M
Mickey
Guest
First of all, I am not Roman Catholic. Secondly, what are you talking about? I recommend that you engage the good people here with a little respect and charity instead of attacks and insults.
- Status
A
abcd
Guest
My question is why won’t the catholic respond to the question instead of insulting me by ignoring it with an answer that is not an answer? Is that so wrong Mick to expect an answer?
M
Mickey
Guest
I believe they are answering you. Personally, I may or may not agree with some of the Catholic answers, but I attempt to not get angry and accuse or attack. And sometimes, sadly, I fail.
Since you are new to this forum, I am merely suggesting that you listen to what is being said and respond with love and charity. This is the way of Jesus Christ.
Peace and blessings to you,
Mickey
P
planter654
Guest
Dear LilyM
What, I can only simply say because I am nothing, is what Jesus is teaching me when I simply ask. That no matter where God places me in his garden, if I am a little blade of grass, among the little lilies among the beautiful roses, is that the rose does not take away the beauty of the lilies or the lilies take away the beauty of the little blade of grass, but together as “ONE” when God gazes upon the whole of his beautiful garden we together as “ONE” Glorify him giving him infinite pleasure and LOVE!!!
God Bless
M
Mickey
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Point being - they took the dispute to the Apostles and PETER definitively pronounced on whether they were fakes or mistaken or genuine! Paul and his followers didn’t just go on their own merry way apart from Peter or without his decision in their favour.
Just what we Catholics do on points where authoritative teaching is needed - we take it to the Apostles in the persons of our bishops, and then Peter in the person of the Pope has the definitive say.
A
abcd
Guest
Well, since my head is getting sore :banghead: trying to get someone to answer my question about Peter and Christ’s conversation on what is the Rock. Is it Peter or is it what Christ said to Peter that He is the Christ? Since No one will answer with a real answer I wish you all well and keep searching for truth. It is there in the Gospel. I will leave you with the cry of the reformers THAT BROUGHT BACK
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA SCRIPTURA
L
LilyM
Guest
Beautiful indeed - but not quite to the point. How can you claim to be part of the garden at all if you repeatedly ignore the Apostles who gave us … the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? The Bible? Little things like that?
Do I have to repeat again that St Paul tells us to build upon their foundation, not just to do what we like and claim that because the Holy Spirit (or so we think - most unlikely) said so then we’re ok.
A
abcd
Guest
Mick,
She or he did not answer me. The statement was skirted around so as not to give an answer…o’well
L
LilyM
Guest
Of course it’s Peter - Christ didn’t say to him ‘your words/confession of faith is the Rock’. He said ‘YOU are Cephas (Rock) and on this Cephas I will build my church’.
The petra/petros argument is irrelevant - Christ spoke in Aramaic which doesn’t have the distinctions the Greek does in any event.
A
abcd
Guest
Yes, Mick Jesus did show love but sometimes He got very angry. He did not have sloppy agape.
Bill
Bill
M
Mickey
Guest
P
planter654
Guest
Yes, we must learn "first to conquer ourselves’ was his reply and I must say that put me in my place!!! I now ask God “not my thoughts” for me but "his thoughs, his will, his desire for me, his works be accomplished in me. To surrender my very life, my body for I am dead in the flesh because of my sins, but surrender “my will” “my desires” “my thoughts” in asking God for his grace and his will, his desire, his works be accomplished in me.
Who am I to say I know the thoughts of “my creator” God who created me and all things seen and not seen!
Only by the grace of God have I also come to know that having “favorites” within and among our own family causes “much damage” to our souls!
God Bless
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
amen amen!
Cephas/kephas was the first word I looked up in a hebrew and aramaic dictionary when I was a protestant non denom church goer and was frustrated with all of the contradicting doctrines in the 18 churches I went to!
This one word took me along a journey where i found my home, the Church Jesus Christ instituted upon Cephas(rock)! The earthly shepherd of His sheep!
allelujah!
Cephas/kephas was the first word I looked up in a hebrew and aramaic dictionary when I was a protestant non denom church goer and was frustrated with all of the contradicting doctrines in the 18 churches I went to!
This one word took me along a journey where i found my home, the Church Jesus Christ instituted upon Cephas(rock)! The earthly shepherd of His sheep!
allelujah!
L
LilyM
Guest
It’s not a question of merely having favourites. Whoever or whatever gave you that idea is not of God.
Christ instituted A church, one - not many. And warned that false teachers would come in His name. Distinguishing the one true church, the one true teaching, from the false is highly necessary for the salvation of our souls.
In fact it’s failure to rightly distinguish - or worse, religious indifferentism where all are treated as alike - that is truly deadly to the soul.
A
Arnobius
Guest
Actually, we haven’t seen you indicate one correct understanding of Catholicism yet.
If your claim of Sola Scriptura is to be given credibility, why not show us where it is explicitly taught in the Bible. If it is only indirectly taught, then every attack you make on us also applies to your own beliefs.
As for your claim on Mathew 16:18-19, the Greek is:
18 Κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω, ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾍδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 19 Καὶ δώσω σοὶ τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
The New Testament in the original Greek : Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. 2006 (Mt 16:18-20).
Jesus uses the second person singular when talking to Peter, which means He promising to Peter specifically. The authority to bind and loose are given to Peter alone (the Greek does not allow for an interpretation that is general).
And, lest you claim this is solely a Catholic invention, let us go to a non-Catholic (meaning not all the author claims is held by Catholics) source:
From the Anchor Bible Dictionary, entry Peter:
c. “And I tell you, you are Peter; and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (16:18). The argument for a pre-Matthean origin for the basic material contained in this verse is strengthened by the recognition of an Aramaic substratum lying behind Matthew’s Greek. In Aramaic the Greek play on the word “Peter” is marked by an identity: “You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church.” Further, the Semitisms, “gates of Hades” (interpreted by the RSV as the “powers of death”) as well as “flesh and blood” and “bind and loose,” all suggest that 16:17–19 originated in an Aramaic-speaking environment.
The setting of this verse is in all probability post-resurrectional. While one should not exclude the possibility that Jesus might have thought of building a church in the sense of organizing a people in preparation for the imminent end, the reference to the “gates of Hades” not prevailing over the church does seem to suggest a permanence which would go beyond the supposed intentions of the earthly Jesus. The intentions expressed here cohere more closely with those post-resurrectional appearances described previously as “church-founding.”
The identity of “the rock” is an important exegetical question. In view of the Aramaic identity of Kepha/kepha there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church is to be built is Peter. Even though there is a slight difference between Petros/petra in the Greek text of Matthew, most scholars today would hold that this same identity between the rock and Peter is also the intention of Matthew. However, other views are possible. One such view found in the Church Fathers (e.g., Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom) and advocated by some today is that petra is not Peter himself but Peter when he confessed and “thinks the things of God” (16:23).
If indeed Peter is to be the rock on which the church is to be founded, how does this relate to the image of Peter as the “stumbling block” (skandaion) (16:23) for Jesus, an image which represents a sharpening of the Markan form of Jesus’ rebuke. Although the issues are complex, one commonly held view would suggest that in response to Peter’s confession “You are the Messiah” (16:16) he is given a name which will signify his future role as the rock on which the church will be built, a role which according to Matthew’s presentation Peter would assume after the resurrection. Further, in response to misunderstanding the necessity of Jesus’ suffering, Peter is referred to as a stumbling block for Jesus, as one advocating human rather than divine values. It is the same kind of weakness which Peter will display in his final denial of Jesus, a denial from which Jesus will have to save him so that he can play the role of the foundation rock.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:257). New York: Doubleday.
P
planter654
Guest
Please LilyM
St Peter knew it was God’s decision! You make it sound like God had nothing to do with it and that St. Peter was not subject to God’s will.
Do not try to put Peter over Paul or Paul or Peter quit causing division of who is creator or less this is not the message. Both were chosen by God to accomplish his great plan, God’s works for all salvation. There was Enoch, Elias, Abraham, Issac, Jacob (Israel) Moses, King David, St. John the Batize, holy prophets etc etc. St. Peter and the Apostles were doing the will of God at that time and their time had come to be known, but Peter did not know what else or who else like ourselves yet still do not know the whole or what else is to come or be known… only “God”.
We do not know the thoughts of God’s whole great plan or who else God has in his great plan still to come.God chose Paul long before even Peter knew he himself was to be called and chosen.
Think about it… even Jesus asked Peter who he was? When (he) Peter said who Jesus was… Jesus then… knew that God had chosen Peter to be set apart for his work that God wanted Peter to do! Jesus said: That only through my Father would he (Peter) had known who Jesus was! Jesus himself did not know yet who the Father had chosen till that moment. God chooses whom he “WILLS” to do what ever? The Holy Spirit blows upon whom it wills.
Have you not heard what Jesus said: But you do “not ask”, you do not seek you do not knock… take it to Jesus, ask in his name, ask God! Did not Jesus do that? Did not the Apostles do that? Did not all who came before them Abraham, Moses, King David etc. do that. What I have learn by reading the diary’s of the saints by the way we are all call to become saints is that they all have a personal relationship with Jesus, Blessed Mother etc. But Jesus they talk to everyday moment in their lifes…
Remember we are all God’s children, his family are “ONE” Body. When one member suffers the whole body suffers, one member receives joy all share in that joy.
only as a little child can we become “spiritually mature”
God Bless…a very little child of God
M
Mickey
Guest
Is this what you meant to write?
L
LilyM
Guest
Even little children can be led astray, as Christ himself said.
Of course St Peter was subject to God’s will and the Holy Spirit - as we all are - but St Peter was also the OBJECT of Christ’s unique promise to him alone - an ***eternal ***promise, that the Church built upon Peter would never fall subject to the powers of Hell.
In other words a promise of unique ongoing and unfailing guidance by the Holy Spirit, in terms of his teaching at least, since personally of course he was still subject to sin.
You make it sound like the Holy Spirit was only ‘blowing upon’ Peter for those few minutes while he made his declaration about Christ, or another few minutes while he made his judgement about Paul. Not the case in the slightest.
Why, may I ask, if Paul was just as well guided by the Holy Spirit, did he refer anything to Peter at all? Surely there would be no need. The answer is that Paul WASN’T subject to the Spirit’s guidance in quite the same way Peter was. Paul recognised the special position Peter had been placed in and the unique promises which Peter had been given. And he recognised Peter’s authority over himself and others, which is why he submitted himself to Peter’s scrutiny.
D
dessert
Guest
Look at what happened to Paul, he was still persecuting Jesus even after Jesus was risen. Like persecuting Him twice once in the body and then the spirit, and it took a direct visitation from Jesus to see this . Aand then he had to be led to Peter to learn of the Messiah as Paaul was a jew but was the most cruel one, so Paul became I like to call a cradel jew revert convert complete finnally with the complete teaching of Peter.
- Status