(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Yes. All Readers Please Read Indeed. Really MUST Read. 
Reconciliation, Towards Unity: JOINT STATEMENT BY POPE, ORTHODOX PRELATE (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Joint Statement : Christian Fanaticism Condemned (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Why the Greeks Opposed John Paul II's Visit - Not the Way anti-Protestant Mr Tan puts it. (Christopher Yip)
Never trust an anti-Catholic for fair comments about Catholic News Services. (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Ya. Like quoting Rome in support of Rome. (Christopher Yip)
From the Greek spokesman - enough to demolish anti-Catholic insinuations and innuendoes (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
|
When you read anti-Protestant Mr Tan's title: "From the Greek spokesman - enough to demolish anti-Catholic insinuations and innuedoes", you expect to find in the posts evidence that does just that - refute our accusations. But do you? and will you? As expected, nope. Let's see.
TYH: (See Below) This is from ZENIT.org, a Catholic news service. The Greek spokesman has spoken. One example is enough. http://www.angelfire.com/tx/filial/hellas.html (See Below) ME: Example of what? That ZENIT.org carries news reports? That they do report truth mixed with fiction? That they do have partial truth in what they report? Example of what? TYH: Readers who have been following will be able to witness the constant mis-representations of Catholic teachings from Catholic official documents by anti-Catholic Mr. Yip and Company. More of such things to be revealed soon... ME: Eagerly waiting. I have heard this SO MANY TIMES but have yet to see one that can stand up to scrutiny. Instead, there are SO MANY misrepresentations of sola fide and sola Scriptura that it is truly appalling! And do we simply assert this without proof? Nope. We have given so many posts giving specific point by point of the caricatures of sola Scriptura. I'm very sure the following articles have been posted on Antioch: http://www.aomin.org/Muddying%20the%20Waters.html Muddying the Waters: A Reply to Robert Sungenis' Triumphalistic Article in the June, 1996 This Rock Magazine. by James White http://www.aomin.org/mirror_mirror_CA_Declines.html Mirror Mirror: The Decline of Catholic Answers by James White http://www.aomin.org/looks1.html Looks Can Be Deceiving Part I (Especially When You WANT To Be Deceived) A Study in the Tactics of Roman Catholic Apologists by James White http://aomin.org/Morrow.html New Lows in Poor Scholarship: Jeffrey L. Morrow Completely Misses the Historical Facts in a Recent Catholic Answers Article James White http://www.aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura by James White http://www.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? http://www.aomin.org/cathan.html Catholic Answers: Myth or Reality? A Refutation of Patrick Madrid's Article, "The White Man's Burden," and a Defense of Sola Scriptura by James White http://www.aomin.org/credenda.html Of Athanasius and Infallibility Brief Comments and Ruminations Regarding the Written Interchange Between Douglas Jones and Patrick Madrid on the Subject of Sola Scriptura by James White http://www.aomin.org/Palm%20response.html A Response to David Palm's Article on Oral Tradition from This Rock Magazine, May, 1995 by James White In every one of these articles, the misrepresentations of sola Scriptura is quoted verbatim from Roman Catholic apologists and rebutted. We move on, still searching for that demolition of "anti-Catholic insinuations and innuedoes." TYH: And what of Orthodox Theologian like Meyendorff? Well, he himself testifies that Peter is the Rock in Matt 16:18, and that the Fathers who wrote that the Rock is Peter's confession are the same Fathers who wrote that the Rock is Peter himself. Something that anti-Catholic Mr. Yip continues to deny, and continue to assert that the Rock is Peter's confession ONLY. Even the Greek Church today holds the view that the Rock is Peter AND Peter's confession. So much for those who try to play around with the Greek language. ME: Two assertions here: that Meyendorff and the Greek Church both believe the rock is both Peter and his confession. I submit to the reader that this is false. The church fathers and the Eastern Church has explicitly said that the rock is not the person of Peter but his confession. Here is what Meyendorff said with regards to the view of the Eastern church and his own: "The reformed papacy of the eleventh century used a long-standing Western tradition of exegesis when it applied systematically and legalistically the passages on the role of Peter (especially Mt. 16:18, Lk. 22:32, and Jn. 21:15-17) to the bishop of Rome. This tradition was not shared by the East. (After) the schism between East and West...Greek scholars and prelates CONTINUED THE TRADITION OF THE FATHERS WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST ALTERATION...Origen is the common teacher of the Greek fathers in the field of biblical commentary. Origen gives an extensive explanation on Mt. 16:18. HE RIGHTLY (Chris: here, Meyendorff expresses his own agreement) INTERPRETS the famous words of Christ AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CONFESSION OF PETER on the road of Caesarea Philippi: Simon became the Rock on which the Church is founded, because he EXPRESSED THE TRUE BELIEF in the divinity of Christ (Chris: NOte, only Peter's FAITH is mentioned as the Rock). Thus, according to Origen, all those saved by faith in Jesus Christ receive also the keys of the Kingdom: in other words, the successors of Peter are all believers. ‘If we also say,’ he writes, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes the Rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’(John Meyendorff, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology. Taken from The Primacy of Peter (London: Faith, 1963), pp. 7-29). "Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus’ answer to Peter’s confession: Simon became the ‘rock’ on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: ‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’ According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first ‘believer,’ and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can ‘imitate’ Peter and receive the same keys. Thus the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the ‘Petrie’ logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature...Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham, 1974), pp. 97-98). And Augustine said the same thing: "You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. 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 (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327). Here Augustine explicitly states that Peter is not the rock. His confession of faith is. He separates Peter’s confession from Peter’s person. The Church is not built upon his person for he says ‘Christ did not build his Church on a man but on Peter’s confession.’ If it is not built upon his person there is no papal office. The foundation is Peter’s confession which points to Christ as the true foundation. By being built upon Peter’s confession of faith, which points to Christ, one is built upon Christ, who is the ultimate rock. In his book, Upon This Rock, Steve Ray says: "Even if, for the sake of argument, Augustine had said that Peter was definitely not the rock in Matthew 16 (which, by the way, no Father ever said) (p. 232). No father ever said Peter is not the rock? Obviously, from the above quote it is clear that Augustine did. In another place Steve Ray asks: "Can anyone claim that the Fathers attributed Jesus’ words recorded in Matthew’s Gospel, “You are Peter [Rock] and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt 16:18), to Peter’s confession alone and not to Peter himself? (p. 177, Footnote 58). Yes, we can. The above quotation from the leading theologian of the Western Church for the first 1200 years does. Steve Ray’s whole premise is completely shattered by these statements from Augustine. Augustine's exegesis is an explicit repudiation of the teaching of Vatican I and it is the consistent view expressed by him throughout his ministry. TYH: The ridiculous thing is to cite resistance to Papacy as proof that Rome never exercised primacy of juridiction. Scripture tells us that even Jesus and Moses and Peter and Paul have one time or another been resisted by his followers (and of course by their enemies of faith). The Pope and the Church of Rome continue right to this very day not without some resistance from the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church - open disobedience and opposition in various theological and disciplinary areas. ME: There we have the famous argument that resistance does not mean no authority. So what anti-Protestant Mr Tan is saying here is that 1. just because the 35th Apostolic Canon, the 6th Nicene Canon and the 28th Chalcedonian Canon all reject Rome's universal jurisdiction, and 2. just because all the early church fathers reject Rome's universal jurisdiction, and 3. just because the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church reject Rome's universal jurisdiction, and 4. just because the all Protestants reject Rome's universal jurisdiction, the FACT of the matter is that Rome DOES have universal jurisdiction. The rest of the ENTIRE Catholic Church of Christ is simply being disobedient. Do I really need to give a rebuttal here? And more importantly, does anyone wish to be a part of such kind of thinking? TYH: The Ecumencial Councils tell us again and again that Peter lives and speaks and judges through his successors - the Popes, the Bishops of Rome. Even the Greeks agreed at the Ecumenical Council(s) after the Sack of Constantinople. Even the schismatic Photius, the Greek Patriarch of Constantinple of the first millenium, attested to this very fact. Such solid historical information cannot easily be dismissed away. ME: The issue is what does the ECs mean by that statement? That the popes have infallibity and that they have universal jurisdiction? That is reading into the text. If they believed as anti-Protestant Mr Tan claimed they did, they wouldn't have anathematised Honorius for teaching monotheletism! They should have all FOLLOWED him, shouldn't they? If Peter had indeed lived and spoken through Honorius, and if they believed by this the pope's infalliblity, why then did they CONDEMNED Honorius as a HERETIC? Let me repeat his defense. Oh, he wasn't speaking ex cathedra, so the EC took it as his private opinion. That would be the same reason for Zosimus defence of Pelagianism in which he was rebuffed by Augustine and the African bishops. How does this work? Quite simple, those that the EC and the entire church accepted were ex cathedra statements from the pope, those that they didn't were not. Hence their condemnation does not imply the pope wasn't infallible. Now, tell me, WHO then is really the INFALLIBLE one - the pope or the EC? Wake up! TYH: Does Catholic apologist mis-represent Calvinist position on sola fide? (NOTE: Not all Protestants are Calvinists - a dying generation). Well, Dr. Horton has a chance to respond to Sungenis, and we will wait and see what kind of nonsense he is going to come out: by faith alone and faith not alone; justification not separated from sanctification, yet he MUST separate them. ME: Dying generation? Tsk tsk. Can't win by logic and evidence, try demoralising, eh? Do Roman Catholic apologists misrepresent Calvinistic position on sola fide? ALL THE TIME! I have given specific examples. TYH: This is from ZENIT.org, a Catholic news service. http://www.angelfire.com/tx/filial/hellas.html Greece Visit Opens New Perspective, Aide Says Interview with Spokesman of Archbishop Christodoulos ME: Now, we have come to the end. Where is the evidence "enough to demolish anti-Catholic insinuations and innuendoes"? Where? Where? Just another blowing of hot air. Yawn. Christopher
|
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page