I think, in your assessment regarding language and authority, you are exactly correct.
Thank you,
Jon
- Status
Jon
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Here’s the bottom line dealing with Matthew 16 on Simon Peter’s faith and Peter of whom Jesus builds his Church upon, it is not one or the other it is both. In the “'WE” as the catechism states profess the faith of (rock) Peter by proclaiming Jesus is the son of God, Christ crucified. Yet it is upon Peter that Jesus begins to build his Church and give the keys to the kingdom of God.
Now, we are all little stones (1 Peter 2:4
Come to him, a living stone, 3 rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God,
5
and, like living stones, let yourselves be built 4 into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6
For it says in scripture: “Behold, **I am laying a stone in Zion, a cornerstone, chosen and precious, and whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame.” **
7
Therefore, its value is for you who have faith, but for those without faith: **“The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” **8
and **“A stone that will make people stumble, and a rock that will make them fall.” They stumble by disobeying the word, as is their destiny. **
9
5 But you are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises" of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.) being built up into the body of Jesus Christ, so there are not 3 stones but many.
Dealing with Mt.16 only references Peter as Rock. Jesus is the potter’s hand in Mt. 16 building his Church upon Peter. There is no doubt that Jesus is the rock of our salvation, but let us not confuse the Rock upon Jesus builds his Church and the stone the builder’s rejected. In all summary they are all one in Christ just as the Son is in the Father.
So what you interpret is true to an extent because Peter, Jesus, the Church are all one, Peter and the Church are the body on earth united to Jesus in heaven as our head. What is confusing is that you corrolate Mt. 16 to these 3 rocks, which is not being revealed here by Jesus, from this that is all I am saying. I am not refuting your interpretation of 3 rocks, because there are more than 3, there are 12, then there are the many stones in the Church both on earth and in heaven.
I hope this helps;
Peace be with you
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, I think I understand, now. Thanks!
I suppose I can understand why Evangelicals say the rock of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 is the truth of which Peter spoke in Matthew 16. I can also see why the Catholic Church states that the rock of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 is Peter, even and that the truth Peter spoke is somehow the inseparable from the one who spoke it, and so they are the same rock. The passage, it seems to me, is ambiguous, as both interpretations have merit. This is why I find Jesus’ words about the nature of His body and blood in John 6 more compelling than His words about the rock on which our Church stands in Matthew 16. Although you don’t necessarily agree, do you at least see how I’m thinking?
J
jmcrae
Guest
It may be a matter of the phrasing, here.Socrates did not teach a systematic philosophy, but only a method of discovering the truth. That’s the same method I try to use to reveal logical errors and find reasonable resolutions to such. For example, you say that the Catholic Church teaches that there is only one rock on which the Church stands, and that rock is Peter. I agree that Peter is a rock on which the church stands, but wonder if there are not other rocks, such as Christ Himself, and the truth about Christ that Peter taught. You say, no, there is no other rock but Peter. I show you a passage in our Catechism that says the truth about Christ is a rock on which the Church stands. You say this is not a teaching of the Church, but my own private interpretation, and repeat, once more, that Peter is the only rock. Who am I to believe–you or the Catechism? If I believe the Catechism, then how am I not following your advice to submit to the authority of the Church?
There are not three Rocks; there is only one. However, from different points of view, it is described in different ways - it is the Rock of Peter, it is Christ, and it is the faith of the Church - one Rock; three ways of speaking about it.
S
spockrates
Guest
JM:It may be a matter of the phrasing, here.
There are not three Rocks; there is only one. However, from different points of view, it is described in different ways - it is the Rock of Peter, it is Christ, and it is the faith of the Church - one Rock; three ways of speaking about it.
I apprehend what you are saying, but cannot yet comprehend. Maybe you can help me see what you see? Please let me ask you this: Let’s say I were to say, “Jmcrae is an honest guy.” I’m sure you would agree that this truth is generally true of you. But what I’m wondering is this: Is the truth I understand about you the exact same thing as you yourself? Or is the idea different from the person?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Taking your example, and getting back to the rock analogy - it is true that “JM is an honest person” (JM is female, so “guy” doesn’t really fit) - it is also true that “JM is short” and “JM is a Catholic.”
So, JM fits into three classes of persons - 1 - honest; 2 - short; and 3 - Catholic - without ever being three different persons. It is the same person, but three different ways of speaking about JM.
“Who is that short lady? That is JM.”
“What is the name of the Catholic lady? Her name is JM.”
“Is JM generally considered to be honest? Yes, JM is usually honest.”
Are there three JMs? Most people give praise to God that there is only one.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Yes, I think I understand, now. Thanks!
Your contemplation of the scripture is to be comended here. Just a note here, you will find in learning Catholicism and the Apostolic teachings and revealed Traditions that reading scripture is 3 fold. These mystical interpretations are applied to the past, present and future revealing God’s Word as eternal. Each interpretation cannot, will not, and never conflict or contradict Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture, what is amazing to me is that each interpretation of scripture never conflicts or contradicts the “whole” of Catholicism from the Liturgy, Magisterium, Priestly and religious minsiteries down to the laity. You will find scripture Living, praying without ceasing “amen”.
I can assure spocrates; it will take more than 12 life times to learn all of Catholicism. For me each time I recieve a revelation of Truth from the master in his church, I find there is more to grow. You see we are the branches Jesus is the vine, we can never stop growing as Catholics. God also likes to prune his precious branches, so as to increase ones growth.
I say all this to encourage you to keep on “thinking” keep on contemplating as you are… and know this; You can always check your enlightenments for Truth, with the Pillar and foundation of Truth in the Catholic Church. She has been given the promise from Jesus Christ, that she will remain until the consumation of the world and He (Jesus) will be with her always.
Peace be with you
S
spockrates
Guest
I see. And would you also say that the person who holds these truths (after he changes his mind about your gender, of course!) is the same as you? That is, is Spockrates JM?Taking your example, and getting back to the rock analogy - it is true that “JM is an honest person” (JM is female, so “guy” doesn’t really fit) - it is also true that “JM is short” and “JM is a Catholic.”
So, JM fits into three classes of persons - 1 - honest; 2 - short; and 3 - Catholic - without ever being three different persons. It is the same person, but three different ways of speaking about JM.
“Who is that short lady? That is JM.”
“What is the name of the Catholic lady? Her name is JM.”
“Is JM generally considered to be honest? Yes, JM is usually honest.”
Are there three JMs? Most people give praise to God that there is only one.
S
spockrates
Guest
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that, apart from the correct interpretation given by the Catholic Church, Jesus’ words remain ambiguous to those Protestants who read them. That is, in the case of Matthew 16, the truth cannot be known by considering Jesus’ words alone. The Bible alone is not enough in this instance. One needs the teaching of the Church to explain of which of the three rocks Jesus was speaking.
Do we agree on this point, or do I still deserve condemnation?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Obviously not.I see. And would you also say that the person who holds these truths (after he changes his mind about your gender, of course!) is the same as you? That is, is Spockrates JM?
Peter is not the Rock because he holds truths - he is the Rock because God placed him into the heart of Christ, which is how it is that he holds truths, and cannot lie or be mistaken. What is inside the rock is part of the rock.
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, obviously not. Peter might be a chip off the old block, but he is not the block. He might be a little rock like the big Rock, who is Christ, but he is obviously not one and the same rock as Christ. If he were the same rock, then we should worship Peter as God, for He would be the Son of God! This, of course, is absurd.Obviously not.
Peter is not the Rock because he holds truths - he is the Rock because God placed him into the heart of Christ, which is how it is that he holds truths, and cannot lie or be mistaken. What is inside the rock is part of the rock.
Peter might have been the one rock who was most like the Rock we call Christ, but he was a different rock, nonetheless. Hence, it seems to me that there are at least two different rocks on which the Catholic Church is built–Jesus and Peter.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The rock is an analogy that points to the teachings of the Church.
Peter gives us the teachings of the Church infallibly. Jesus is the subject of the teachings of the Church and the Church is what contains the teachings, so - actually, it’s all the same rock, but just different ways of looking at or through the same rock.
S
spockrates
Guest
Thank you, JM. Two thoughts:
*]One can believe there are three rocks and yet still hold that Christ was speaking about Peter in Matthew 16.
*]You still have not answered the question how Peter and Christ are not the same person, being that they are the same rock.
My thought is this: The Catechism teaches that there are indeed three rocks, but it also teaches that the rock of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 was Peter. While it might be that the three rocks fit together to form one rock, like some kind of a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, they are still three separate (but perhaps inseparable) rocks.
Do you think I’m getting closer to the truth?
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
I think this thread has gone off the track so I continue in it’s decline.
I think I might have mentioned this to you before. We left our local ELCA church in 1989 because the local church had become soo liberal it was hard to see where the teachings of Christ were being proclaimed. That was 21 years ago and look how far the ELCA has moved south since. We were at the time comparing the state of the church with the teachings of Luther no so much the Bible and since that time I have placed the Bible in the top position as far as authority.
I guess for me it was easier to leave the Lutheran church than someone who is lifelong. One of the things that really bothered me was baptising infants of people whose parents were complete total strangers to our very small town church. I realize that infant baptism has in itself value to Lutherans, I position I do not hold anymore but I think a certain amount of commitment to the church should be required before this practice is implemented, but that is my opinion and I realize others have differing opinions on the matter. I felt at the time that the pastor did this because he was trying very hard to get people to become members. Not that growing the church is bad, but the tone was more defensive in that he didn’t want to make people mad because he wouldn’t do this and the parents many times clearly had no intention of raising their kids in this or any other church. They were looking for an excuse to show off their kids and have a party. My understanding of Luther was that he would preach the gospel and let the gospel grow the church, not the good intentions and thoughtfulness of the pastor.
Anyway, as a now outsider looking in, I can’t help but wonder how far does the ELCA corporate directors have to go before folks like your brother say enough is enough? Where I live now there are 5 ELCA churches in an area with about 10K population. On any given Sunday, the combined attendence is about 400 people, enough for one good size meeting. Among the 5 churches runs the gammot, from totally liberal to fairly conservative even from my prespective. I know people that attend these churches and they are aware of the political upheaval but they really don’t seem to care very much. This I don’t understand.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
I for one am not convinced John 6 in specific talks about a “real presence”. I do not wish to do Scripture arguing in this thread. It is just the way I read this passage.
But if this passage were to be Real Presence then (1) either folks in my local church have no life in them, have no eternal life, and will not be raised up on the last day. (2) my church enjoys the real presence also (which is what I would favour if I am reading this wrong).
That having been said, there are other Scriptures that IMHO are stronger. Starting with 1 Cor. 10:6.
This was in the context of essentials. Traditionally, when I have been told what the essentials are they are beliefs about Jesus Christ.
But when I read these passages, they seem to be talking about moral theology and those who wish to corrupt the moral purity of the church. So the implications for folks like the devout Calvinist here who argued for gay marriage are in mind sobering. But I suppose that is me.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
Do you remember the old star track show with the cute rock animals that would eat rock and make tunnels? How in the end they began to work with the miners?
How Spock was able to speak with them using his mind melt?
Have you spent any time in a Blessed Sacrament chapel with the real presence?
If not you really should go and experience it. Most catholic churches have them, or the tabernacle may be under the crucifix behind the Alter.
I go in, pray and then try to empty myself from any thoughts, get out of the world so to speak. It’s always good quality time with Jesus
In
Christ
Rich
www.utahmission.com
How Spock was able to speak with them using his mind melt?
Have you spent any time in a Blessed Sacrament chapel with the real presence?
If not you really should go and experience it. Most catholic churches have them, or the tabernacle may be under the crucifix behind the Alter.
I go in, pray and then try to empty myself from any thoughts, get out of the world so to speak. It’s always good quality time with Jesus
In
Christ
Rich
www.utahmission.com
S
spockrates
Guest
You mean Star *Trek *and mind meld?
Don’t worry about getting the spelling wrong; I’m sure I’d get it all wrong if I tried to explain to someone what really being in the presence of the Real Presence is like, since I never have been to an Adoration Chapel.
S
spockrates
Guest
Yes, I think I see what you mean, and I think you might be onto something.
I mean, consider what might be Christ’s most quoted words among Evangelicals and Pentecostals:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
(John 3:16)
Seldom do you hear the rest of His words:
“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
(John 3:19-21)
S
spockrates
Guest
I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to talk me into, or out of, becoming Catholic. I’m surprised to learn that several voiced their fear of trying to talk me out of it, saying that they would be banned from the forum. Not sure if this concern is warranted.
My thought is that one can learn a lot through controversy and contrary opinions. I mean, consider how much truth we’ve received by reading Jesus’ responses to His enemies. Think about how much truth has passed on to us through the Early Church Fathers by way of their debates with unbelievers. For me, personally, such debates increase my faith. For the skeptic says out loud what the devout silently doubts. The answer the apologist gives alleviates such unspoken uncertainty and causes my faith to grow and become stronger. I cannot imagine why the helpful moderators of CAF would not welcome such debate. I find the it hard to believe that they would not.
My thought is that one can learn a lot through controversy and contrary opinions. I mean, consider how much truth we’ve received by reading Jesus’ responses to His enemies. Think about how much truth has passed on to us through the Early Church Fathers by way of their debates with unbelievers. For me, personally, such debates increase my faith. For the skeptic says out loud what the devout silently doubts. The answer the apologist gives alleviates such unspoken uncertainty and causes my faith to grow and become stronger. I cannot imagine why the helpful moderators of CAF would not welcome such debate. I find the it hard to believe that they would not.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I hope that your conscience has been satisfied, and that you will be able now to overcome the objections and fears of family members and other significant persons, as you journey closer to the Church.
The best way to have them “on board” with you is to share the journey with them, right from the start. Don’t wait until you are about to be Confirmed, before springing it on them. Let them in on it as it unfolds. Let them, on the night of your Confirmation, be able to say, “See? I knew you were going to do this, even before you did. I remember the time you went to your first Mass, and how excited you were.”
- Status