How can you believe that the Church was founded upon Peter?

[Aquarius]

mercygate:

askeptic, let’s not wander into thread drift. Your points are not supported by the totality of Scripture, and that everything you want to make happen with regard to the demotion of Peter requires the deletion of Matthew 16:18-19. Kephas IS the same man as Peter. Paul is not opposing Peter in Jerusalem. That comes later, in Antioch, and has nothing to do with the Gospel but with the discipline of those who maintained the kosher laws. Paul was right on that.

I ask you, would the Catholic Church, which preserved these scriptures for 1500 years before anybody ever thought up the idea of sola Scriptura transmit a passage it believed would undercut its whole ecclesiology? Do all Catholics have a sign on our forehead that says “Call me stupid!”?

The spat at Antioch cannot abrogate Mt. 16:18-19.

The Church, like everyone else, has done some stupid things.

 

[askeptic]

mercygate:

askeptic, let’s not wander into thread drift. Your points are not supported by the totality of Scripture, and that everything you want to make happen with regard to the demotion of Peter requires the deletion of Matthew 16:18-19. Kephas IS the same man as Peter. He is not opposing Peter in Jerusalem. That comes later, in Antioch, and has nothing to do with the Gospel but with the discipline of those who maintained the kosher laws. Paul was right on that.

I ask you, would the Catholic Church, which preserved these scriptures for 1500 years before anybody ever thought up the idea of sola Scriptura transmit a passage it believed would undercut its whole ecclesiology? Do all Catholics have a sign on our forehead that says “Call me stupid!”?

The spat at Antioch cannot abrogate Mt. 16:18-19.

In the quote I posted above Paul is clearly opposing Kephas.

If you read my initial thread you will find that nearly identical passages in Mark (the gospel upon which Matthew was based), and Luke omit the founding of the Church upon Peter. To me this is a very curious omission.

Furthermore, Protestants were not the first to oppose the Catholic Church. Several “heretical” gospels were written within 100 years of the orthodox gospels. There were various heretical sects such as the Arians, Monophysites, etc.

For the longest time bibles were not avilable to the population (no printing press), and readings at mass were done in Latin, which average people did not understand. The Church was not exactly in danger of people reading and criticizing the Bible.

 

[mlchance]

askeptic:

For the longest time…readings at mass were done in Latin, which average people did not understand. The Church was not exactly in danger of people reading and criticizing the Bible.

Readings were done in Latin precisely because it was the language people understood. In areas where Latin wasn’t understood, readings were done in other languages more suitable to the population.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Aquarius]

mlchance:

Readings were done in Latin precisely because it was the language people understood. In areas where Latin wasn’t understood, readings were done in other languages more suitable to the population.

– Mark L. Chance.

I think readings were done in Latin in the US until VII. While I recognize some people had a classical education, it sure wasn’t true for most.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Aquarius:

I think readings were done in Latin in the US until VII. While I recognize some people had a classical education, it sure wasn’t true for most.

That is dead wrong – readings were in the vernacular. I Have my old missal from the 1950s, and the readings are in English. I attended church in Peru and in Egypt prior to Vatican II, and the readings were in the vernacular. My grandparent’s missals show the readings in the vernacular.

Now in England, because of the use of the Wycliffe Bible by the leaders of the Peasant Revolt, it was illegal to have a vernacular Bible – but that was the English government, not the Church that made that law.

 

[mercygate]

Aquarius:

I think readings were done in Latin in the US until VII. While I recognize some people had a classical education, it sure wasn’t true for most.

Yes. The readings were in Latin. Then the celebrant stepped up to the pulpit and repeated them in English.

 

[Like]

mercygate:

Yes. The readings were in Latin. Then the celebrant stepped up to the pulpit and repeated them in English.

I don’t understand what you are saying. All the Catholic Churches I attended in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s the Mass was in Latin but all the readings were in English. Also, I was an altar server for a good many of those early years. This was in south Texas, but I don’t think it was any different any place in the US.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Like:

I don’t understand what you are saying. All the Catholic Churches I attended in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s the Mass was in Latin but all the readings were in English. Also, I was an altar server for a good many of those early years. This was in south Texas, but I don’t think it was any different any place in the US.

My old missal, and all those family missals I have access to, going back to the 19th Century have the readings in English. The whole Mass is there, in Latin on one page and English on the other. There are no Latin readings in any of those missals – only English.

 

[askeptic]

Like:

I don’t understand what you are saying. All the Catholic Churches I attended in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s the Mass was in Latin but all the readings were in English. Also, I was an altar server for a good many of those early years. This was in south Texas, but I don’t think it was any different any place in the US.

But what about Catholics in say 15th century Europe, were they able to read the Bible?

I read St. Teresa of Avila’s Book of Her Life in a college course and learned that she was not able to read the Bible because she could not read or understand Latin, nor could she have a good understanding of the mass because it was all done in Latin.

 

[mlchance]

askeptic:

But what about Catholics in say 15th century Europe, were they able to read the Bible?

I read St. Teresa of Avila’s Book of Her Life in a college course and learned that she was not able to read the Bible because she could not read or understand Latin, nor could she have a good understanding of the mass because it was all done in Latin.

You’re generalizing about the 15th century in all of Europe based on a single book by a 16th-century Spanish Carmelite who had an admittedly limited formal education who nonetheless is honored as a Doctor of the Church?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

askeptic:

But what about Catholics in say 15th century Europe, were they able to read the Bible?

I read St. Teresa of Avila’s Book of Her Life in a college course and learned that she was not able to read the Bible because she could not read or understand Latin, nor could she have a good understanding of the mass because it was all done in Latin.

There were not in the 15th Century many people who could read, period. And there were many languages – often within the same country. So translation was difficult.

Nevertheless, the Bible was translated and read to the people whenever possible. Let us remember that the Latin Bible is proof of that – The original books of the Bible were in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin!!

 

[Like]

Thanks Vern, That is the same as my old Missals. I do need to correct my post through as there were some mexican churchs in S.Tx that were in Spanish.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Like:

Thanks Vern, That is the same as my old Missals. I do need to correct my post through as there were some mexican churchs in S.Tx that were in Spanish.

Interesting story – we lived in Peru in the early '50s, in Piura, in the Sechura Desert. At that time, there was electricity only from 6 PM until midnight, and you had to boil and filter all your water. It was what you might call a fairly “primative” place to live.

We did a reconnaissance to find the nearest church – what a shock! There were no pews or kneelers, just an expanse of open stone floor. The artwork was garish – now I know it was native American art, but then it simply looked frightening.

At the first mass, we were crammed in – Cholo indians, who spoke no Spanish standing next to pure Castillians who spoke no Cholo. I can still remember the feeling.

Then the mass started, the sonorous Latin echoing from the vault, and all of us – whether we spoke English, Cholo, or Castillian - responding as we did back home in the states.

And I suddenly felt at home, because I knew I was in my Father’s house.

 

[petra]

Roady:

Are you saying that it is not an official teaching of the C church on Matthew 16:18; that the church is built upon Peter and successors?

The Catholic Church has only claimed infallible interpretation a few scriptures, and Matt. 16:18 is not one of them. (See the article from This Rock,
The Limits of Scripture Interpretation.) So, no, it is not official church teaching that the Rock is Peter. But that does not negate the authority that was given to Peter when Christ gave him the keys.

The trinity is not an example that I would use to make my point. I’ve read ancient rabbinicals that teach God is triune, not to mention the best reason of all, and that is the Scripture tells us God is triune. I think a great example of “articulating” would be introducing the office of the sacramental priesthood after it was completely abolished with Christ.

The Hebrews did not have a developed concept of the trinity. Although God uses the first person plural in reference to Himself, the OT scriptures don’t provide information about who the persons are in the Godhead or how many there are.

Christ abolished the Levitical priesthood in place of the order of Melchizedek, which He permanently fulfills. His once and for all sacrifice replaced the ineffective daily sacrifice of the Old Covenant Law. But he didn’t abolish the need for pastors (priests) to administer sacraments that Christ Himself established. If you are hung up on the word “priest” you don’t need to be. Paul said that he ministered as a priest (Rom. 15:15-16). Peter also describes the priestly calling of God’s people in the New Covenant (1 Pet. 2:2-10).

I believe [the Trinity] because the Scriptures teach it from Genesis to Revelation.

Perfect. Then you do, indeed, presuppose the infallibility of the Catholic Church, which gave you an infallible table of contents in your Bible. Why do you accept the book of 2nd John as scripture? Because it is published by Moody?

There was disagreement about 2nd John’s (and other book’s) divine inspiration during the first couple of centuries. The Church eventually made a authoritative judgment about which scriptures were authentic. So that is how you got your New Testament. Thanks goodness Martin Luther didn’t get his way when he wanted to throw out Hebrews, James and Revelation. Otherwise you would not have access to the passage about Christ reigning in the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

askeptic:

As I wrote in my other post, quoting from USCCB’s New American Bible commentary:

Modern biblical scholarship is highly speculative and is not a science. The NAB commentary flies in the face of tradition and Patristic witness, Papias for example was a disciple of John, and as such I place more credence on his witness than some latter day revisionist scholars speculation, however sincere they might be in their belief of modern biblical scholarship methodology.

askeptic:
In addtion, if Mark truly was Peter’s interpreter, then the fact that he does not mention the founding of the Church upon Peter becomes even more alarming.
As has been explained to you before Mathew addressed a Hebrew audience, Peter (Mark Gospel) was addressed to a Roman gentile one,

That Peter was appointed to be the leader of the Church on earth is shown in John’s Gospel Chpt 21: 15-17

Pax

Brian

 

[askeptic]

The NAB commentary gives reasons for the late date of Matthew(specifically presence of references to the Jewish war which happened around 70 AD etc.), I don’t know what “Patristic witness” means, but I would like to hear justifications of earlier dating of Matthew.

And as I said to the other individual, if Mark was based on Peter, and if he was writing for the Romans, then it is all the more curious that this tidbit is omitted. If Peter was the Bishop of Rome, then isn’t it all the more important to tell Romans this fact? Isn’t it just as important to let the Romans know that Christ established a Church upon Peter as it is to let the Jews know? Plus, if Mark actually knew Peter, wouldn’t he also know that Peter is the rock on whom the Church is built. That’s far too important not to write about.

John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

This is by no means explicit, it doesn’t mention any Church, it doesn’t mention “keys to the kindgom” or the power to “bind and loose” and doesn’t preclude the possibility that Jesus said the exact same thing to every other apostle.

Furthermore, John was written around 90AD, after all the synoptic Gospels and 60 years after Jesus’ death.

 

[Roady]

mercygate:

Roady, you are saying that the head of the Church cannot be Christ because he has appointed a prime minister to be the centerpiece of her unity on earth?

Certainly “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 is Peter. The Greek admits no other reading. Period. And Jesus does not say, “upon this rock I will build Peter’s Church.” He says, "on this rock I will build MY Church.
As for “the church on earth,” for Catholics, that is a misnomer. The Church comprises those in heaven as well on earth, so Christ is head of His entire Church – and there is only one Church; it doesn’t stop being His Church when it reaches heaven nor vice versa.

Nothing I have said is misleading. If I have failed to connect the dots in a way that is understandable to you, I apologize. But there is no contradiction in having Christ as the bedrock of the Church and (since Jesus SAID it) in having Peter as rock and head of the church on earth. Peter does not act outside the mind of Christ, does not oppose or contradict him, but always acts on his behalf.

Claiming a contradiction between the ministry of Peter and the headship of Christ is a flat-out contradiction of Scripture.

Dear Mercygate, I read through your whole post and I don’t see where using the term prime minister is different than using head of the church on earth. In fact, I don’t think you see a difference either. Because if you look up, you can see where you said yourself that Peter is the head of the church on earth.

And on your interpretation that Matthew 16:18 could not possibly be anyone but Peter, I will have to disagree. I believe the church is built upon Christ. I bet you all have heard every argument imaginable about why Jesus was speaking of himself. Even some of the church fathers agreed on this. So obviously, Mercygate, there is the possibility that Jesus was speaking of himself.

Roady

 

[mlchance]

askeptic:

…I don’t know what “Patristic witness” means…

Well, there’s another gap in your knowledge about the early Church.

askeptic:

If Peter was the Bishop of Rome, then isn’t it all the more important to tell Romans this fact?

Since Peter was the Bishop of Rome, it seems quite sensible that the Romans would’ve already known this fact and didn’t need to be reminded of it.

askeptic:

This is by no means explicit, and doesn’t preclude the possibility that Jesus said the exact same thing to every other apostle.

Seems explicit enough to me. Do you have any evidence Jesus said the exact same thing to anyone else, or that he meant something other than what his words plainly mean?

askeptic:

…Furthermore, John was written around 90AD, after all the synoptic Gospels and 60 years after Jesus’ death.

So?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

askeptic:

The NAB commentary gives reasons for the late date of Matthew(specifically presence of references to the Jewish war which happened around 70 AD etc.), I don’t know what “Patristic witness” means, but I would like to hear justifications of earlier dating of Matthew.

The Oxyrhinos paprii seem to establish an earlier date for Matthew. And the idea that Matthew wrote after the Jewish War is based on the assumption that the predictions of the destruction of the Temple were after the fact and not real predictions, not on any solid evidence.

askeptic:

And as I said to the other individual, if Mark was based on Peter, and if he was writing for the Romans, then it is all the more curious that this tidbit is omitted. If Peter was the Bishop of Rome, then isn’t it all the more important to tell Romans this fact? Isn’t it just as important to let the Romans know that Christ established a Church upon Peter as it is to let the Jews know?

That’s an anachronistic argument – it assumes that there was an argument at the time that required Mark to include such a statement – and there wasn’t. For almost a thousand years no one questioned Peter’s authority and that of his successors.

It also assumes a modern false idea – that it is Rome that makes the Pope, and not Peter. No one in antiquity advanced that argument.

askeptic:

Plus, if Mark actually knew Peter, wouldn’t he also know that Peter is the rock on whom the Church is built. That’s far too important not to write about.

Mark’s Gospel is the shortest of the four. There are many things he did no write about. If he was writing from Peter’s dictation, remember that Peter was semi-literate, and probably produced his memoirs in a rather disjointed fashion, making them difficult to redact.

askeptic:

Furthermore, John was written around 90AD, after all the synoptic Gospels and 60 years after Jesus’ death.

Are you declaring John to be in error?

 

[mercygate]

askeptic:

But what about Catholics in say 15th century Europe, were they able to read the Bible?

The real question is how many people could read at ALL in Europe in the 15th Century.