tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post986523639351213377..comments2023-07-26T04:54:13.903-07:00Comments on Robin's Readings and Reflections: Roman Catholicism and Church HistoryTerrell Clemmonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17367926808246409525noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-60340266459842132822013-12-31T13:28:48.381-08:002013-12-31T13:28:48.381-08:00Hello Robin,
The significance of this should be o...Hello Robin,<br /><br /><em>The significance of this should be obvious: 80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize that Peter was the rock on which Christ was building His church!</em><br /><br />More caution is due here. You are assuming (a) that for any particular Father, the 'rock' cannot have multiple senses, and (b) that when any Father treats the term as referring to something other than Peter, then he did not recognize that it also referred to Peter. But that conclusion does not follow from that premise. Moreover, it is not the case that 80% of the Fathers *denied* that the rock referred to Peter. That's why your statement, "one finds the church fathers actually challenge Roman Catholic teaching on a number of key points" is both unjustified and unsubstantiated. Moreover, no Catholic dogma hangs on it being the case that the majority of Fathers take Matt. 16 as referring to Peter himself. I've discussed this at Green Baggins, and Principium Unitatis (<a href="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/09/monocausalism-and-rock-on-which-church.html" rel="nofollow">Monocausalism and the Rock on which the Church is Built</a>") and comment #33 and following at <a href="http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/sola-versus-solo-scriptura-revisited/" rel="nofollow">Sola versus Solo Scriptura Revisited</a>." <br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.com