Being a traditional Catholic, not a Pharisee

[CradleCath]

I agree that there has been disunity since the Church was born, but I don’t think that Paul had a problem with Pope Peter. I believe he was reprimanding a different Cephas in Galatians. I also think that the James and John cited were also of the original 70 disciples as was this other Cephas and that none of the three were apostles.

members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf

Thanks for the link to a page that deals well with the situation between Peter, Paul & Cephas. Did you read down to the Latin Vulgate version? It mentions Peter, the Apostle & Cephas as if they are separate people. It also speaks of Barnabas…a close friend of Paul’s. So, you might be right.

However, in the RSV version, Paul says that “When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face” for eating with Gentiles. I have always believed that the passage quoted on that site means that though they’d had a disagreement about Peter’s friendly attitude toward the gentiles…they’d settled it & agreed upon who spread the Gospel to the gentiles & who to the Jews. I’m still not convinced that they didn’t have some disagreement about it…I am no longer sure???

Anyway the Church throughout history has dealt with disagreements & they emerged stronger each time. I have complete faith in Christ’s promise.

 

[SHW]

Thanks for the link to a page that deals well with the situation between Peter, Paul & Cephas.

You’re welcome.

Did you read down to the Latin Vulgate version? It mentions Peter, the Apostle & Cephas as if they are separate people. It also speaks of Barnabas…a close friend of Paul’s. So, you might be right.

However, in the RSV version, Paul says that “When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face” for eating with Gentiles. I have always believed that the passage quoted on that site means that though they’d had a disagreement about Peter’s friendly attitude toward the gentiles…they’d settled it & agreed upon who spread the Gospel to the gentiles & who to the Jews. I’m still not convinced that they didn’t have some disagreement about it…I am no longer sure???

I think that you must have looked at a different version by mistake. The RSV-CE actually states “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” Galatians 2:11 The KJV and the NKJV state “Peter,” however. The original Greek uses 2 different names, Peter and Cephas, in the same Scripture passage in order to denote the 2 different men.

Since some Protestants used the inaccurately translated KJV exclusively at the time of Reformation, they cited this mistranslation of the KJV in Galatians 2 in order to undermine belief in Peter’s authority over the other apostles. They believed that if Peter erred in judgment in this passage, then he could not possibly be the head of the Church and some Protestants even taught that Paul was actually the head instead.

An error made in personal actions towards others, however, still would not have made any difference pertaining to his supreme authority. People do not always practice what they preach. I have shown though, that Peter did not even make an error in personal judgment as this was Cephas, one of the 70 disciples, whom Paul reprimanded in Galatians 2.

This cowardliness exhibited by Cephas also would not have fit Peter’s character. After his heavenly vision, Peter was always adamant and authoritative that Gentiles had the same dignity as Jews in the New Covenant and it would have been entirely foreign to his feisty character to refuse to eat with the Gentile converts, whom he now considered as his equals, out of fear for the other Jewish converts who were also present.

Whenever the Jews confronted Peter about his inclusion also of Gentiles as “God’s people,” Peter simply explained his heavenly vision, and then that was the “end” of the discussion. Peter was the chief “authority” of the Church and they accepted him as such.

After Peter makes his authoritative decision about “circumcision” at the first Council of Jerusalem, James as Bishop of Jerusalem, states his agreement with Peter’s decision, to his (Jame’s) own flock in Jerusalem, and then the Council decrees that a letter, pertaining to Peter’s circumcision decision, be drafted and sent to all the other churches. (Acts 15:1-29)

Paul did indeed explain to people that his main mission was to the Gentiles and that Peter’s main mission was to the Jews.

Galatians 2:7-8
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),

Acts 21:18-19
On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

Romans 11:13-14
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.

Peter and the other apostles handled the Gentile ministry near Jerusalem (which sprang from Peter’s vision concerning the Gentile convert Cornelius) before Paul became a Christian. Later, Paul was commissioned and sent by God specifically to preach to the Gentile nations.

Anyway the Church throughout history has dealt with disagreements & they emerged stronger each time. I have complete faith in Christ’s promise.

I agree. Our Church has already lasted for 2000 years. I have complete faith in Christ’s promise also.

 

[palmas85]

But that is precisely my point, John. Look at your choice of words. I “did not ever feel part of that Church.” I did. I do. But it is unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Is it not? Awful lot of people left behind, John, an awful lot. They kept their mouths shut, obeyed the Magesterium, and migrated like my mother and father to the Vigil Mass on Saturday.

I am glad that you have found joy in your parish. I have found joy in mine but I have to drive 25 miles and have driven 25 miles for over 25 years to find that joy. Do you know how many parishes I drive through in that 25 miles?

John, you have your parish and your joy and my friend I would never do anything to take that away from you. But 40 years ago the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. The Holy Father obviously thought about those of us who have been praying for 40 years that that which was taken away would be restored. You know the story of my diocese and that I am still praying.

It is not either/or, John, it is both/and - unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. I’m sorry, John. I am tired of driving 25 miles to go to a NO Mass which is reverent. I don’t want to hear chit-chat before Mass, I want to pray. I don’t want to greet my neighbor ( I am not a protestant and we are not Southern Baptists). I don’t want to hear guitars and drums nor do I want my neighbor to grab my hand and force me to do the wave at the Lord’s Prayer. I don’t want all the running up and down the aisles and a 10 minute sign of peace.

Yes, there are elitists amongst traditional Catholics. I’m not one of them. I would be perfectly happy with the Masses I knew and served as a kid. I would be even happier (since I can’t serve) if I could sing for a Missa Cantata even once a month. Is that so much to ask for, John? Once a month. A Missa Cantata where the congregation chants the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei like we did when I was a kid.

There is an almost irrational fear of the TLM. John, you grew up with it. Your mamma and daddy grew up with it. Your grandparents grew up with it. Let those of us who want to return to it do so.

I disagree Brother, it isn’t fear. No, it is much worse than that. It is hatred. hatred because it is traditional, hatred because it isn’t new. hatred simply because it is ancient.

Don’t blame the people, it is what they were taught. I had to fight that battle for years and years in RCIA with the Deacon, the Priests and the other RCIA team members. they would tell the catechumen how lucky, that is the word they used, lucky, that they were coming into a Church that was not tied to the past, that was on the cutting edge so to speak. Where a Solemn High Mass wouldn’t last two or three hours and where appearance was secondary to solidarity as a community. Where all were included and none were second class citizens as was the case before. And the Latin, boy did they ever trash that. I remember one telling moment when the Priest, speaking about reconciliation said that saying the absolution in Latin was to him an abomination and something that he refused to do pre Vatican II and that luckily the Church had done away with forever. He also said that celebrating the Mass facing the Altar was done primarily so the Priest didn;'t have to remember the words and could therefore freely ad lib. Something else he said he never did, but that everyone else did all the time. These are but several examples of the hatred spewed forth at the traditional Church at one Parish in one RCIA program. And, before I am told it is isolated, I went to the LA Congress many times and took a lot of ArchDiocese sponsered training… I saw what was being discussed and saw the materials being sold and heard all the rants about the joys of progressive Catholicism as opposed to the old ways which were dead and buried, hopefully forever.

When those coming into the faith are exposed to such hatred and such lies, how do you expect them to react? They believe it. And when they run into people who don’t hate the old ways, well, we were part of the problem so we must be re-educated or marginalized.

 

[Disciple96]

I’m so glad we’re having a diocesan workshop on the TLM in the Extraordinary Form here in Birmingham AL on the feast day of the Assumption of Our Lady.

I don’t hate the traditional Mass or anything traditional at all. I was received into Holy Mother Church in 1996 and didn’t know anything about all this tension and fighting at the time. I have nothing but reverence and respect for the Church and the Mass. I don’t love things merely because they are old but neither do I hate them. I love them because they are True and Holy.

I plan to attend the workshop and I am thrilled to have the opportunity to learn more and deepen my knowledge of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Praised be God.

 

[Disciple96]

I agree that there has been disunity since the Church was born, but I don’t think that Paul had a problem with Pope Peter. I believe he was reprimanding a different Cephas in Galatians. I also think that the James and John cited were also of the original 70 disciples as was this other Cephas and that none of the three were apostles.

members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf

The Church teaches (has always taught?) that Paul was reprimanding Cephas, who we now know as Saint Peter, the first Pope. Paul, quite rightly, called Peter to task for not living up to his infallible teaching. But he always respected Peter and his authority. That is precisely why he upbraided Peter for not living up to it, for not practicing what he preached, for not walking his talk.

 

[SHW]

The Church teaches (has always taught?) that Paul was reprimanding Cephas, who we now know as Saint Peter, the first Pope. Paul, quite rightly, called Peter to task for not living up to his infallible teaching. But he always respected Peter and his authority. That is precisely why he upbraided Peter for not living up to it, for not practicing what he preached, for not walking his talk.

Your belief is speculation and my belief is speculation also because there has never been any “official” Church teaching on this Scripture passage. Your “speculation” is one way to look at this passage and many did and some still do think this, but it does not mean that it is correct and many scholars now believe the same as I do, that this “Cephas” is not the “Apostle Peter” that was mentioned earlier in this same passage.

Why would Paul use two different names, Peter and Cephas, for only one man in one Scripture passage? I believe that he did so in order to speak about 2 different men with the same name in the Greek language (when Cephas is Aramaic and Peter is Greek for the same name). Paul wrote in Greek so if he was only speaking of one man, then he should have used “Peter” exclusively in this passage.

Galatians 2:7-14
"but 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 the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter is always listed first in all the lists of the apostles in Scripture in order to show his authority, but a man who is called Cephas is listed second in this Galatians passage.

I think that there is no way that the “apostles,” Peter, James, and John all made this same “mistake!” It could only be men with these same names (who were numbered among the first 70 disciples) that would have made this error in judgment.

 

[RyanML]

Your belief is speculation and my belief is speculation also because there has never been any “official” Church teaching on this Scripture passage. Your “speculation” is one way to look at this passage and many did and some still do think this, but it does not mean that it is correct and many scholars now believe the same as I do, that this “Cephas” is not the “Apostle Peter” that was mentioned earlier in this same passage.

Why would Paul use two different names, Peter and Cephas, for only one man in one Scripture passage? I believe that he did so in order to speak about 2 different men with the same name in the Greek language (when Cephas is Aramaic and Peter is Greek for the same name). Paul wrote in Greek so if he was only speaking of one man, then he should have used “Peter” exclusively in this passage.

Galatians 2:7-14
"but 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 the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter is always listed first in all the lists of the apostles in Scripture in order to show his authority, but a man who is called Cephas is listed second in this Galatians passage.

I think that there is no way that the “apostles,” Peter, James, and John all made this same “mistake!” It could only be men with these same names (who were numbered among the first 70 disciples) that would have made this error in judgment.

This is a bit off topic, but I would encourage you to look at the Douay-Rheims and it’s commentary on these verses: drbo.org/chapter/55002.htm

This was also St. Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of the passages when he was writing about true and false obedience in the Summa Theologica (Q. 33, Art. 4):

if the faith is endangered a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11: "Peter gave an example to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.

There are similar commentaries by other doctors of the Church. This would lead me to believe that, while not dogma, this interpretation is more than mere speculation. It would appear to be the favored interpretation by the Church.

But, to bring this back around to the original post, i’m sure Paul rebuked Peter in all charity and humility

 

[iona_scribe]

But, to bring this back around to the original post, i’m sure Paul rebuked Peter in all charity and humility

From St. Peter:

“15 Simply proclaim the Lord Christ holy in your hearts, and always have your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you have.
16 But give it with courtesy and respect and with a clear conscience, so that those who slander your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their accusations.
17 And if it is the will of God that you should suffer, it is better to suffer for doing right than for doing wrong.”

• 1 Peter 3:15-17

From St. Paul:

“1 I, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you therefore to lead a life worthy of the vocation to which you were called.
2 With all humility and gentleness, and with patience, support each other in love.
3 Take every care to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together.
4 There is one Body, one Spirit, just as one hope is the goal of your calling by God.
5 There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 and one God and Father of all, over all, through all and within all.”

• Ephesians 4:1-6

“31 Any bitterness or bad temper or anger or shouting or abuse must be far removed from you – as must every kind of malice.
32 Be generous to one another, sympathetic, forgiving each other as readily as God forgave you in Christ.”
-Ephesians 4:31-32

 

[SHW]

This is a bit off topic, but I would encourage you to look at the Douay-Rheims and it’s commentary on these verses: drbo.org/chapter/55002.htm

This was also St. Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of the passages when he was writing about true and false obedience in the Summa Theologica (Q. 33, Art. 4):

There are similar commentaries by other doctors of the Church. This would lead me to believe that, while not dogma, this interpretation is more than mere speculation. It would appear to be the favored interpretation by the Church.

But, to bring this back around to the original post, i’m sure Paul rebuked Peter in all charity and humility

Thanks, I am aware of these and many other “old” similar comments. I do not see Paul’s attitude as being “humbly” appropriate towards a fellow “apostle,” especially to the “chief” apostle. This would perhaps be an appropriate attitude towards a subordinate, however; to rebuke him in public.

Now, that we have concordances, and searchable computerized Biblical texts, and historical information, the early belief is being replaced. I doubt very much that St. Peter was ever afraid of the Jews after his return to Christ after he repented of his denial. To cower before the Jews and not eat with the Gentiles would be out of character for him since he had that heavenly vision and proclaimed that they were equals in the faith. Plus, James and John are implicated in this same thing. I do not think that they are the apostles either.

“and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars”

"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, "

The Apostles Peter, James, and John were known as the leaders and spiritual fathers (pillars) of the Church; they were not simply reputed to be pillars.

Paul spoke and wrote in Greek. It makes absolutely no sense that he would call Peter by two different names, one Arabic and the other one Greek, in the same Scripture passage unless he was talking about two different men with the exact same name. Simple logic and expediency.

This letter would be extremely confusing to his Greek-speaking flock unless they knew for sure that he was speaking of two different men with the same name. Since no explanations are given as to why two names are used for the same man, I think it safe to assume that they knew he was speaking of St. Peter the Apostle in the first part of the passage and Cephas the disciple in the latter part of the passage.

We will agree to disagree.

 

[JustaServant]

We will agree to disagree.

Protestants like to use the verses to disprove infalliblity. It’s a silly example and shows they do not understand what infallibility is. There is part of me that likes to think it was indeed Peter the apostle. Just to show that they were human like us.

 

[Disciple96]

Your belief is speculation and my belief is speculation also because there has never been any “official” Church teaching on this Scripture passage. Your “speculation” is one way to look at this passage and many did and some still do think this, but it does not mean that it is correct and many scholars now believe the same as I do, that this “Cephas” is not the “Apostle Peter” that was mentioned earlier in this same passage.

You speculated that I engage in speculation about Scripture. I assure you that this would be a rare occurrence indeed. I do not engage in speculation about something so important or about things so Holy and Sacred. I listen to my Mother, Holy Church and not those who set themselves up as interpreters for themselves. Somebody reads on a website somewhere that Peter was not Peter and Paul spoke to another Peter, James and John and that sounds more reasonable to them than what the Church (or those Fathers who have handed on what they were taught) have to say about it.

Such unwillingness to listen to the Church and preferring to listen to somebody, anybody, else, simply boggles my mind.

Which scholars are these to whom you refer? Are they trustworthy? Are they faithful to the Church? Are they capable of error? Why do you accept what they say?

Just asking. I’m always curious to hear the answers to those questions. I shall, in any case, refrain from speculating as to your answers and shall await your reply.

Peace be with you.
Disciple

 

[CradleCath]

This is a bit off topic, but I would encourage you to look at the Douay-Rheims and it’s commentary on these verses: drbo.org/chapter/55002.htm

This was also St. Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of the passages when he was writing about true and false obedience in the Summa Theologica (Q. 33, Art. 4):
if the faith is endangered a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public,** on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11: "Peter gave an example to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects. **

I am so glad you quoted Aquinas on this. While it does have to do with this particular argument about the tension between Paul & Peter (which was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction), it’s appropos to other situations we deal with today.

I often see posters on these forums say, “I just do what my Bishop says”. Or…“my Bishop says it’s alright, so I don’t worry about it.”

I have an acquaintance who is a EEM & was taking the Eucharist to the Catholics in the hospital. While she was in one ladies’ room, the roommate…who was not Catholic, who was not in danger of death…asked the EEM. to give her Communion, too. The EEM did so. When I asked her why, she said her Bishop told her to give the Eucharist to anyone who asked for it?? As far as I’m concerned,** If** her Bishop did indeed tell her that, he is wrong & she should not have obeyed him. in this case, obeying the Bishop caused the Body of Christ to be denigrated, to be taken as just another piece of bread “somehow deemed to be holy”.

Another case that comes to mind is our well-known Cardinal in Ca. & his deacon Eric Stoltz. Stoltz is a professional writer and published author who obsessively weaves into his essays and homilies the usual “gay” themes: discrimination against “gays” by “straights” and by the Church; special privileges for “gay” couples; and, of course, AIDS. The Cardinal, himself had been quoted as saying,“I have seen the archbishop of Los Angeles process into a church preceded by six gay pride flags & I wept.”

When non-Catholics or new Catholics bring these things up, I don’t feel that I can or will defend these men. Instead, I give the Church teachings from the CCC. about homosexuality.

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity. Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

If I were a priest or religious in the archdiocese of LA., I would feel obliged, because of the words of Thomas Aquinas, which the Church has accepted as Catholic teaching, to admonish the Cardinal & the Deacon. I wouldn’t WANT to, I’d be nervous about doing so…but, I hope that God would give me the courage, as He did to Paul. And, I hope that these men would see the truth as Peter did.

There are similar commentaries by other doctors of the Church. This would lead me to believe that, while not dogma, this interpretation is more than mere speculation. It would appear to be the favored interpretation by the Church.

But, to bring this back around to the original post, i’m sure Paul rebuked Peter in all charity and humility

Absolutely & I think that Peter accepted it with grace.

 

[Disciple96]

I joined this Forum to respond to this statement. After scrolling through three pages of opinions, I’m not sure what my original response was, but now I remember.
“Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex operandi.” That is, "the law of prayer, is the law of belief, is the law of operation (behavior).

For myself, I have reinstalled Christ the King over Brother Jesus. He is my Lord and Savior, not my “buddy.”

…Snipped for space…] May I ask this question, when was the last time each of us went to confession?

The last time I went was about two months ago and I plan to go this weekend at the EWTN Family Celebration downtown in Birmingham. I just hope the lines aren’t too long, but then that would be a good problem to have. I try to go every month, but it’s often more like every two to three months instead.

I’m glad you came back to the Church, that’s what it sounded like you meant. Correct me if I’m wrong or jumping to conclusions. Or it may just be that you have renewed your efforts and are getting deeper into your faith and not coming back to a Church you never left.

Of course, it occurs to me that you may be meaning that you left the Vatican II Church to go back to the pre-Vatican II Church.

Anyway, I liked the way you expressed that, about Christ the King not Brother Jesus. It’s a good point and so true. He is the King of the Universe, not just a pretty good teacher.

 

[SHW]

Such unwillingness to listen to the Church and preferring to listen to somebody, anybody, else, simply boggles my mind.

Which scholars are these to whom you refer?

It is good to get one’s mind boggled once in a while.

You perhaps misunderstand the teaching of the Church about Scripture interpretation.

Unless the meaning (interpretation) of the Scripture has been solemnly declared by the Church as is John 6:55, all “thoughts” and/or “educated guesses” as to the meaning of Scripture passages by “anyone” whether bishop, priest, or layperson, is but “speculation” or “personal opinion” even though many claim, rightly or wrongly, to have received Divine inspiration pertaining to their own private personal opinions. (These many different private personal opinions due to alleged “Divine inspiration” are also why we have so many Protestant denominations with differing and/or opposing dogmas.)

St. Augustine and many other Early Church Fathers (ECFs) taught that the “Rock” in Matthew 16:13-20 was either Jesus or Peter’s confession or even Peter’s faith even though they believed in the primacy of Peter.

Warning: The following quote is from a Protestant website which tries to refute the primacy of Peter using the ECFs writings:

From: grovergunn.net/andrew/mat16132.pdf

To begin with, let’s look at the interpretation of the fifth century church father St. Augustine. St. Augustine is considered by many to be the most important theologian of the church after the age of the apostles for the first twelve centuries of the church age. In his Institutes of the Christian Faith, John Calvin quoted St. Augustine more often than any other church father.

Here is what St. Augustine said about the Rock of Matthew 16:
“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, where the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.” Obviously St. Augustine’s view was not the later Roman view.

Let’s look at what some other respected church fathers had to say about the Rock of Matthew 16.

Here is the interpretation of Ambrose:
“Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh (his person), but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”

Here is the view of Basil of Seleucia:
“Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he names the one who confessed it ‘Peter,’ perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this is the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: ‘For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’”

The view of Bede:
“You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church …”

The view of John Chrysostom:
“Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession …”

The view of Cyril of Alexandria:
“Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple…”

The view of Jerome:
“The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’”

Eusebius, the early church historian, claims that this Cephas is not Peter according to Clement of Alexandria (newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm) who stated this in his writings which unfortunately have not survived to this day, but were still available and readable when Eusebius wrote his Church History sometime during c. 265 A.D.- c. 340 A.D. Not many of these early writings still exist due to the fragile materials that were used for writing purposes 1800 years ago (and have since disintegrated except for fragments). Clement died about the year 215 A.D.

Church History Book 1, Chapter 12 The Disciples of our Saviour.
2. They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.” Galatians 2:11

This is the complete quote by Eusebius and it is from: newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

Were the Apostle Peter and Cephas of Antioch the same person?
By JAMES LIKOUDIS

The Jesuit Father D. Pujol published in “Etudes” in the last century some remarkable articles effectively demonstrating that the Apostle Peter and the Cephas of Antioch and Corinth could not have been the same person. It is surprising that more notice was not given to his arguments. He showed, moreover, that Peter and Cephas as two distinct individuals represents an ancient tradition that has never been lost in the Church. In the 3rd century Clement of Alexandria observed that “Cephas was one of the 70 disciples who happened to have the same name as Peter the Apostle.” This same belief is found in the writings of St. Dorotheus of Tyre (4th c.) and Eusebius, the well-known historian of the ancient Church (4th c.). In yet another early Christian writing “Epistle of the Apostles” dated about 160 A.D. can be read:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathaniel, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and west, of the north and south... "

Further, Greek-speaking Christians who would have known Matthew’s early Gospel (originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic), would only know the Apostle by his name of Peter. In the famous Petrine text Matt. 16:15-19 the word ‘Cephas’ does not appear! It is always Peter whom the Greeks outside of Palestine would be familiar.

Read more about this and its proofs at: credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/cephas.htm

Also, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, in her mystical visions, claims that she “saw” Paul rebuke “Cephas” the disciple as stated in Galatians and that he was not “Peter” the Apostle.

 

[Disciple96]

It is good to get one’s mind boggled once in a while.

You perhaps misunderstand the teaching of the Church about Scripture interpretation.

Uh…nope.

Also, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, in her mystical visions, claims that she “saw” Paul rebuke “Cephas” the disciple as stated in Galatians and that he was not “Peter” the Apostle.

I’m not sure that I can accept her private revelation as definitive. And scholars and theologians have written a whole lot of things. I’m not sure I can consider the notion proved. The long-standing tradition is hard to ignore. We are still talking about Paul rebuking Peter, aren’t we? About eating with Gentiles after ruling that it was now to be accepted? Well, Cephas of the 70 would certainly not have been making the decision binding upon the Church concerning the matter of eating with Gentiles, would he? Only the leader of the Church would. Unless you’re implying that Paul was only talking to the leader of a local church and not the general Church.

It’s rather difficult to dismiss the long-standing reading of this by the Church as Peter being Peter, the Chief Apostle. (See this page here on Catholic Answers.)

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=Disciple96;5536684]I’m so glad we’re having a diocesan workshop on the TLM

in the Extraordinary Form here in Birmingham AL on the feast day of the Assumption of Our Lady.

I don’t hate the traditional Mass or anything traditional at all. I was received into Holy Mother Church in 1996 and didn’t know anything about all this tension and fighting at the time.

I have nothing but reverence and respect for the Church and the Mass. I don’t love things merely because they are old but neither do I hate them. I love them because they are True and Holy.

I plan to attend the workshop and I am thrilled to have the opportunity to learn more and deepen my knowledge of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Praised be God.

I’m so glad that you’re going to go to the workshop. I followed your link & it sounds fantastic. Since it’s being led by as FSSP priest, you’ll be taught not only about the Mass itself…but, about the “WHY” of each part of this Liturgy. (Pay special attention to the Roman Canon. Though it is Eucharistic prayer #1 in the Novus Ordo, I had not heard it prayed since the council.)

Since it’s Sat. evening as I write this, you’ve probably already attended it. Let us know what you learned. I would love to have a workshop like that one here.

It’s the Mass that I grew up with, from age 20-65 I attended the Novus Ordo, but am thrilled to be able to attend the TLM again. I hope that you have the same opportunity. If you do, you’ll need to attend more than once to get the “flavor” of this Liturgy. It’s more contemplative &, IMO., shares the** whole **of Catholicism…the piety, the humility found in this Mass is awesome.

I’m glad that you are keeping an open mind about this Mass, as Pope Benedict has said,
“The usus antiquior is not a museum piece but a **living expression of Catholic worship … what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us too **… It is a treasure that belongs to the whole Catholic Church and which should be widely available to all of Christ’s faithful … It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer and to give them their proper place.”

God bless Pope Benedict XVI & give him a long & fruitful life that we, here on earth, may learn from him.

 

[Disciple96]

CradleCath:
I’m so glad that you’re going to go to the workshop. I followed your link & it sounds fantastic. Since it’s being led by as FSSP priest, you’ll be taught not only about the Mass itself…but, about the “WHY” of each part of this Liturgy. (Pay special attention to the Roman Canon. Though it is Eucharistic prayer #1 in the Novus Ordo, I had not heard it prayed since the council.)

Since it’s Sat. evening as I write this, you’ve probably already attended it. Let us know what you learned. I would love to have a workshop like that one here.

It’s actually next weekend, on the Assumption. And I have not only an open mind about it, but I absolutely love the idea. I have nothing at all against the traditional Mass. I love the Church. Totally. Absolutely.

 

[SHW]

I’m not sure that I can accept her private revelation as definitive… The long-standing tradition is hard to ignore. We are still talking about Paul rebuking Peter, aren’t we? About eating with Gentiles after ruling that it was now to be accepted? Well, Cephas of the 70 would certainly not have been making the decision binding upon the Church concerning the matter of eating with Gentiles, would he? Only the leader of the Church would. Unless you’re implying that Paul was only talking to the leader of a local church and not the general Church.

It’s rather difficult to dismiss the long-standing reading of this by the Church as Peter being Peter, the Chief Apostle. (See this page here on Catholic Answers.)

No one is required to believe in private revelation. However, it does support my “answer” and that is why I posted it.

Jimmy Aiken is one person who holds to this old tradition (at least he did back in 1998 when he wrote that article). “Tradition” does not necessarily make it true. Jimmy “states” or “implies” certain things according to his “own” understanding in order to make his point, as most writers do when they sincerely believe that their views are correct.

For example: Many people believe the “tradition” that Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, was a widower (some also believe he had several children). Others believe the “tradition” that Joseph was a virgin (I believe this tradition). Traditions are not Church dogmas and are not necessarily true. They may be true, but then again, they may not be true. We may believe non-doctrinal or non-dogmatic “traditions” if we desire, but we are not obligated to believe them.

Regarding the original Greek translation of Galatians: Paul rebukes Cephas, not Peter whom he does mention specifically by name just a couple of sentences earlier in this letter. (Paul states that Peter is the apostle to the circumcised Jews, in order to remind his audience about his own status as the apostle to the uncircumcised Gentiles.) He would not switch “names” from “Peter” to “Cephas” if he was speaking of the “same” man in the “same” paragraph of his letter to a Greek-speaking audience! (“Peter” is Greek and “Cephas” is Aramaic.) Two different men have the same name.

Cephas, the disciple, did not make nor state any doctrine in Galatians, he is simply rebuked for his hypocrisy for refusing to eat with the Gentiles when Jews are present because of his fear of displeasing them. This is an example of hypocrisy and this is the whole point of Paul’s rebuke of Cephas.

Contrast this to Peter’s handling of this “eating with the Gentiles” situation:

Acts 11:1-18
Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
4** But** Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. 6 When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’

8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ 10 Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11 At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 **If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

18 When they heard these things they became silent**; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

It defies logic and common sense that Peter would then later go to Antioch and refuse to eat with the Gentiles out of fear of other Jews’ opinions of him since Peter ate with the Gentiles at the very beginning of their conversion to the faith and had absolutely no problem doing so in Acts 11 and he explained his reason “why” he was eating with them very authoritatively when he was first confronted by Jews who saw him eating with the Gentiles (which had been forbidden by Jewish law under the Old Covenant).

Peter explains in Acts 11:1-18 that the Gentile converts are now God’s chosen people just as the Jewish converts are and that is why he is eating with them. End of discussion. **Did you notice that they asked him outright why he was eating with them? **Peter first handled this “Gentile” situation earlier in Acts 10:25-33 when he commanded the Gentiles to be baptized in the name of the Lord. When Peter was later confronted by Jews in Acts 11 and asked why he was eating with the Gentiles, he explained his vision again and that was the end of this discussion, too. Peter was no wimp who worried about what fellow Jews thought of him! Peter had no problems asserting his authority as head of the Church (Acts 1:15-26) and Scripture shows very plainly that he openly ate with the Gentile converts as soon as they converted to the faith.

Yes, it is rather difficult to change one’s mind about a long-held belief even if that belief is in error. I must admit that I never did believe this “tradition” that “Peter” supposedly cowered because of fear of the Jews in Galatians. It did not fit Peter’s character. After studying Scripture and doing other research, I decided that my thinking/belief was correct. It was Cephas, one of the 70 disciples who was rebuked by Paul in Galatians. It was not Peter the Apostle.

 

[Monica4316]

I think as long as we are charitable, and always speak with love and kindness to others, - then we would not be pharisees pharisees put tradition before charity… but both need to be there. If we have no charity, we don’t have God. We need to support tradition with love rather than anger.