is the new Church of Christ, since they continue with all the traditions of the Church, while the Russian Orthodox continue to be heretics.
Tell your friend that The Russian Orthodox church is a branch of the KGB. Before that, it was a branch of the government of the Tsar of Russian, same as the Anglican church.
Let him figure out for himself that he does not have a clue.
-
The See of Peter has been moved to a schismatic and heretical sect? Why move it when it can remain in Rome today and be schismatic and heretical?
-
The supremacy given to Peter by Jesus Christ was not only to the person of Peter (which most Orthodox) recognize; but also, to his successors and his Chair. That is important. How would the Chair be "movable" then? One only needs to find wherever the legitimate successor of St. Peter is and has been, to know where the Church is and has been. It is a docuмented, historical reality.
Part of the annotation for that verse Matthew 16:18 from the original Douay Rheims 1582 says:
18. Rock: The Adversaries hearing also of he Fathers sometimes say, that Peter had these promises and prerogatives, as bearing the person of all the Apostles or of the whole Church, deny absurdly that himself in person has these prerogatives. As though Peter had been the proctor only of the Church or of the Apostles, confessing the Faith and receiving these things in other mens names. Where the holy Doctors mean only that these prerogatives were not given to him for his own use, but for the good of the whole Church, and to be impaired to every vocation according to the measure of their callings: and that these great privileges given to Peter should not decay or die with his person, but be perpetual in the Church in his succession.
Therefore St. Jerome to Damascus taketh this Rock not to be Peter's person only, but his successors and his Chair. (saith he) "following no chief or principal but Christ, join myself to the communion of Peter's chair, upon that rock I know the Church was built". And St. Leo, "Our Lord would the Sacrament or mystery of this gifts so to pertain unto the office of all the Apostles, that he places it principally in blessed St. Peter the chief of all the Apostles, that from him as from a certain head he might pour out his gifts, as it were through the whole body: that he might understand himself to be an alien form the divine mystery that should presume to revolt from the solidity or steadfastness of Peter"
-
Further, St. Cyprian, writing about 250, during the vacancy of the chair after the death of Pope St. Fabian, describes it as follows: "cuм locus Fabiani, id est locus Petri et gradus cathedræ sacerdotalis vacaret" (when the place of Fabian, i.e. the place of Peter and the step of the sacerdotal chair were vacant). Still earlier, about 200, Tertullian writes, in his "De præscriptione bæreticorum": "Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ apostolorum suis locis præsident. Si Italiæ adjaces habes Romam" (Visit the Apostolic churches in (among) which the very chairs of the Apostles still preside in their places. If you are near Italy, there is Rome).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm
-
last:
Tell your friend that The Russian Orthodox church is a branch of the KGB. Before that, it was a branch of the government of the Tsar of Russian, same as the Anglican church.
I suppose that one could argue presently, as well, that the Holy See in Rome is a branch of Judaism.
-
last: Tell your friend that The Russian Orthodox church is a branch of the KGB. Before that, it was a branch of the government of the Tsar of Russian, same as the Anglican church.
I suppose that one could argue presently, as well, that the Holy See in Rome is a branch of Judaism.
Also it's not universal, one of the Marks of the Church, thus the name "Russian".
-
The section "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html#v.ii.i-p30.9)" of the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor Æternus (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html#v.ii.i-p24.147)) quotes these Scripture verses (including Matthew 16:18):
We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: 'Thou shalt be called Cephas,' [St. John 1:42 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=1&l=42#x)] that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' [St. Matthew 16:16 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=16#x)] addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.'[St. Matthew 16:17 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=17#x)-19 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=19#x)] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' [St. John 21:15 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=21&l=15#x)-17 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=21&l=17#x)] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.
St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02411d.htm), the greatest Doctor of ecclesiology, wrote a De Romano Pontifice or On the Roman Pontiff (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5349) (part of his De Controversiis or On the Controversies series) in which he shows—in more detail, against the errors and heresies of Calvin, Luther, et al.—how the above scriptural verses support the papacy.
-
I can not believe that the the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ ever envisioned a papacy almost under the total control of Conciliarists, Liberation theologians, Communists, Freemasons and Jєωs. But that seems to be what has happened. When someone trots out a declaration from the the First Vatican Council, it rings pretty hollow in my ears at this point.
-
So a friend of mine is arguing that in Matthew 16:18, Our Lord does establish his church on Peter but never confirms that it will never fall or that it wouldn't move or Christ's Church wouldn't be at one see forever.
Here is the line from Sacred Scripure:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Basically, he is using this argument to say that at some point in recent history, it could be possible that the "See of Peter," Christ's Church "moved" to one of the orthodox sees, like the Russian Orthodox Church. He believes that the Russian Orthodox Church might be the "New Rome" or the continuation of Christ's Church. He sites that the lack of a unified/definitive.true Magisterium in the church today makes its ministry invalid along with the bastardized sacraments.
I was wondering if any of you have heard such an argument before or know how to properly respond to it? I had never in my life heard anyone site Mathew 16:18 as a verse to support the validity/justification of a non-ROman church so I'm a little confused.
When I asked him if he considers himself a sede he said that he doesn't but because he believes the Russian bishops along with their Patriarch to be "successors" of that church which Jesus founded on Peter.
The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Some Anglican controversy tends to the view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than primus inter pares among the Apostles. It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's promise.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
-
last:
Tell your friend that it is more likely the SSPX is the new Church of Christ, since they continue with all the traditions of the Church, while the Russian Orthodox continue to be heretics.
LOL!
-
Firmilian of Caesarea
Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Epistle 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm