Rome Bitter Rome: The Real Reason Why Scott and Kimberly Hahn Converted to Catholicism

A blurb from the bishop of Lincoln on the back cover of Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book, “Rome Sweet Rome: Our Journey to Catholicism”, reads in part as follows:  “The story of the Hahns’ journey of faith into the Catholic Church is the story of sincerity, integrity, and profound human interest.”  It certainly is that.  What else could a story of a couple who sincerely worship in the flesh be but a story about a couple placing confidence in their humanism.  In fact, Kimberly Hahn reports very early on in her book that:

“I heard the gospel in a way that convicted my heart: God loved me and had a desire for me to live with and for Him, but my own sins separated me from Him and those sins had to be forgiven for me to be close to God.  That was why Jesus had come.   I had to acknowledge my own need.  I had to ask specifically for forgiveness for those sins – saying, ‘Jesus, be my Savior.’  And I had to say to Him, ‘I want you on the throne of my life – Jesus, be my Lord.’  No longer held by the hand of my parents, I needed to be grasped firmly by the hand of my heavenly Father.” (Rome Sweet Rome, pg 9)

The cross Kimberly saw that day was not a death that accomplished its purpose (which was to save all those for whom it was suffered), but rather a death which made the accomplishment of its purpose possible.  It was a death that may have been righteous in its own right, but it was powerless to effect Kimberly’s justification without Kimberly adding the “righteousness” of her acknowledgement of need, the “righteousness” of her request for the forgiveness of sins, and the “righteousness” of her decision to make Jesus the Lord of her life.  What Kimberly heard that day was not the gospel.   What she heard that day was instead a humanistic, self help message designed to teach its listeners how to quickly leapfrog their way up to shared Godhood and thereby prove the serpent right; “you shall be as God.”  Kimberly took the bait, because she believed the serpent’s lie.   She continues to believe the serpent’s lie.  And she does so, because God has not imputed her righteous.

God has not imputed her husband Scott righteous either.  His journey to Catholicism, however, was a bit different.   Scott explains that his journey began with a study of covenants in the Bible as taught by a Papal author.  He goes on to explain that in his study of covenants he began to learn God’s grace was more than divine favor, but that it was, in fact, “the actual gift of God’s life in divine sonship.”  Scott writes:

“Luther and Calvin explained this exclusively in terms of courtroom language.  But I was beginning to see that, far more than simply being a judge, God was our Father.  Far more than simply being criminals, we were runaways.  Far more than the New Covenant being made in a courtroom, it was fashioned by God in a family room.  Saint Paul (whom I had thought of as the first Luther) taught in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere that justification was more than a legal decree; it established us in Christ as God’s children by grace alone.  In fact, I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone!  Sola fide was unscriptural!” (Rome Sweet Rome, pg 31)

Setting aside for a moment the ridiculous notion that Paul never taught justification by faith alone, I draw attention first to the fact that Scott believes a work of the Spirit performed inside of a person is the grounds for that person’s justification.  In other words, in Scott’s view, God does not declare a person innocent because He has charged Christ’s righteousness to them, but rather because the Spirit has caused them to feel close to God and to want to acknowledge their need of Him to accept them as His child.

Much like Kimberly, Scott believes that although the death of Christ may in and of itself be righteous, it is nevertheless powerless to accomplish its purpose until, with the help of the Spirit, Scott has added to that death the “righteousness” of his feelings of closeness and the “righteousness” of his fatherly need.  What Scott believed was not the gospel.   What Scott believed instead was an idolatrous, humanistic, self help message designed to teach its listeners how to quickly leapfrog their way up to shared Godhood and thereby prove the serpent right.

It should be noted at this point that both Scott and Kimberly grew up in Reformed households.  Both were Presbyterian, both were well versed in the Westminster Confession, and both were attending Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary when they converted to Catholicism.  Scott notes that after arriving at his conclusion concerning justification by faith and works, “I was so excited about this discovery, I shared it with some friends who were amazed at how much sense it made.”  This does not surprise me.  Nor does it surprise me that he was directed to contact Norman Shepherd, who was at that time teaching at Westminster Seminary.   After all, it is my experience that most Presbyterians and Reformed people do not believe the gospel.  It is my experience that most who rely upon the confessions do not believe the gospel.  They know the doctrines of grace.  They can argue the doctrines of predestination and justification by faith alone with the best of anyone, but they couldn’t say first thing about the righteousness.

Romans 8:10 states the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Paul states quite clearly in Romans 4:5 “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”  If that is not justification by faith alone, then nothing is.

Scott and Kimberly report they chose to attend Gordon-Conwell, because they had been “searching the Scriptures to discover clues as to the whereabouts of real Christianity: Where was the Bible being faithfully taught and lived out?”

To Scott and Kimberly’s way of thinking, a community of authentic Christians meant a community of people who had committed themselves to behave a certain way; to acknowledge their need, to seek to feel close to God, to turn from sin, and to make Jesus the Lord of their life.  They sought a place where behavior modification was in daily practice.  In other words, they sought a community of people who worshiped the flesh and placed full confidence in their self righteousness.

A careful study of the Scriptures however, presents an entirely different picture of what an authentic Christian community is like.  It consists of a community of people who place no confidence in their flesh for they believe their righteousness is found in Christ Jesus alone.  They are not always the nicest people.  They can sometimes be quite smug and arrogant (Corinthians), flippant and uncaring (James), depressing and emotional (Ephesians, Philippians).  Some are grossly immoral (Corinthians), while others are philosophically gross (Colossians).   Some are almost cultic in their fascination with eschatology (Thessalonians) while others almost cultic in their fascination with stories of spirits and angels (Colossians).  And yet every one of them are a gospel community, every one of them an authentic, local body of Christ.

But this isn’t what Scott and Kimberly believe.  No, they believe an authentic Christian is someone who proves the righteousness of their flesh by behaving a certain way.   The truth is that Scott and Kimberly never believed the gospel to begin with.  They have always been of the world.  They still are.

But this isn’t what Scott and Kimberly believe.  No, they believe an authentic Christian is someone who proves the righteousness of their flesh by behaving a certain way.   The truth is that Scott and Kimberly never believed the gospel to begin with.  They have always been of the world.  They still are.

Advertisements

About David Bishop

Gospel of Grace Church http://www.gospeldefense.com/about.html
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Rome Bitter Rome: The Real Reason Why Scott and Kimberly Hahn Converted to Catholicism

  1. *Chuckle* And yet, at the Harvard of protestant seminaries, they manage to come to the fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church. 🙂
    So, if I read you right: The reason they became Catholics was because they went to university, rather than joined a commune?
    One thing to note: all of the little ‘churches’ truly did have a single, unified authority under Peter, the rock. Not the Bible- it hadn’t been written nor compiled by the Church into 73 books yet. This begs the question: what did the early Christians see as authoritative if, indeed, Christ intended the Bible alone to be their sole authority, as protestants claim to be the case?
    In truth, Hahn discovered that, in fact, the concept of ‘Bible alone’ was an invented doctrine that was logical and historically unverifiable. Christians never believed the Bible ought to be the sole authority until Martin Luther invented this belief in the 1500s.
    If you truly believe this, then how about a) you show me where in the Bible it says the Bible *alone* has authority, b) why protestants ignore the literal, plain meaning of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist in John 6, c) Christ’s making a Church with Peter as its visible head (Matt 16:18)…the list goes on.
    The Hahns are amazing Christians who have led thousands upon thousands of protestants out of heresy and into the embrace of Christianity as Christ designed it, in the Catholic Church. But don’t take my word for it…hear them and see for yourself….first Scott:

    Then Kimberly:

    • David Bishop says:

      There are loads of false assumptions and historical-grammatical errors in your comment. It is difficult to know where to begin. Let’s take the first assumption, that Christ was referring to Peter when He said, “Upon this rock I will build My church.”

      Matthew 16:18 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.

      Rock, we agree, is a singular antecedent. It is a referent. Hence the reason why we have “this rock” rather than “those rocks”. But this is not the issue. The issue is the object of the referent. What is “this rock” pointing to? Rome says it is Peter. But if this be the case, then why use a demonstrative pronoun? After all, Jesus has already used two personal pronouns for Peter in this sentence, soi and su. Had He been indicating Peter when He said rock, then He would have said, “and upon you the rock, I will build My church.” He didn’t though. Instead He switches from direct address to the demonstrative “this.” You Peter, this rock. This rock has to be referring to something other than Peter, because Peter was being personally addressed in the preceding phrase, whereas we now find Jesus using a demonstrative pronoun. The rock Jesus is referring to is the Father’s revelation rather than to Peter. The rock upon which Jesus will build His church is the Father’s revelation of Jesus, a revelation that cannot be given by flesh and blood. This is the most natural reading, and it is also the reading attested to by the earliest church fathers. Neither Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, or Cyril testify to the notion that the churches had a single unified authority under Peter. In fact, 1 Corinthians and Galatians both rejects this.

      1 Corinthians 1
      10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

      Clearly here we see that the church was not following the authority of one person. Nor did Paul urge them to. He instead urged them to get along and to live in peace with each other.

      Galatians2:6-8 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)

      How can all the churches be under the authority of Peter if Paul has been entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles and Peter with the gospel to the Jews? How could all the churches have been under the authority of Peter if whatever seeming authority Peter may have had meant nothing to Paul?

      Now, as to the charge that the Bible hadn’t been written or compiled by the church yet. This is a really dreadful accusation on your part. First, the Old Testament canon had been long established well before the time of the New Testament. Josephus and the testimony of the Jewish writers confirm this. Second, there is a difference between transmission and inspiration. The apostles were well aware that they were writing Scripture. Hence in 2 Peter 3:15-16, we find Peter referring to Paul’s writings as Scripture.

      2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

      Jerome himself attested to the fact that the Scriptures were well known during his time. He, like Protestantism, even rejected those books Rome accepts today. Here he is in his own words from his prologue to the Three Books of Solomon —

      “There circulates also the ‘all-virtuous’ Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira, together with a similar work, the pseudopigraph entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, entitled not ‘Ecclesiasticus’, as among the Latins, but ‘Parables”. … The latter is nowhere found among the Hebrews: its very style smacks of Greek eloquence, and several ancient writers affirm it to be the work of Philo the Jew. Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” —

      All Rome did was recognize what antiquity had already recognized. It simply agreed with what Christians had already known. It then went on to add to that, of course, as it always does, but it was not Rome who canonized or authored the Bible.

      Lastly, you ask me to prove from the Bible that the Bible says the Bible alone has authority. Gladly.

      Proverbs 22:19-21 That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. 20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, 21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

      Luke 1:3-4 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

      Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

      Matthew 4:4,7,10 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

      Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

      2 Timothy 3:15-16 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

      John 17:17-21 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may also be one, just as you Father, are in Me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent Me.

      Psalm 119:138 You have appointed Your testimonies in righteousness and in all faithfulness

      Psalm 119:144 Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding that I may live

      Psalm 119:151-152 But You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are true. Long have I know from Your testimonies that You have founded them forever.

      Psalm 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever.

      Joshua 1:7-8 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.

      Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true, He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.

      • *Chuckle*
        It is early in the morning, and i will be unable due to time constraints to respond to all of them, though I look forward to doing so.
        I can tell you have been versed in a great deal of protestant theology and revisionist history. However there are a number of points which are either misstated or of which you are unaware.
        1) Play three-card monte with Grecian grammar of the Biblical texts is ultimately unconvincing, since Jesus in actuality spoke Aramaic. What you are reading into is a greek retelling of a statement made by Christ in a very different language.
        So, how can we know what it means?
        We can look at the words of the early Christians, and the early Church fathers,and also other Biblical texts.
        You claim the early Church Fathers did not recognize Peter as the rock and visible head of the Church on Earth, Really?

        Clement of Alexandria

        “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

        Or….
        Tertullian

        “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

        “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

        or…
        The Letter of Clement to James

        “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

        ….you say Origen did not recognize Peter’s authority? Really?
        Origen

        “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

        For more:
        http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

        …please check your sources more thoroughly. More to come. Apologies, too, for any grammatical errors, as I live a somewhat rushed lifestyle these days,
        -J-

      • David Bishop says:

        1) Play three-card monte with Grecian grammar of the Biblical texts is ultimately unconvincing, since Jesus in actuality spoke Aramaic. What you are reading into is a greek retelling of a statement made by Christ in a very different language. So, how can we know what it means?

        If you could see the look on my face right now. The last time I had a look like this was after my grandfather turned to me and in all seriousness said, “Now how do those people know that was the name of those dinosaurs? Those people weren’t around back then.”

        Occasionally I run across an argument that is so dumb, so vapid, so empty of anything that could said to even approach sensibleness that it nearly takes my breath away. Grecian grammar of the texts is unconvincing because it wasn’t the native language? Are you really being serious here?

        Jesus’ native language is irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. Suppose an English language newspaper reported to us a comment that Putin made. Would you expect this newspaper to leave Putin’s comment untranslated in Russian? Why not? Because the newspaper is addressed to an English speaking audience. Duh.

        Matthew was writing to Greek speaking people. He had to translate all of Jesus’ words into Greek. We don’t have any Aramaic gospels from Matthew. We don’t have any from Luke, Mark or John either. There is no evidence they even wrote one. What we know they did write though, were Greek gospels. To disregard the Greek in these texts because “it is not Aramaic” is one of the dumbest things I can think of anyone proposing to do with ancient texts.

        As for my sources, they are fine. None of the quotes you cite assert the primacy of Peter.

        “The Peter Syndrome refers to the propensity on the part of many Roman Catholic apologists to find any statement about Peter in the writings of an early Father and apply this to the Bishop of Rome. There are many exalted statements made about Peter by men such as Cyprian or Chrysostom. However, it does not follow that these statements about Peter have anything at all to do with the bishop of Rome. The Roman apologist must demonstrate that for such statements to be meaningful that the Father under discussion believed that the bishop of Rome alone is the sole, unique successor of Peter, so that any such exalted language about Peter is to be applied in that Father’s thinking to the bishop of Rome alone. If such a basis is not provided, references to Peter are irrelevant.” – James White, in his debate with Robert Sungenis and Scott Butler at Boston College in 1995.

        http://vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html

  2. ” I run across an argument that is so dumb, so vapid, so empty of anything that could said to even approach sensibleness that it nearly takes my breath away. Grecian grammar of the texts is unconvincing because it wasn’t the native language? Are you really being serious here?”

    *chuckle* looks like I struck a nerve, huh? Need a hug, bud?

    Ok, seriously:
    “Jesus’ native language is irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant.”

    Really? If the God of the universe decided to speak in that language, it kind’ve mighta been just a *little* relevant, huh? 🙂

    Splitting hairs on the Greek over Peter’s office as pope with the Greek is what is truly irrelevant. If you want to find out how the original Christians felt about Peter, why not:
    a) go to Peter Himself,
    b) The other Christians in the book of Acts,
    c) look at the Early Church Fathers, who were doing their things quite a bit before James White was . 🙂

  3. So, a)
    When Annainas lies to Peter in Acts 5:3, who does Peter *himself* say Annanias has lied to?
    …>The Holy Spirit. 🙂
    Check it. 🙂

  4. b) When the Christians have a question about wether or not they should get circumcised, they do have a meeting (the first Church Council, In fact).

    How is it resolved?
    Not a vote.
    Not a committtee.
    Yes, Peter Listens, but…
    When Peter Speaks, it’s Settled. 🙂
    Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15. 🙂

  5. Oh, and lets not all the times in the bible that Peter speaks for the Apostles.
    Every time he’s there.
    He’s listed 1st, and he speaks for them.
    Check it out….
    Pentecost, the Sanhedrin, all of ’em.
    Oh, and why does John wait for Peter to enter the tomb when he gets there 1st, after the resurrection?
    Uh-huh…..

  6. Plus, arguing against sageness isn’t hard….even other catholic don’t bother with him. The man is a geocentrist! Look him up! Your five year old could argue against him! 🙂

    Let’s have Mr. white argue against these guys….some of whom learned from the Apostles themselves, or their disciples….

    The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

    Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

    Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

    These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

    The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

    Tatian the Syrian

    “Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

    Tertullian

    “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

    “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

    The Letter of Clement to James

    “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

    The Clementine Homilies

    “[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

    Origen

    “Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

    Cyprian of Carthage

    “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

    “There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

    “There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
    secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (ibid., 66[69]:8).

    Firmilian

    “But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

    “[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . 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 [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).

    Ephraim the Syrian

    “[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

    Optatus

    “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

    Ambrose of Milan

    “[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

    “It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

    Pope Damasus I

    “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

    Jerome

    “‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

    “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

    Augustine

    “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

    Council of Ephesus

    “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

    Sechnall of Ireland

    “Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

    Pope Leo I

    “Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

    Council of Chalcedon

    “Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

    ….Your move. 🙂

  7. COrrection: arguing against Robert Sungenis isn’t hard (darned auto correct!)…and he quite frankly gets his theological clock cleaned by Mr. Madrid, too, if you’d actuallyy listed to it in it is entirety. 🙂

  8. SO, by the way: If Peter wasn’t the first pope, then to what office did Linus succeed after Peter was martyred? Seems like history calls it the office of Pope….of course, you can google his name. Maybe Saint Paul was writing infallibly when he was writing the Bible, but messed up when he ordained Linus… 🙂

  9. Oh, and where again does the Bible say only the Bible has authority? And why isn’t this a logical fallacy? Neither you nor Mr. White really discuss that that I can see….

  10. >1 Corinthians 1

    Clearly here we see that the church was not following the authority of one person. Nor did Paul urge them to. He instead urged them to get along and to live in peace with each other.<

    Nope. He doesn't say that. He's opposing divisions, something protestants cheerfully ignore. 30,000 subgroup in America alone? *chuckle!*

    Paul wanted them to unite under the authority of Peter, the first Pope.

  11. Matt 16:18, and all that.

    Now, next point:

    >How can all the churches be under the authority of Peter if Paul has been entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles and Peter with the gospel to the Jews? How could all the churches have been under the authority of Peter if whatever seeming authority Peter may have had meant nothing to Paul?<

    …wellllll…..if you know anything about the early Church, the Churches were headed by bishops. Just like they are today
    There's the Bishop of Chicago, who brings the Gospel to the people there.
    There's the Bishop of New York, who brings the Gospel to people there.
    There's the Bishop of Portland, Bagdad, Brussels and Kookamonga, who bring the Gospel to the people there.
    And the Bishop of Rome…who also acts as Pope. The Rock upon which the Church is built (Matt 16:18).

    Apparently Peter's authority meant quite a bit to Paul, since history records him ordinating Paul's successor, Linus. 🙂
    Try again. 🙂

  12. Last:About your bible verses:
    Ive seen folks do this: Dump a million verses from the Book given its authority by the Catholic Church in an effort to tear the authority from the Church that gave the Bible its authority in the first lace.
    huh?
    Exactly. Circular Argument/Begging the question. That’s the error is using the Bible to prove the Bible’s authority. 🙂

    But let’s look at your verses. I’ll use CAPS when commenting, not to shout, but to differentiate my words from yours:
    ———————-
    Proverbs 22:19-21 That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. 20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, 21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

    UMMMM…YES, IT’S TRUE. BUT IT DOESN’T SAY THAT THIS IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY.

    Luke 1:3-4 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

    UMMMM….YES, THE BIBLE IS CERTAIN…BUT THIS DOESN’T SAY THAT THIS IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, EITHER.

    Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

    UMM…YES, WE CAN HAVE HOPE. BUT IT DOESN’T SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY.

    Matthew 4:4,7,10 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

    UMMM…YES, WE SHOULD WORSHIP GOD ALONE, AND LIVE BY GOD’S WORD. BUT THIS DOESN’T SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, EITHER.

    Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    UMM….OKAY, I’LL STAY AWAY FROM OUIJA BOARDS. COOL. BUT THIS DOESN’T SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, EITHER.

    2 Timothy 3:15-16 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

    WELL, YES. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY GOD, AND INSPIRED BY GOD, AND USEFUL. BUT THIS DOESN’T SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, EITHER.

    John 17:17-21 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may also be one, just as you Father, are in Me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent Me.

    YES, GOD’S WORD IS TRUTH. BUT THIS DOESN’T SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, EITHER.

    Psalm 119:138 You have appointed Your testimonies in righteousness and in all faithfulness
    SOLE AUTHORITY?

    Psalm 119:144 Your testimonies are righteous forever; give me understanding that I may live
    SOLE AUTHOIRTY?

    Psalm 119:151-152 But You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are true. Long have I know from Your testimonies that You have founded them forever.
    SOLE AUTHORITY? STILL LOOKING…..

    Psalm 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever.
    SOLE AUTHOIRTY?

    Joshua 1:7-8 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.
    GOING TO DO ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. GOT IT. AND I’M STICKING TO THE 73 BOOKS THE COUNCIL COLLATED, GOT IT. BECAUSE THERE WERE OVER FOUR-HUNDRED GOSPELS FLOATING AROUND, EACH CLAIMING TO BE THE REAL MCCOY, AND IT WAS THE AUTHORITY OF CHURCH THAT SIFTED THE PHONIES FROM THE FOUR REAL ONES.
    BUT THIS DOESN’T SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, EITHER.

    Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true, He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.
    DON’T ADD TO THE BIBLE. GOT IT. GET THAT MESSAGE TO MARTIN LUTHER, WHO ADDED THE WORD ‘ALONE’ TO FAITH IN THE BIBLE IN ROMANS 3:28….
    http://www.catholicbible101.com/luthersrevolution.htm

    GOT THAT, TOO
    BUT….BUT THIS DOESN’T SAY THAT THE BIBLE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY, EITHER.
    GOT ANYTHING ELSE?

  13. Oh, and lest we forget the original bit here:
    “Scott believes that although the death of Christ may in and of itself be righteous, it is nevertheless powerless to accomplish its purpose until, with the help of the Spirit, Scott has added to that death the “righteousness” of his feelings of closeness and the “righteousness” of his fatherly need. ”

    *chuckle* you know, Dr. Hahn was my old teacher. I learned from him for two years at Franciscan. I never, ever heard him say that Christ’s death was powerless in any way, shape or form, or depended upon vaporous feelings of any kind. Citation, please. 🙂

  14. Oh, and I quoted/outright cut & pasted the big long one with the quotes from the early Church Fathers [much earlier than James White….so, yeah. :)] from http://www.catholic.com . Drop by there, and see what they have to say! 😀

  15. Pingback: Rome Bitter Rome Part 2: Answering a Roman Catholic’s Angry Rant | Cornbread & Bourbon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s