Discrepancy in the Cathechism

[sinner06]

Some one pointed this out to me, I wonder if anyone can explain it?
In paragraph 881 of the Catechism, it says, “The Lord made Simon alone, who he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church.”
But, in paragraph 424, the Catechism also says, “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church”.
Can anyone explain this seeming contradiction, as it seems the Church also endorses the Protestant interpretation?

 

[diggerdomer]

Read each passage in the context of the part of the CCC it’s in. One’s talking about the Creed, the profession of faith. The other is talking about the hierarchical structure of the Church.

As with so many things Catholic, we need to learn to read and understand things this way as “both/and” not “either/or.” It’s a false choice to set up that we can only believe one or the other interpretation in this case.

Hope this helps.

 

[Storm_Arriving]

Some one pointed this out to me, I wonder if anyone can explain it?
In paragraph 881 of the Catechism, it says, “The Lord made Simon alone, who he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church.”

This is just saying that Jesus made Peter the “founder” of his church.

But, in paragraph 424, the Catechism also says, “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church”.
Can anyone explain this seeming contradiction, as it seems the Church also endorses the Protestant interpretation?

This is basically saying the same thing. Catholics confess (believe) that Christie built his church starting with Peter. And then the succession goes on down the line.

• At least thats how I understand it anyway.

Thanks,

Darnell

 

[Verbum]

Hi Sinner,

Paragraph 424 is unfortunate in its expression. It does indeed seem to support the interpretation that, in this passage, Christ does not make Peter the foundation of the Church.

But let’s go back. The passage says (literally) **Stone you are Stone and upon this stone I shall build my Church. **This is a clear as it gets. Peter is the foundation stone of Christ’s Church.

But the faith that God praised is basic for all Christians. Christ claimed divinity, and if He is not God, then He is a fraud, and we are “the unhappiest of men.” That faith IS the foundation of Christianity in the sense that there can be no Christians without it.

Rewording this paragraph as follows, would, I think make things much clearer :

Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess, like St. Peter: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Thus, like living stones we let ourselves “be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1Peter 2,5)

What do you think?

Verbum

 

[sinner06]

Read each passage in the context of the part of the CCC it’s in. One’s talking about the Creed, the profession of faith. The other is talking about the hierarchical structure of the Church.

As with so many things Catholic, we need to learn to read and understand things this way as “both/and” not “either/or.” It’s a false choice to set up that we can only believe one or the other interpretation in this case.

Hope this helps.

The quote says that the Lord made Simon alone the rock of the church. Perhaps the word alone is the part that is incorrect, but if not, than the earlier statement in the catechism seems to contradict this one.

 

[diggerdomer]

The quote says that the Lord made Simon alone the rock of the church. Perhaps the word alone is the part that is incorrect, but if not, than the earlier statement in the catechism seems to contradict this one.

In terms of the hierarchical structure of the Church, Peter (i.e. the Pope) is the “rock.” He’s alone because his “office” (and those who succeed him) is that of one individual, not a committee. It’s “alone” in being unique in the hierarchical structure.

In terms of the Creed of our faith, Peter’s profession of who Jesus Christ is, a mystery at the center of our faith, is the “rock.” It’s solid, substantial, a firm basis, and so on.

In terms of music, there are all kinds of ways that “rock” can be used too.

 

[Soutane]

The quote says that the Lord made Simon alone the rock of the church. Perhaps the word alone is the part that is incorrect, but if not, than the earlier statement in the catechism seems to contradict this one.

Peter IS his Faith.I am mine.You had better be yours.Our Faith MUST be who we are.I think that this illustrates the difference in how Catholics and Protestants view Faith.I believe that a lot of protestants view Faith as the act of acknowledging or believing that Christ died for our sins(which,ironically is a WORK in and of itself.)
Whereas Catholics believe that Faith MUST be lived(those WORKS that St James says are so necessary for our salvation)ergo Peter and his Faith are one and the same.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The quote says that the Lord made Simon alone the rock of the church. Perhaps the word alone is the part that is incorrect, but if not, than the earlier statement in the catechism seems to contradict this one.

The word “alone” is not incorrect. Simon alone among the apostles is rock. That’s the context of the first Catechism paragraph you quote. Sure it could be worded better, but that’s the context. That both Simon and the rock of his faith can be rock is not a “Protestant” interpretation. It is a Catholic one. Only Fundamentalists constrain the meaning of certain words in Scripture to have one meaning, and then you’ve exhausted the text. God’s word is rich and deep in meaning.

For example, in 1 Cor 3:11, “no other” than Jesus is called the foundation. Yet in Ephesians 2:20, the apostles and prophets are called the foundation. Does Scripture contradict itself the same way as the Catechism? Of course not.

 

[sinner06]

I understand that these two statements are being used in different contexts in the catechism, however, at least in my catechism, the footnotes connected to these statements both reference Matthew 16. So even though they are in different contexts in the catechism, they are both talking about the same statement, “on this rock I will build my church”. The idea that Jesus was talking about Peter and faith at the same time seems strange. Wouldn’t he have said, “on these rocks I will build my church”, or something to that effect, or broken them up in some way? I don’t think he would say "on this rock I will build my church, and expect people to know he was talking about two different rocks. I could be wrong though.
Give me your thoughts!

 

[Spirithound]

Some one pointed this out to me, I wonder if anyone can explain it?
In paragraph 881 of the Catechism, it says, “The Lord made Simon alone, who he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church.”
But, in paragraph 424, the Catechism also says, “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church”.
Can anyone explain this seeming contradiction, as it seems the Church also endorses the Protestant interpretation?

Wrong emphasis, my friend, and fellow sinner. Catholics don’t endorse the Protestant position, Protestants endorse half of the Catholic position!

 

[sinner06]

Wrong emphasis, my friend, and fellow sinner. Catholics don’t endorse the Protestant position, Protestants endorse half of the Catholic position!

Absolutely right my friend, if you read my other posts, you’ll see I have a knack for wording things badly.

 

[diggerdomer]

I understand that these two statements are being used in different contexts in the catechism, however, at least in my catechism, the footnotes connected to these statements both reference Matthew 16. So even though they are in different contexts in the catechism, they are both talking about the same statement, “on this rock I will build my church”. The idea that Jesus was talking about Peter and faith at the same time seems strange. Wouldn’t he have said, “on these rocks I will build my church”, or something to that effect, or broken them up in some way? I don’t think he would say "on this rock I will build my church, and expect people to know he was talking about two different rocks. I could be wrong though.
Give me your thoughts!

Jesus’ words aren’t necessarily cut and dried black and white teaching. Many can be understood on many levels. I just don’t think we should expect every verse in Scripture to have one and only one meaning that applies to everyone, everywhere, at every time. Some of it, maybe, but not all of it. If there weren’t many ways to understand and apply Scripture in our lives (personally and communally), what would the point of homilies be?

Also, I guess I also tend to accept Scripture for what it is. Sure, I wish it recorded more of Jesus’ teachings and deeds, and had more explanations for a lot of things…but it doesn’t. Oh well.
Just my thoughts.

 

[sinner06]

Jesus’ words aren’t necessarily cut and dried black and white teaching. Many can be understood on many levels. I just don’t think we should expect every verse in Scripture to have one and only one meaning that applies to everyone, everywhere, at every time. Some of it, maybe, but not all of it. If there weren’t many ways to understand and apply Scripture in our lives (personally and communally), what would the point of homilies be?

Also, I guess I also tend to accept Scripture for what it is. Sure, I wish it recorded more of Jesus’ teachings and deeds, and had more explanations for a lot of things…but it doesn’t. Oh well.
Just my thoughts.

I understand what your saying, but I’m still not convinced. Certainly, many of Jesus’ teachings, especially his parables, can have multiple meanings, but this seems to be very specific. On this rock(singular) I will build my church. If Jesus is talking about multiple rocks it just seems he would have been more specific. I don’t know, I’m just still not convinced that this statement can be taken multiple ways.
Keep posting, we’ll find the truth somehow, I am really enjoying this conversation.

 

[diggerdomer]

I understand what your saying, but I’m still not convinced. Certainly, many of Jesus’ teachings, especially his parables, can have multiple meanings, but this seems to be very specific. On this rock(singular) I will build my church. If Jesus is talking about multiple rocks it just seems he would have been more specific. I don’t know, I’m just still not convinced that this statement can be taken multiple ways.
Keep posting, we’ll find the truth somehow, I am really enjoying this conversation.

Well…let’s see…Jesus also said to Peter “get behind me, Satan.” Right? (Matt 16:23)

So, is Peter Satan? Or was he saying Peter was under the influence of Satan? Or is Satan a general term for sin/sinners without it needing to refer to one individual? Or was he referring to all people at all times who are under the influence of sin/Satan? Or (add your own thoughts here…)

Could that quotation of Jesus directed to Peter be understood in more than one way? Or maybe a better question–can we be 100% sure that we understand exactly what Jesus meant, and that he meant one and only one thing?

Anyway, that’s the first thought that came to mind.

 

[sinner06]

Well…let’s see…Jesus also said to Peter “get behind me, Satan.” Right? (Matt 16:23)

So, is Peter Satan? Or was he saying Peter was under the influence of Satan? Or is Satan a general term for sin/sinners without it needing to refer to one individual? Or was he referring to all people at all times who are under the influence of sin/Satan? Or (add your own thoughts here…)

Could that quotation of Jesus directed to Peter be understood in more than one way? Or maybe a better question–can we be 100% sure that we understand exactly what Jesus meant, and that he meant one and only one thing?

Anyway, that’s the first thought that came to mind.

I understand, but this, I think, is slightly different. In this case, from my point of view, Jesus was trying to shock and offend Peter, in order to teach him a lesson, to really drive the point home. However, the “on this rock I will build my Church” teaching, is far more significant and important, and I still don;t think Jesus assigned a dual meaning to it. Jesus is talking about the rock on which he will build his church. I can’t remember the chapter and verse, but Jesus talks about being like a wise man who built his house on a rock. I question the strength of anything that is built on multiple rocks, rather than a single one. Just my two cents, post your thoughts!

 

[sinner06]

Also, just a thought here, the idea that scripture can be interpreted many different ways is a Protestant idea, no? I thought the Catholic Church claims to be the only ones capable of interpreting scripture properly(correct me if I’m wrong).

 

[Contarini]

Some one pointed this out to me, I wonder if anyone can explain it?
In paragraph 881 of the Catechism, it says, “The Lord made Simon alone, who he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church.”
But, in paragraph 424, the Catechism also says, “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church”.
Can anyone explain this seeming contradiction, as it seems the Church also endorses the Protestant interpretation?

It isn’t a discrepancy. The idea that these two concepts are mutually exclusive is itself a piece of Protestant (and/or perhaps also Orthodox?) polemic.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Also, just a thought here, the idea that scripture can be interpreted many different ways is a Protestant idea, no?

No. Exactly the opposite. The early and medieval Church recognized that Scripture could have several different meanings. The Protestants insisted by and large that it must have only one (though that’s an oversimplification).

I thought the Catholic Church claims to be the only ones capable of interpreting scripture properly(correct me if I’m wrong).

Not exactly. The Catholic Church claims to be protected by the Holy Spirit so that it won’t officially teach something contrary to Scripture (or falsely interpreting Scripture), and the Catholic Church claims to be the only Christian body with full access to the apostolic tradition within which Scripture needs to be interpreted. But of course people outside the Church may get a lot of things right, and for that matter Catholics can still misinterpret Scripture (it’s just that the Church will eventually be moved by the Holy Spirit to correct the error, and will never be allowed to endorse it officially).

Edwin

 

[sinner06]

No. Exactly the opposite. The early and medieval Church recognized that Scripture could have several different meanings. The Protestants insisted by and large that it must have only one (though that’s an oversimplification).

Not exactly. The Catholic Church claims to be protected by the Holy Spirit so that it won’t officially teach something contrary to Scripture (or falsely interpreting Scripture), and the Catholic Church claims to be the only Christian body with full access to the apostolic tradition within which Scripture needs to be interpreted. But of course people outside the Church may get a lot of things right, and for that matter Catholics can still misinterpret Scripture (it’s just that the Church will eventually be moved by the Holy Spirit to correct the error, and will never be allowed to endorse it officially).

Edwin

Fair enough. But I still don’t think Christ was talking about 2 different rocks, it just doesn’t make sense. But that could be my flawed understanding, everyone post your ideas, I find this compelling.

 

[Mark77]

Some one pointed this out to me, I wonder if anyone can explain it?
In paragraph 881 of the Catechism, it says, “The Lord made Simon alone, who he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church.”
But, in paragraph 424, the Catechism also says, “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church”.
Can anyone explain this seeming contradiction, as it seems the Church also endorses the Protestant interpretation?

There is absolutely no contradiction.

“The Lord made Simon alone, who he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church.” and “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church” is a “both/and” statement.

Because I am a son (son of my father) doesn’t mean I can’t be a father (father to my son), both are true, it’s not an " either/or", it’s a “both/and.”

I’ve heard it explained as Jesus being the Rock, ie. foundation and cornerstone upon which all Truth is based, while Jesus who changes Simon’s name to Peter (Kepha in the language Jesus spoke, Aramaic, which means “massive rock”) is the rock, the walls and roof upon which the Church continues to build upon today in the world.

**

It says that Peter was not chosen by Jesus to lead his Church and to pass on his authority to those who followed him through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Protestant interpretation says Jesus’ words; " And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."(Mt 16:18-19) applies to us alone, not just Peter and his successors.

It says that we can each decide what Jesus truly meant based solely on our own personal interpretation of Holy Scripture, even if all of those interpretations are conflicting.

According to Protestant teaching then, there is no absolute Truth, no final answer.
There is only an infinite number of incorrect and confusing interpretations. That is why we have over 20,000 protestant denominations in the world today, diluting and corrupting the Perfect Truth of Jesus Christ.

Look honestly at history. Read the writings of the early Church Fathers.

Which Church was founded by Jesus Christ, not a man (like Luther, Calvin, Smith, etc…), and has taught only one unchanging and consistent Truth since Jesus first lived 2000 years ago?

Do not fall for the Devil’s lies which focus on the sins and failings of the Church’s members, including it’s clergy, to distract us from Jesus and His Perfect Eternal Truth. The first Apostles, chosen and trained by Jesus Himself, were weak sinners who betrayed and denied Jesus.

Jesus loves you, He would not deceive you.

This life is a test. It is a test that determines our eternal fate! Don’t fail the test.

You must do what is right, no matter how unpopular, how painful, or how difficult it may be!

Jesus died a horrible death on the Cross for our sins!! All that we have to do is say yes to His Love, no matter what the cost to us in this life, in order to spend all eternity with Jesus in Heaven.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark**