Comparing Mark to Matthew

[rcwitness]

So guys,
Im going to theology on tap tonight and the topic is “who do you say that I am” (church leadership) and the speaker is Milwaukee Arcbishop Jerome Listeki! I would like to ask him (unless he mentions already) why only Mathews Gospel delivers the response “flesh and blood…you are Peter…i will build my Church.”
I am very curious about this difference in such an important meeting with Jesus, but i am not using it to discredit Matthew’s or Mark’s gospel. Or the Church’s interpretation.

And anything else you think is worth asking him, in discussion form.

Po18guy,
Im seeing how you are compelled to test spirits. This is wise. Feldwebel (i believe was the spelling?) was banned, and seamed to have a spirit that got under your skin. Part of me is disappointed to see people get banned. Even a friend of mine was banned from CAF. I have long debates about Catholic teaching with him. I understand the need for mods to keep discussions charitable and respectful. Maybe i have more tolerence, but to my fault…?

Thanks,
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

If someone with an accusing spirit, against Church Traditions came to me, i would respond that the gospels werent intended to address all practices in Church life. And the knowledge and respect given to Peter was more observed by tradition and practice than " written law".

But my curiosity, is because it is such an important event and foundation for the others to bring into the story, and then leave out the commission. The question of Jesus implies the response in Matthew. As though Jesus asked to draw out Peter as spokesman for the 12 .

 

[po18guy]

So guys,
Im going to theology on tap tonight and the topic is “who do you say that I am” (church leadership) and the speaker is Milwaukee Arcbishop Jerome Listeki! I would like to ask him (unless he mentions already) why only Mathews Gospel delivers the response “flesh and blood…you are Peter…i will build my Church.”
And anything else you think is worth asking him, in discussion form.

Po18guy,
Im seeing how you are compelled to test spirits. This is wise. Feldwebel (i believe was the spelling?) was banned, and seamed to have a spirit that got under your skin. Part of me is disappointed to see people get banned. Even a friend of mine was banned from CAF. I have long debates about Catholic teaching with him. I understand the need for mods to keep discussions charitable and respectful. Maybe i have more tolerence, but to my fault…?

Thanks,
Michael

I cannot judge hearts, but only the fruits of their displayed behavior. The word that kept arising in relation to the banned member was ‘arrogance.’ Condescension is the sure path to conflict. Actually, he appears to have been banned prior under a different account. I saw no spirit of inquisitiveness in him, but rather a desire to justify the self while calling the Church, ultimately, into question. Something is fundamentally wrong in that attitude.

I have always been a big picture kind of guy. It is when we zoom in, when we blur the rest in focusing solely on the micro, that we may lose our direction. Ever drive through a heavy fog? You can be intensely focused only on your immediate surroundings while losing much or all concept of your overall location. The macro view is paramount in that it allows any given thought or action to be immediately placed in the context of the larger picture.

It is from this perspective that the worst of modernism may be seen as an attack on the very foundation of our faith. Recent discoveries, such as at Qumran, have helped to fill in gaps of knowledge that have existed for centuries. But, when such incresed knowledge is misdirected so as to repaint the picture of faith, it becomes dangerous to that faith. Here, it is good to recall Jude’s words, “Beloved, as one who is ever ready to write to you about that salvation which is your common concern, I am compelled to send you this letter of warning; you have a battle to fight over the faith that was handed down, once for all, to the saints.” We must ever bear those prophetic words in mind when confronted with an innovative, diverging or skeptical outlook or perspective on the faith.

Everything related to the faith must be related back to the entirety of, the solidity of public revelation. Any modern conflict cannot be admitted, or else we risk reinventing the faith. Some degree of heresy will be the result, as there can be no other.

Condensed, I guess I would have to say that the Church is not necessarily flourishing because of modern trends, but rather continues to suffer because of them. The Church must carefully test each new idea for the spirit which drives it. The Holy Spirit always and everywhere leads to humble submission and unity. Worldly spirits seek only to divide and destroy. Long ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, and so it is with our faith.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

So guys,
Im going to theology on tap tonight and the topic is “who do you say that I am” (church leadership) and the speaker is Milwaukee Arcbishop Jerome Listeki! I would like to ask him (unless he mentions already) why only Mathews Gospel delivers the response “flesh and blood…you are Peter…i will build my Church.”
I am very curious about this difference in such an important meeting with Jesus, but i am not using it to discredit Matthew’s or Mark’s gospel. Or the Church’s interpretation.

And anything else you think is worth asking him, in discussion form.

Po18guy,
Im seeing how you are compelled to test spirits. This is wise. Feldwebel (i believe was the spelling?) was banned, and seamed to have a spirit that got under your skin. Part of me is disappointed to see people get banned. Even a friend of mine was banned from CAF. I have long debates about Catholic teaching with him. I understand the need for mods to keep discussions charitable and respectful. Maybe i have more tolerence, but to my fault…?

Thanks,
Michael

I was reading about the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople yesterday, whose line of Apostolic succession is traced back to St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother. The booklet claimed that St. Andrew was the first disciple to identify Jesus as the Messiah.

I thought, we all knew that was St. Peter. But according to John’s Gospel

John Chpt. 1

*The First Disciples of Jesus

35 The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, “Look, here is the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. 40 **One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed[j]). *42 He brought Simon[k] to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter[l]).

So that may be a question worth asking too.

 

[po18guy]

If someone with an accusing spirit, against Church Traditions came to me, i would respond that the gospels werent intended to address all practices in Church life. And the knowledge and respect given to Peter was more observed by tradition and practice than " written law".

But my curiosity, is because it is such an important event and foundation for the others to bring into the story, and then leave out the commission. The question of Jesus implies the response in Matthew. As though Jesus asked to draw out Peter as spokesman for the 12 .

Reading Acts, by itself, reveals Peter’s position - perhaps illumined by John 21. Now, John is the “beloved disciple”, to whom Jesus gave His mother. Yet, John is mentioned only 29 times in the NT, the others, even less. Peter is named 195 times. Never mind Matthew 16, or even the entire Gospel. The rest of the NT bears witness to Peter’s preeminence.

 

[rcwitness]

I cannot judge hearts, but only the fruits of their displayed behavior. The word that kept arising in relation to the banned member was ‘arrogance.’ Condescension is the sure path to conflict. Actually, he appears to have been banned prior under a different account. I saw no spirit of inquisitiveness in him, but rather a desire to justify the self while calling the Church, ultimately, into question. Something is fundamentally wrong in that attitude.

I have always been a big picture kind of guy. It is when we zoom in, when we blur the rest in focusing solely on the micro, that we may lose our direction. Ever drive through a heavy fog? You can be intensely focused only on your immediate surroundings while losing much or all concept of your overall location. The macro view is paramount in that it allows any given thought or action to be immediately placed in the context of the larger picture.

It is from this perspective that the worst of modernism may be seen as an attack on the very foundation of our faith. Recent discoveries, such as at Qumran, have helped to fill in gaps of knowledge that have existed for centuries. But, when such incresed knowledge is misdirected so as to repaint the picture of faith, it becomes dangerous to that faith. Here, it is good to recall Jude’s words, “Beloved, as one who is ever ready to write to you about that salvation which is your common concern, I am compelled to send you this letter of warning; you have a battle to fight over the faith that was handed down, once for all, to the saints.” We must ever bear those prophetic words in mind when confronted with an innovative, diverging or skeptical outlook or perspective on the faith.

Everything related to the faith must be related back to the entirety of, the solidity of public revelation. Any modern conflict cannot be admitted, or else we risk reinventing the faith. Some degree of heresy will be the result, as there can be no other.

Condensed, I guess I would have to say that the Church is not necessarily flourishing because of modern trends, but rather continues to suffer because of them. The Church must carefully test each new idea for the spirit which drives it. The Holy Spirit always and everywhere leads to humble submission and unity. Worldly spirits seek only to divide and destroy. Long ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, and so it is with our faith.

Yes, i see this perspective and its importance. When you say,“public revelation” do you believe scriptures contain this full public revelation? I do, but not the same as sola scriptura. I think all doctrine can be found through scripture, but that scripture and its full message is further defined and interpreted through the Church. But also, that Church doesnt mean only from hierarchy. God uses the littlest members to reveal things too, but ultimately the hierarchy must affirm it before the whole body accepts it.

 

[po18guy]

I was reading about the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople yesterday, whose line of Apostolic succession is traced back to St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother. The booklet claimed that St. Andrew was the first disciple to identify Jesus as the Messiah.

I thought, we all knew that was St. Peter. But according to John’s Gospel

John Chpt. 1

*The First Disciples of Jesus

35 The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, “Look, here is the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. 40 **One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed[j]). ***42 He brought Simon[k] to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter[l]).

So that may be a question worth asking too.

And, we have Nathanael:

John 1:49
Knox Bible (KNOX)
49 Then Nathanael answered him, Thou, Master, art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.

But, Jesus changed only Simon’s name. Satan did not demand to sift either of them as wheat. Jesus did not ask them thrice if they loved Him. Jesus asked only Peter to “follow Me” in John 21. Jesus did not pay the temple tax for them, only for Himself and Peter. Jesus bid only Peter to come to Him across the water. Neither Andrew nor Nathanael were present at the transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, or asked to come nearer to our Lord at Gethsemane. And on and on.

 

[rcwitness]

I was reading about the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople yesterday, whose line of Apostolic succession is traced back to St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother. The booklet claimed that St. Andrew was the first disciple to identify Jesus as the Messiah.

I thought, we all knew that was St. Peter. But according to John’s Gospel

John Chpt. 1

*The First Disciples of Jesus

35 The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, “Look, here is the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. 40 **One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed[j]). ***42 He brought Simon[k] to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter[l]).

So that may be a question worth asking too.

Sure, this is good and directly related. My thoughts are that the meeting was a specific test. Remember, Andrew was there too, right? But he did not step up at this time. The Lord knows the spirit realm when asking this question. He was allowing the Father to draw out the one. And the one to answer the Father’s revelation. Maybe Andrew had doubts or fears. Maybe he was just not a “leader”…? Leader as in prince of Apostles. But either way, the Lord chooses who He chooses. He decides who He wishes to use for offices and standings. He sees the “big picture” as po18boy would say

Oh! Sorry! Po18guy! I was not trying to be a punk!

 

[rcwitness]

I musta been thinkin of the sandwhich!

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I try to base my opinion on the totality of the circumstances. The Jesus Seminar largely fizzled, as is appropriate. More concerning is blurred direction of the Church is the past 40-50 years, much of this driven by the modernist theology that drove the weakness of the NAB translation. I find it far easier to defend Catholic doctrine using the KJV - why is that? Combine this with the NAB’s rather horrid modernist notes and introductions, the modernist theology that has seeped into Catholic higher education, lackluster seminary formation that has resulted in weak homilies and flaccid moral teaching, and, it becomes easier to see why the Church has suffered so profoundly.

As I mentioned, simply pick up a used D-R or Confraternity bible and compare the translation, intros and notes with the NAB. There is substantial - some might say stark - difference. As a practical matter, the Church has survived just fine through the millennia with theology settled long ago. I am very wary of innovation in theology or scholarship, especially in light of scriptural warnings against false teachers leading even the elect astray. We must always and everywhere test the spirits.

Your big picture knowledge exceeds my own on that front.

I am a post Vatican II baby and attended a Catholic School that didn’t even offer Latin as a class. That is one of the reasons why I enjoy watching the EWTN daily masses. I enjoy hearing the Latin and am slowly gaining enough working knowledge to understand it. Still, I am disappointed that even in Catholic school in the 1980/1990s Latin wasn’t something offered to us to learn.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, i see this perspective and its importance. When you say,“public revelation” do you believe scriptures contain this full public revelation? I do, but not the same as sola scriptura. I think all doctrine can be found through scripture, but that scripture and its full message is further defined and interpreted through the Church. But also, that Church doesnt mean only from hierarchy. God uses the littlest members to reveal things too, but ultimately the hierarchy must affirm it before the whole body accepts it.

The scriptures were produced by, and stand in support of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church (Read the prologue to Luke - Luke 1:1-4). Jesus wrote nothng. He commanded the writing of nothing. He sent Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. When He sent the 72, He did not give them the sacred scrolls from which to read. Scripture is wonderful and irreplaceable to us, but is never to be used in isolation from the Apostolic Tradtion and Magisterium of the Church. Sadly, since scripture is a stand alone physical object, it is prone to abuse by using it in isolation from the Church that produced it. (2 Peter 3:16). Worldy spirits love that aspect of the scriptures, as they have learned to incite its twisting from their master.

Consider: Who was the first to contradict the spoken Word of God? Genesis 3. Who was the first to twist and distort the scriptures? Matthew 4:6, Luke 4:9. The evil one is not confined to the pages of scripture, as we see from the Book of Job (Job 1:7, 2:2). He is right now roaming up and down upon the earth, to which he was thrown down after his rebellion in heaven. His influence is perpetual, relentless. And, for that reason, Jude wrote that we must contend for the faith.

 

[po18guy]

Your big picture knowledge exceeds my own on that front.

I am a post Vatican II baby and attended a Catholic School that didn’t even offer Latin as a class. That is one of the reasons why I enjoy watching the EWTN daily masses. I enjoy hearing the Latin and am slowly gaining enough working knowledge to understand it. Still, I am disappointed that even in Catholic school in the 1980/1990s Latin wasn’t something offered to us to learn.

Never mind Latin, the faith itself is not well taught in many Catholic schools.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I don’t think it can be argued whether or not Peter has primacy among the Apostles. As the two of you have pointed out, the examples are numerous.

It was just shocking for me to read the claim that our Orthodox brothers give Andrew the distinction of first recognizing Jesus as the Messiah…and that the claim is based on the Gospel record, when I think most Catholics would go with the Synoptic tradition as described in fullest detail in Matthew 16. It goes to show how much more I need to learn.

IMO, Matthew’s Gospel in general gives more details about the formation and rules of the early Church when compared to the others. Much of this content is unique to his Gospel. In this light, I think the expanded version of the “Who do you say I am?” story is Matthew reinforcing key points about the early Church, either because his audience needed the extra teaching, or because the audience itself would have been knowledgeable about it.

Tradition states that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch too, and I don’t think there is much disagreement that Matthew was initially writing his Gospel to a Jewish-Christian Church somewhere near the Holy Land. Some of the Church fathers mention a Syriac (Aramaic) version of Matthew existing in this region. So at minimum Matthew may have been putting into writing extra details of that Church’s Apostolic founder that was still part of the bigger oral teachings circulating at the time.

 

[rcwitness]

But, Jesus changed only Simon’s name. Satan did not demand to sift either of them as wheat. Jesus did not ask them thrice if they loved Him. Jesus asked only Peter to “follow Me” in John 21. Jesus did not pay the temple tax for them, only for Himself and Peter. Jesus bid only Peter to come to Him across the water. Neither Andrew nor Nathanael were present at the transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, or asked to come nearer to our Lord at Gethsemane. And on and on.

These are good points, as well as your statements about not using scripture apart from tradition and magisterium.

Where is that story about Jesus paying His and Peter’s temple tax?

Also, i have an impression, that Jesus’ “attention” to Peter was for practical means, not in contradiction to his office among the other Apostles, but precisely in relation to it. Remember how Jesus gave His Eucharist to Judas? This was to show that priests cannot read the hearts of men and so the Lord put Himself under consequence of that position that priests as human limitations live in. So too the Lord needed to focus certain human resources, as a man, such as prayers, tax money, private teaching, ect. towards Peter. He was like the others but given “more” in his “allotted” ministry. So too is Francis a bishop like the rest, but given more responsibility as Bishop of Bishops.

Does that make sense?

It isnt so much as Jesus not praying for the others, or not giving them the same gifts, or Peter being more special or greater than the others. But in order for us all to work together for one Church and one ministry and one gospel.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Never mind Latin, the faith itself is not well taught in many Catholic schools.

I give my elementary school a good grade. Sure some Latin for kids would have been nice, but we learned about Scripture and Church history, and were right next door to my Parish, so we had weekly Mass and the boys were Altar Servers for daily mass (Something I will treasure forever.)

High School was less impressive. Latin SHOULD have been offered as language class by that age, and the school itself had a bi-polar problem of not only being the only Catholic School in our little corner of the Appalachians, but also the only private school. As such we had many non-Catholic doctors, lawyers, wealthy parents send their kids there for college prep.

The school always claimed to remain committed to teaching the Faith, and did make sure all the students took religion class and attended our less frequent Masses. Still, I look back and wonder whether the material wasn’t watered down a bit to keep the non-Catholics happy. It is still hard for me to blame my school though. We wouldn’t be open at all if not for the non-Catholics that find value in what we do. If my school were to close, Catholic education in Western Maryland would be extinct, and I think that would be a worse outcome than a C+ level of Catholic instruction.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

These are good points, as well as your statements about not using scripture apart from tradition and magisterium.

Where is that story about Jesus paying His and Peter’s temple tax?

Also, i have an impression, that Jesus’ “attention” to Peter was for practical means, not in contradiction to his office among the other Apostles, but precisely in relation to it. Remember how Jesus gave His Eucharist to Judas? This was to show that priests cannot read the hearts of men and so the Lord put Himself under consequence of that position that priests as human limitations live in. So too the Lord needed to focus certain human resources, as a man, such as prayers, tax money, private teaching, ect. towards Peter. He was like the others but given “more” in his “allotted” ministry. So too is Francis a bishop like the rest, but given more responsibility as Bishop of Bishops.

Does that make sense?

Whenever I hear critisim of the Church because of the actions of men, I point to Peter. Of all the people in the world, Jesus chose a man to lead his Church:

• who temporarily lost faith and slipped below the sea,
• who denied Jesus 3 times during the moment of crisis,
• who even after the Resurrection and seeing the living Jesus was hiding in fear,
• who Paul rebukes for losing his nerve and refusing to eat with Gentile-Christians when some Jewish-Christians called him out for it.

Men fail, as Peter did over and over. Yet Peter always sought forgiveness. He always came back to our Lord with a contrite heart and strove to do better. I see it as an analogy for the way we should act before Christ. We will all have times when we slip below the waves, but Jesus will always lift us back up

 

[po18guy]

Where is that story about Jesus paying His and Peter’s temple tax?

Matthew 17:23-26
Knox Bible (KNOX)
23 And when they reached Capharnaum, the collectors of the Temple pence approached Peter, and asked, Does not your master pay the Temple pence? 24 Yes, he said. Soon afterwards he came into the house, and Jesus forestalled him; Simon, he said, tell us what thou thinkest; on whom do earthly kings impose customs and taxes, on their own sons, or on strangers? 25 On strangers, Peter told him; and Jesus said to him, Why then, the children go free. 26 But we will not hurt their consciences; go down to the sea, and cast thy hook; take out the first fish thou drawest up, and when thou hast opened its mouth thou wilt find a silver coin there; with this make payment to them for me and for thyself.

Also, i have an impression, that Jesus’ “attention” to Peter was for practical means, not in contradiction to his office among the other Apostles, but precisely in relation to it. Remember how Jesus gave His Eucharist to Judas? This was to show that priests cannot read the hearts of men and so the Lord put Himself under consequence of that position that priests as human limitations live in. So too the Lord needed to focus certain human resources, as a man, such as prayers, tax money, private teaching, ect. towards Peter. He was like the others but given “more” in his “allotted” ministry. So too is Francis a bishop like the rest, but given more responsibility as Bishop of Bishops. Does that make sense?

Someone has to be in charge, with authority, or you end up with the rampant protestant division that we observe. And that lack of authority breeds relativism, as in the protestant world, either all are correct or all are incorrect. No one can make that decision, as they have no authority. Every human organization needs a CEO. Acts 15 is instructive, as even Paul had no answer to the circumcision question. That Church had that authority and used that authority - settling the question for all time.

As to Judas, as with everything Jesus did and said, there are multiple layers of meaning. He offered Judas the chance to repent, both there and in the garden. As well, it prophesied the end of those who do not examine themselves before consuming the Eucharist (Acts 1:18, 1 Corinthians 11:28).

 

[rcwitness]

Whenever I hear critisim of the Church because of the actions of men, I point to Peter.

Good point. I usually point to Judas, but i like your perspective a little more. It is more positive

Matthew 17:23-26
Knox Bible (KNOX)
23 And when they reached Capharnaum, the collectors of the Temple pence approached Peter, and asked, Does not your master pay the Temple pence? 24 Yes, he said. Soon afterwards he came into the house, and Jesus forestalled him; Simon, he said, tell us what thou thinkest; on whom do earthly kings impose customs and taxes, on their own sons, or on strangers? 25 On strangers, Peter told him; and Jesus said to him, Why then, the children go free. 26 But we will not hurt their consciences; go down to the sea, and cast thy hook; take out the first fish thou drawest up, and when thou hast opened its mouth thou wilt find a silver coin there; with this make payment to them for me and for thyself.
Someone has to be in charge, with authority, or you end up with the rampant protestant division that we observe. And that lack of authority breeds relativism, as in the protestant world, either all are correct or all are incorrect. No one can make that decision, as they have no authority. Every human organization needs a CEO. Acts 15 is instructive, as even Paul had no answer to the circumcision question. That Church had that authority and used that authority - settling the question for all time.

As to Judas, as with everything Jesus did and said, there are multiple layers of meaning. He offered Judas the chance to repent, both there and in the garden. As well, it prophesied the end of those who do not examine themselves before consuming the Eucharist (Acts 1:18, 1 Corinthians 11:28).

Thanks. That is an interesting story. After reading, i remember the coin in the fish’s mouth, but didnt remember the whole sequence. You see that as direct care for Peter specifically? I must agree. As a lesson that God takes care of His children’s needs.

BTW…sorry Patrick, for derailing some, or “bumping”. Anyway, where are you? The sushi bar? Saki time?

 

[po18guy]

Thanks. That is an interesting story. After reading, i remember the coin in the fish’s mouth, but didnt remember the whole sequence. You see that as direct care for Peter specifically? I must agree. As a lesson that God takes care of His children’s needs.

Added to the numerous other examples, it indicates that Peter ands Jesus had a special relationship - all signified by that name change.

 

[october_baby]

Good stuff! You really know your stuff!