How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[mercygate]

Mercygate, I think you said this very well:

I also believe there is scripture to back up what we are saying but I’m too tired to dig it up today and I doubt it would make any difference to PC Master anyway.

The one I can think of off the top of my head goes something like this:

.*…much study is wearisome to the flesh…making of books there is no end…let us hear the end of the matter, fear God and keep his commandments for that is the whole duty of man. *

Anyone familiar with this verse? Does it work here?

Ecclesiastes 12:12.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, James,

That was an excellent thought about the Apostles sitting down to work out a business plan - the very idea is just funny. And, of course goes to show everyone who is willing to look that a group of timid fishermen, a tax collector and some other guys could not have designed this Church without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit.

What I have not seen - at least so far, is the fact that all of the scriptural evidence falls short if there is no faith. From what I have seen, the majority of folks believe what they were taught as children - and then fail to add their own self to the process. Net result is that their position is more habit rather then belief, more repition (like that the Catholic Church is to be hated and feared) but no discernment as to why this is with their group.

In my opinion, Christ’s statement to Peter being the rock on which the Church would be built is crystal clear. Adding to ths is that Christ then rebukes Peter (calling him Satan) for his lack of faith in Christ’s mission of suffering and death. Peter can drop the ball - as any of us can (and do) - what makes Peter (and his successors) special is that when teaching from The Chair - there is no possibility of dropping the ball. And, this takes faith in Christ’s promises to guide His Chruch through the Holy Spirit.

Again, I really enjoy the ‘Business Plan’ analogy.

Tom

 

[qui_est_ce]

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the term kepa means rock or stone, and without a context, it does not tell us its size. So, a kepa can be a small, medium-sized, or large rock depending on context.

The context of Matt. 16:18 gives us a large rock, one on which the Church can be built. Also, the second rock is connected with the first rock by the words “and on this” to show that the two were being equated, rather than contrasted.

Catholics do not have a problem in saying that all of us who are baptized into Christ are stones built into the Church, as the Catechism says: “The baptized have become ‘living stones’ to be ‘built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.’” (CCC 1268).

God bless,

Rony

Awesome scholarship. This is another thing I love about our HCC, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel!

I would like to add that the place where Jesus said these words was at Caesarea Philippi a place of pagan worship. It was named for Caesar, Emperor. The area is one of huge rocks and caves, with niches carved out for altars to Pagan gods.

Mere coincidence?

Caesarea Philippi

 

[JRKH]

Hi, James,

That was an excellent thought about the Apostles sitting down to work out a business plan - the very idea is just funny. And, of course goes to show everyone who is willing to look that a group of timid fishermen, a tax collector and some other guys could not have designed this Church without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit.

What I have not seen - at least so far, is the fact that all of the scriptural evidence falls short if there is no faith. From what I have seen, the majority of folks believe what they were taught as children - and then fail to add their own self to the process. Net result is that their position is more habit rather then belief, more repition (like that the Catholic Church is to be hated and feared) but no discernment as to why this is with their group.

In my opinion, Christ’s statement to Peter being the rock on which the Church would be built is crystal clear. Adding to ths is that Christ then rebukes Peter (calling him Satan) for his lack of faith in Christ’s mission of suffering and death. Peter can drop the ball - as any of us can (and do) - what makes Peter (and his successors) special is that when teaching from The Chair - there is no possibility of dropping the ball. And, this takes faith in Christ’s promises to guide His Chruch through the Holy Spirit.

Again, I really enjoy the ‘Business Plan’ analogy.

Tom

Thanks. I think it’s important for us to try and place ourselves into these circumstances. We toss around dates and events as though they all occured together and lose the perspective of the “real time” and “real place”.
I don’t remember where it was, but I had mentioned somewhere else that, if Jesus died on the 4th of July 1776, we would still not have a Bible. The Bible would not be canonized for another hundred years, and the Christians would still be being fed to the lions. Now THAT is perspective.

Peace
James

 

[Always_For_Him]

rony> I appreciate the research. I’m not sure I agree with all of the conclusions that you’ve drawn, but it’s certainly interesting.

It was broken down and proven far beyond what it should have taken to prove the translations. Do you think that there is anything more/more proof out there to prove what Jesus said in Aramaic?

No doubt there are many who do, but having been raised as a Protestant, I certainly don’t think it’s fair to issue such a blanket statement as this.

It is really difficult to write in these forums without things sounding like blanket statements. I am guilty of them myself. You have to understand that it is more prevelant out there than you seem to understand. I would bet you that every Catholic has heard the lies, the slander, the misrepresentation of our faith by Protestants. It is very rampant. I have not heard the sermons speaking of hating the Catholics, hating everything about the Catholics, that Catholics are liers, and that Catholics don’t know what they were talking about since I was a teenager, but believe me that mindset is out there especially in the older generations. Those generations aren’t just letting that slide. It has been so engrained in them, that they are passing it on to younger generations. Maybe it is just that you don’t know teachings any other way than the way you learned it as a child and have come to believe as deeply as truth as an adult. I am glad you are on this forum to figure out what all the disucssion/disagreement is all about. That is a great first step. You just have to try to believe. We had it this way before your church was even established. So, surely, you have got to see some truth in what we are saying. Anyway, to finish my particular point, Catholics are bombarded with anti-Catholic teaching and mind-sets more than you could ever know. So, it is easy to say it so it comes across as a blanket statement.

 

[Always_For_Him]

And, of course goes to show everyone who is willing to look that a group of timid fishermen, a tax collector and some other guys could not have designed this Church without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit.

That is very well stated!!!

What I have not seen - at least so far, is the fact that all of the scriptural evidence falls short if there is no faith.

This gave me goose bumps!

From what I have seen, the majority of folks believe what they were taught as children - and then fail to add their own self to the process. Net result is that their position is more habit rather then belief, more repition (like that the Catholic Church is to be hated and feared) but no discernment as to why this is with their group.

This is stated much better than my efforts. I believe what I was taught as a child, but as an adult, I had to take ownership of it. Lucky for me, I was born into the Catholic faith. If I was a Protestant and continued to hear the differences of understanding of doctrine and scripture and knew that the Bible was written for ALL Christians by the Catholic Church, I would definitely feel the need to look at why my church teaches different beliefs than what the Catholics have always stated.

What Peter (and his successors) special is that when teaching from The Chair - there is no possibility of dropping the ball. And, this takes faith in Christ’s promises to guide His Chruch through the Holy Spirit.

This is what Jesus promised. He founded One Church, taught One Truth and bestowed his Holy Spirit to Peter and the Apostles to go forth and teach. He promised to always guide them, and he still does to this day. Otherwise, that would mean that Jesus dropped the ball. I am sure that NO ONE will say that.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Rather, the part that scares me is the prospect of being drawn into heresy through a religion that claims something to be the truth which isn’t.

There are some who have read their way into the Church. But your post confirms that in spite of much scholarly evidence, a minutiae of which is found in these forums, it boils down to opening the eyes of your heart to the Grace God bestows on us continually, and, in faith, acting upon that Grace.

Christ’s peace to you PC, and I hope you someday find the answers you so diligently seek in your posts here at CAF.

It brings me joy to support a forum where people can come and air their thoughts, doubts, ideas.

 

[Always_For_Him]

PC Master,
The Catholics aren’t drawing you into herecy! Herecy came with the people who had different beliefs and from the reformers who established their own interpretation of the Bible. Have you examined every minute, detail of every change to doctrine, the differences in the reformers interpretations vs/the now 2.000 year old interpretations. I truly believe if you had examined every change, you would have realized what many great theologans, scholars, and countless others came to realize, that the Catholic Church is the ONE, Church established by Christ. How could you possibly think that men in the 1600’s could have a more correct interpretation of scripture over the people who were taught by Jesus and the Apostles? They continued teaching the same teachings through the lineage of the successsors of Peter. The teachings and interpretations continued to be practiced, believed and interpreted the same way into writing the Bible for ALL Christians? It continues to be the same beliefs, teachings and interpretaion of scripture today!!! How could you believe EVERYTHING they changed and the differences in their interpretations when you know that they changed things to create a new Church. With all the proof that has been provided, I would think that you would see that what we taught at the time of Peter that is the same teachings and interpretations as we have today, is the Truth. Everything else is just individual interpretation of MAN.

 

[Always_For_Him]

PC and other non-C’s,
Do you know that the Catholic Church IS the early Church? You have to know that. There is historically documented proof that the early Church became the Catholic Church. How could we maintain the same teachings and interpretations of Christ’s teachings from the time of Christ, found Christ’s ONE Church, teach Jesus’s Gospel, write the Bible with the same set of teachings and interpretaions, continue with same set of teachings and interpretations of scripture and then become the ones who are wrong in the way we interpret scripture? Each Christian denomination has had to “sell” their beliefs to their congregation, and in doing so had to change the truth and lie about the Catholic Church. For 500 years, non truths have been taught. For 500 years, non-truths about the Catholics and the Catholic Church have been taught to think ill us. They need you to dislike/disbelieve the Catholic Church. They don’t want you asking questions in anyway whatsoever that could teach you anything. Because they know that if you look hard enough you will see the Catholic Church has maintained the truth all along. They fear that you will start to believe in Apostolic Sussession, Apostolic Authority and realize that the Catholic Church is the ONE Church founded by Christ. They just don’t expect you to look very hard because they know they have done a good job in teaching you their line of interpretation and thinking. It really is pretty simple, we have maintained the same, ONE, teachings of Christ. Protestants changed everything. Look harder for the truth. And, please try to be open to the truth. You can’t just keep denying our truth. You have to understand that all Protestant teachings came from altered scripture and interpretation by MAN over 1,000 years after the Bible was written.

 

[5pintLutheran]

Gofer, LOL for Simpsons but boo for approach.

2 cents: For St. John Chrysostom, Peter was “the foundation of the Church”, whom Christ made “stronger than any rock” (while Paul was “the vessel of election”, and he called both coryphaei, leaders - a term also applied to James, Andrew and John, though Peter is the foremost coryphaeus). Yet Chrysostom also said the foundation of the church was the faith of Peter’s confession.

As you will see when you go back even earlier…

Tertullian (155-222AD): On Modesty, Chapt 21

" I now inquire into your opinion, [to see] from what source you usurp this right to “the church”.
If, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock will I build my church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom’; or ‘Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens’ (Matt 16:16-18), you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter; what sort of man are you subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring [as that intention did] this [gift] personally upon Peter? ‘On you’ he says, ‘will I build my church’; and ‘I will give to you the keys,’ not to the church; and, ‘Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound,’ not what they shall have loosed or bound."

or even farther back, you will see the primacy of the Bishop in the Church…

St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-110AD)
Letter to the Magnesians, Chapt 6

“I exhort you to be careful to do all things in the harmony of God, the Bishop having the primacy after the model of God and the priests after the model of the council of Apostles, and the deacons (who are so dear to me) having entrusted to them the ministry of Jesus Christ - who from eternity was with the Father and at last appeared to us.”

Letter to the Trallians, Chapt 2

“In the same way all should respect the deacons as they would Jesus Christ, just as they respect the Bishop as representing the Father and the priests as the council of God and the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is nothing that can be called a Church.”

… Chapt 7…

“Anyone who is within the sanctuary is pure and anyone who is outside is impure, that is to say, no one who acts apart from the Bishop and the priests and the deacons has a clear conscience.”

Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapt 3

“For, all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the Bishop. And those, too, will belong to God who have returned, repentant, to the unity of the Church so as to live in accordance with Jesus Christ. Make no mistake, bretheren. No one who follows another into schism inherits the Kingdom of God (1 cor 6:9). No one who follows heretical doctrine is on the side of the passion.”

And lastly…
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapt 8

“[Shun schisms as the source of troubles.] Let all follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father, and the priests as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Apart from the Bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let the Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the Bishop or by one to whom the Bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the Bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus whatever is done will be safe and valid.”

This is very suprising to me.

 

[Truthstalker]

This is very suprising to me.

Well, yeah, if you assume bishop = “episcopos” which is the Greek, meaning more like “overseer” than what is associated with the word “bishop.” The word “bishop” comes from it, but a Greek of that day would not recognize the word “bishop” as it is not longer pronouced “episcopos.” Do you think the concept is identical, or has it changed with the years as well? Back then, n “priests”=“bishops”, the first word describing who they were (elders), the second their function (oversight).

This stuff has been known for a long time.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Well, yeah, if you assume bishop = “episcopos” which is the Greek, meaning more like “overseer” than what is associated with the word “bishop.” The word “bishop” comes from it, but a Greek of that day would not recognize the word “bishop” as it is not longer pronouced “episcopos.” Do you think the concept is identical, or has it changed with the years as well? Back then, n “priests”=“bishops”, the first word describing who they were (elders), the second their function (oversight).

This stuff has been known for a long time.

Why is it that Non-C’s continue to debate meanings of words? It was understood for what they meant THEN!!! Taught for what they meant THEN. It was recorded in the Bible as everyone understood the teachings and interpretation THEN. What has happened in the last few hundred of years to make non-C’s think that the original understanding was never correct?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why is it that Non-C’s continue to debate meanings of words? It was understood for what they meant THEN!!! Taught for what they meant THEN. It was recorded in the Bible as everyone understood the teachings and interpretation THEN. What has happened in the last few hundred of years to make non-C’s think that the original understanding was never correct?

Don’t you think that’s obvious? If the words were really what they meant, they would have to follow the Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ! These debates are nothing new and were resolved long ago by the Catholic Church. Even the Reformers believed them. Martin Luther originally set out to REFORM not CHANGE the Catholic Church, and rightly so. He later changed and becaame his own pope, and the rest is history. Some Protestants, especially the non-mainline ones are continually reinventing the wheel, which is why there are so many splits.

Alway For Him, we have to remember that our love for our Church, the Church of the Living God, the Truths she holds and has handed down from Jesus and His Apostles should shine through in our actions, words and writings.

 

[SCALCO]

The thing that still doesn’t make sense is why Kepa would ever be translated, rather than transliterated, were it a name. We clearly see it transliterated as “Cephas”, just as Jesus, John, Simon and many other names throughout scripture. So, I have no doubt Simon was called Kepa in Aramaic. My question is, would the instances of Petros be considered valid at all? It just doesn’t sit well with me, to break from established literary tradition.

Anyone got an explanation for this?

Maybe you should start another thread.

 

[Always_For_Him]

If the words were really what they meant, they would have to follow the Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ! These debates are nothing new and were resolved long ago by the Catholic Church. Even the Reformers believed them. Martin Luther originally set out to REFORM not CHANGE the Catholic Church, and rightly so. He later changed and becaame his own pope, and the rest is history.

Very well put, qui est ce. I am pretty new to these forums, so I really haven’t been exposed to SO many misunderstandings, misrepresentations and untruths of the Catholic Church. I thought I had experienced plenty of naysaying from Protestants, but I am just caught off guard, I guess. My previous post was really coming from a place of sick, realization of how wrong Protestants are in what they think of the Catholic Church, our teachings and our interpretation of Scripture which we understood and recorded through the Holy Spirit for ALL Christians. I need to remember that it is the Protestant machine that continues to drive the non-truths for each and every member of it’s Churches. It would be hard to believe anyone, anything else if that is how my foundation of Christ’s teachings were taught to me and then my more mature understanding of same teachings as I grew into an adult. It does seem that they have just been taught that Martin Luther wanted reform, and justified the changes that way, but not that he became so self-righteous that he re-interpreted scripture and changed doctrine. They changed SO much. I don’t think there is really any easy way to write that without offending Protestants that don’t want to hear it or be open to considering it. But, I will continue to try to let Jesus’ Truth and Love for all of us shine in my posts!

 

[Always_For_Him]

In addition to that, if Martin Luther thought he was all-knowing and right and wanted to be considered the founder of the true Church, he would have had to debunk, deny, Peter, Apostolic Succession, Apostolic Authority, the Catholic Church and it’s teachings as it had been for 1500 years. It is amazing that with so much proof that we provide them, it isn’t a little easier for them to see through that. It isn’t like we made it all up. Today, we practice the same beliefs and interpretations of scripture since Peter. They believed in our Bible enough to use it (although, changed and re-written.) The typical response to a change to something is to attack/debate the change. Try to find truth in the changes to see if they were warranted. Not in the case of Catholocism vs Protestantism, we are the devil, we are wrong and there is no concern as to what truth there was in the changes made by Martin Luther. They must have been justified since they are taught that the Catholic Church is wrong.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Always For Him,

After a while, everyone is required to pick up their own load and move forward in their belief system. Merely subscribing to what one experienced as a child is neither mature or reasonable - especially when there is so much contradiction out there. (Did I read there were about 40,000 different Protestant groups all claiming to have the Truth?)

Where I have problems is that I see them all basically as acting from ‘good faith’ which is founded in ignorance. Now, whether that ignorance is culpable or not is not my call. So moving forward with a web site like this that offeres prayers, encouragement and solid information appears to be the most prudent approach.

Calling into question another person’s honest does little to further the goal of spreading Christ’s message of Love and Forgiveness. Yes, I have read the posts … and there does seem to be a less then seamless approach to the logic used - but, let’s not forget, we all have psychological defense mechanisms that spring to the ready when we feel threatened. Leave such final honesty assessments for how they will play out in the last chapter of Matthew.

Peace of Christ,

Tom

 

[Always_For_Him]

Thank you Tom for your very informative and understanding response. I am at a loss though. I don’t feel that I called anyone’s honesty (except, maybe Martin Luther’s, and that is a stretch since I didn’t say dishonest) into question. I have not thought that anyone has been dishonest. I have not felt that anyone has been dishonest. I was not thinking as I was writing that anyone had been dishonest. I can’t find where in my posts that it could appear that I was calling honesty into question or accessing anyone’s honesty. If anyone thinks that is what I was doing, I am very sorry. That was not my intention or thinking. It is something that I wouldn’t do either.

 

[Always_For_Him]

If you are referring to the term “non-truths” a couple of posts ago, the context in which I use that is regarding the non-truths of Catholosism, where we got it wrong, etc… That is what I meant to say.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In addition to that, if Martin Luther thought he was all-knowing and right and wanted to be considered the founder of the true Church, he would have had to debunk, deny, Peter, Apostolic Succession, Apostolic Authority, the Catholic Church and it’s teachings as it had been for 1500 years. It is amazing that with so much proof that we provide them, it isn’t a little easier for them to see through that. It isn’t like we made it all up. Today, we practice the same beliefs and interpretations of scripture since Peter.

This just goes to show that you cannot convert most people with the facts. Many a convert has said watching little old ladies going to daily mass were their first witnesses to the Authenticity of the Church. I’m sure that in many cases, these little old ladies could tell you what the Church taught, but wouldn’t be able to give an historical or theological basis.

They believed in our Bible enough to use it (although, changed and re-written.)

This can be quite shocking. Martin Luther himself acknowledged that without the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible today. I can’t find the quote, slow connection

The typical response to a change to something is to attack/debate the change. Try to find truth in the changes to see if they were warranted. Not in the case of Catholocism vs Protestantism, we are the devil, we are wrong and there is no concern as to what truth there was in the changes made by Martin Luther. They must have been justified since they are taught that the Catholic Church is wrong.

I think a lot of Protestants who come to this forum have never really heard the true teachings of the Church, just what they have been told. Also, many seize a teaching, make an invalid assumption about it, and move forward from there. I could name you a lot of Catholics don’t really understand Church Teaching. But that doesn’t make the Teaching wrong.

That’s why CAF is so important. Even those that seem to not get it will have been touched. God doesn’t ask us to be successful, He asks us to give Him our all. So our job is to witness to the faith, and the Holy Spirit will do His part - to those who open the eyes of their hearts to His Grace, freely given to the whole world.