"117. Petilianus said: "If you wretched men claim for yourselves a seat, as we said before, you assuredly have that one of which the prophet and psalmist David speaks as being the seat of the scornful.  For to you it is rightly left, seeing tha118. Augustin answered: Here again you do not see that this is no kind of argument, but empty abuse. For this is what I said a little while ago, You utter the words of the law, but take no heed against whom you utter them; just as the devil uttered the words of the law, but failed to perceive to whom he uttered them. He wished to thrust down our Head, who was presently to ascend on high; but you wish to reduce to a small fraction the body of that same Head which is dispersed throughout the entire world. Certainly you yourself said a little time before that we know the law, and speak in legal terms, but blush in our deeds. Thus much indeed you say without a proof of anything; but even though you were to prove it of some men, you would not be entitled to assert it of these others. However, if all men throughout all the world were of the character which you most vainly charge them with, what has the chair done to you of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and which Anastasius fills to-day; or the chair of the Church of Jerusalem, in which James once sat, and in which John sits today, with which we are united in catholic unity, and from which you have severed yourselves by your mad fury? Why do you call the apostolic chair a seat of the scornful? If it is on account of the men whom you believe to use the words of the law without performing it, do you find that our Lord Jesus Christ was moved by the Pharisees, of whom He says, "They say, and do not," to do any despite to the seat in which they sat? Did He not commend the seat of Moses, and maintain the honor of the seat, while He convicted those that sat in it? For He says, "They sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."  If you were to think of these things, you would not, on account of men whom you calumniate, do despite to the apostolic seat, in which you have no share. But what else is conduct like yours but ignorance of what to say, combined with want of power to abstain from evil-speaking?"
"-- 90. Petilianus said: "If you declare that you hold the Catholic Church, the word catholic' is merely the Greek equivalent for entire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole, because you have gone aside into the part."
91. Augustin answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight knowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at all, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that holon means not "one," but "the whole;" and that kath' holon means "according to the whole:" whence the Catholic Church received its name, according to the saying of the Lord, "It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth."  Here you have the origin of the name "Catholic." But you are so bent upon running with your eyes shut against the mountain which grew out of a small stone, according to the prophecy of Daniel, and filled the whole earth,  that you actually tell us that we have gone aside into a part, and are not in the whole among those whose communion is spread throughout the whole earth. But just in the same way as, supposing you were to say that I was Petilianus, I should not be able to find any method of refuting you unless I were to laugh at you as being in jest, or mourn over you as being mad, so in the present case I see that I have no other choice but this; and since I do not believe that you are in jest, you see what alternative remains."
Looking at the references at a first glance, you would think that they somehow a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. However, such is folly and anachronistic.
Granted even if the word Catholic did not mean whole, but meant on the whole, that does nothing to show that Romanism even existed in the time of Augustine or was even the early church. It is nothing but empty words.
I'll comment on a few things that cbd94 said in an article response to me:
"Even today the heretics use this argument, belittling the Catholic Church to a mere Greek phrase. St. Augustine refutes this evil attempt to justify separation from the One Church of Christ by accurately defining what the Catholic Church is."
The true church of Jesus Christ are the individuals who believe and trust in him, it is NOT an institution. God knows who his people are and will bring them out of the false churches to worship him.
To suggest that the word "Catholic" automatically refers to the Roman Church which is run by the papacy, is quite frankly nonsense. I don't see how the word Catholic leads to this conclusion.
The context in which cbd94 uttered his statement links to the comments made by Augustine made in the second quotation above. Go to the article here for the context of cbd's words: http://cbd94.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/response-to-bobo557-aka-answering.html
"Any so-called church that is not built upon The Lord, in vain do it's people build. To those who join a Church other than the Catholic Church"
But what is the Catholic Church, The true church collectively? or the Roman Catholic Church which did not exist in the time of Augustine and those before him.
"St. Augustine gives another criteria for a Church to be "Catholic", that is, it must have a permanent union to apostolic seat, even if someone evil or bad sits upon it. Notice how St. Augustine refers to Anastasius as sitting upon the Chair of Peter. Some may say that by also referring to the Seat of James, in Jerusalem, that St. Augustine is denying the preeminent nature of the Seat of Peter, but this is refuted by St. Augustine himself"
What is Augustine's position on what Primacy is? William Webster makes the following observation:
"According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peter—for example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choir—that they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? No. In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the coryphaeus, the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation." http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
"Augustine states that Peter is the first and head of the apostles and that he holds a primacy. However he does not interpret that primacy in a Roman Catholic sense. He believes that Peter’s primacy is figurative in that he represents the universal Church. Again, he explicitly states that Christ did not build his Church upon a man but on Peter’s confession of faith. Peter is built on Christ the rock and as a figurative representative of the Church he shows how each believer is built on Christ. In Augustine’s view, Peter holds a primacy or preeminence, but none of this applies to him in a jurisdictional sense, because he says that ‘Christ did not build his Church upon a man.’ We can not get a clearer illustration that the fathers did indeed separate Peter’s confession of faith from Peter’s person. In commenting on one of Augustine’s references to Peter and the rock, John Rotelle, the editor of the Roman Catholic series on the Sermons of Augustine, makes these observations:
‘There was Peter, and he hadn’t yet been confirmed in the rock’: That is, in Christ, as participating in his ‘rockiness’ by faith. It does not mean confirmed as the rock, because Augustine never thinks of Peter as the rock. Jesus, after all, did not in fact call him the rock...but ‘Rocky.’ The rock on which he would build his Church was, for Augustine, both Christ himself and Peter’s faith, representing the faith of the Church (emphasis mine) (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993), Sermons, Sermon 265D.6, p. 258-259, n. 9)Augustine does not endorse the Roman Catholic interpretation. Again and again he states that the rock is Christ, not Peter. Augustine claims no exclusive Petrine succession in the Roman bishops and no papal office." http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
Also, if someone is evil and NOT righteous in the sight of Christ, we are to flee from such individuals. If the Popes truly sat in the apostolic seat of Peter, we would expect them to be holy men. They may not be perfect, but they at least attempt by God's grace to live a holy life. The fact of the matter is, the Popes have NOT lived righteous lives and have lived evil, wicked and deplorable lives, some in recent years even endorsing religions of the pagans, including the Muslims.
Keith Thompson has commented on the subject of the evil popes throughout history and this is the article he wrote: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/some-of-roman-catholicisms-worst.html
Before anyone shouts "WHAT ABOUT THE SINS DONE BY PROTESTANTS?" Let me say, any Protestant in history should not of committed any kind of sin and yes any Catholic killing would of been wrong too. Once again, a Christian who is holy may not be perfect, but they by God's grace will repent should they fall into sin.
As Thompson notes in his closing statement in the article (bold emphasis mine):
"There are many other atrocities one could highlight (including the inquisitions). Suffice it to say, this track-record of unspeakable abominations coming out of Romanism era after era demonstrates very clearly that this system is not the fulfillment of God’s salvation plan on the earth. Romanism is not the arbiter of God’s kingdom. She is not God’s holy bride, the true seed of Abraham who is given the role of spreading the gospel to the lost in a Christian manner. Although no one expects God’s people to always be one-hundred percent perfect all the time, this constant track-record of abominations and atrocities in Catholic history century after century prove that this type of thing is commonplace in papalism. This system resembles a satanic cult more than it does the fulfillment of God’s plan on the earth. It is because Roman Catholicism, far from representing God and being God’s sanctified bride, is actually Satan’s greatest counterfeit, an apostate church which, as a church, had its lampstand removed long ago."
Similar statement to mine above, No one is saying a Christian is going to be perfect, but someone who has a constant track record of doing evil with no repentance, one MUST call into question their faith. The article above gives every reason to question Rome and it's popes. No, Christians are not to submit to the evil demands they give.
Don't misunderstand me, Protestants do believe in submission to elders in their churches, but not blind submission.
Scroll down to the section in John MacArthur's article on elders where it says "What is the elder's relation to the congregation?" for more information: http://www.gty.org/resources/positions/p11/answering-the-key-questions-about-elders
But the case and point, there is not a shred of evidence that points us to submitting to the papacy, not even Matthew 23 is a counter example. Let's take a look:
"23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12
For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
Jesus is anathematizing the Pharisees for their wickedness and hypocrisy. He tells the disciples to obey them but not emulate them. However, the text itself is NOT a proof text for Christians to obey false teachers, such as the Pope, Since the very same Jesus says to us "Beware of false teachers". The Pope is NOT above examination and when we do examine him, he fails the test of being a true teacher.
"So to be Catholic, a Church must be:
1. A Communion of Churches, united in doctrine, spread throughout the world
2. Apostolic, with a line of succession back to the Apostles
3. Respectful to the authority of the Chair of Peter specifically, and the Bishops in general.
Anybody who builds a "Church" that does not abide by these three concepts, "In vain do its builders build". They cannot be called Christians, in any sense. So when bobo557 writes, "God didn't decree anything about the Roman Catholic Church being the instrument of salvation," that is false. There is no Church outside the Catholic Church, and outside the Catholic Church nobody can be saved."
The bobo557 was a typo on the part of cbd94 and he did correct the others, but we'll put that aside.
The burden of proof is on cbd94 to show that his church goes back to the apostles themselves and to be honest, looking at the New Testament as historical documents, we do NOT have any of the tenants of Romanism at all. No belief in the seat of Peter.
Show me biblically speaking (either explicitly or implicitly, both are fine) where the Chair of Peter is required of Christians.
A succession, namely the apostolic line would be those who have the true teachings of the apostles, Something which Rome does not have by virtue of the fact that it has added countless false teachings over the years, Thus my point that "God didn't decree anything about the Roman Catholic Church being the instrument of salvation", stands.
I won't go into detail here, I'll just simply link to previous papers that I have written:
"Bobo577 says he plans to leave the Anglican "church". I pray that he does. The Anglican "church" was founded by a medieval king who separated from the Catholic Church in order to get a divorce. In other words, he was willing to cut not only himself, but all of his fellow countrymen, off from salvation so he could commit adultery. Nobody should be a member of such a "church". I hope that Bobo577 takes this time in transition from the Anglican "church" to find out more about the Catholic Church. I pray that he will become a Christian and partake in the gift of God, that is, His Church. I would like to extend an official invitation to bobo577 to join the Catholic Church."
I'll pass on the invitation to "join the Catholic Church", because I already have Jesus Christ, He is absent from Rome and the gates of hell HAVE overcome the Roman Catholic Church and have done so for many years. So I'll stick to Jesus who is the head of the church, not the Pope.
As for the history of Anglicanism, Go here: http://anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
One of the points in the article, is this:
"There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before."
This is isn't to defend Henry the VIII's issue on divorce, but hopefully it will bring to light certain issues regarding him. I would suggest cbd94 actually carefully looks into the issue before rashly making claims.
PS. While not relevant to the article, this is just a repeated point about the bobo557 nic: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/dopplegangers.html
This is to ensure that people do NOT abuse cbd's typo.
17th of July 2015. See the following article with respect to the subject of elders, I remembered that this article came to mind today: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern_7.html