If the Rock is Peter's faith

[YADA]

I think the fact that Jesus is The Rock of our faith, salvation, and leadership gives evidence to the belief that when He called Peter a rock which He would build the Church on, He was setting up an continual office. Why would He establish another rock within His Church if He is already the Rock of Life? It is a rock of Stewardship, not of equality to His divine status. It is an office of ministry, and not Lordship.

And clearly Jesus was establishing a continuing office by quoting Isaiah and the Office of the Prime Minister - presenting the “keys” that signify the office upon Peter …

What most people want to argue in this passage and its parallel in Isaiah is so clear they have to perform mental gymnastics … like Peter cant have the keys - they belong to Christ [as if King David the successors after him relinquished their only key and all their authority to their Prime Ministers - which if course is nonsensical].

Or another jump that states Peter was only to lead the apostles and the infant Church during his life time - then the Church needed no leadership … the problem with this argument is those those who heard Jesus first hand and walked with him would need or should need less leadership than those who came after and had only the oral and written history of Jesus’ teachings.

Or that the Rock is Peter’s confession … well you cannot hand a key [material object] to a confession [spoken words - air]

Or that Peter was a Pebble and that Jesus Himself is the Rock upon which the Church was built … Why would Jesus [who possessed the keys] hand those same keys to Himself - and Why would Jesus who possess the ability to open and shut entry into Heaven already give Himself that authority … again - this makes no sense at all.

Or that all the apostles were given the same authority later … this is not factually true - they were given the authority to forgive and/or retain the people sins but only Peter was given the keys of authority and power over the gates of heaven itself.

Jesus prayed specifically for Peter so that Peter could strengthen his brethren in the times of trial to come … do Christians not need that same leadership and strength after th time of the original apostles - of course they do.

First Among equals is one of those phrases that just acknowledges a reality then takes away all of the meaning of that reality … On a very real level the Petrine Office is equal with all the offices of the Bishops around the world but Jesus formed one Church - not many Churches and he built the Church upon one Rock - Simon Peter to whom Jesus bestowed keys - which he gave to no other. - One head - and if the early church needed that leadership - why would we believe we can function faithfully without that same leadership?

Lastly - if this passage on the building of Christ’s Church means nothing - why was Peters name changed? Why was Peter given the Keys and the Authority over entry into Heaven? Why was Peter singles out to strengthen the others.? Why did Jesus only give to Peter the command to feed and tend both the Sheep and the Lambs?

Who - what one person - possess those keys today? Where did they go?

 

[guanophore]

. It was about how the role and the powers within the role grew over time and by mid-5th century the roles were well defined.

It says on page 419 that Augustine “attributed to the Pope a pastoral or teaching authority, extending over the whole church,” but there was no evidence he understood the successor of St. Peter to have “a sovereign and infallible doctrinal magisterium.”

These are one and the same. Peter was given responsibility for the whole flock. There were no parts of the sheep that needed care and feeding that were excluded.

Teaching authority = magesterium

“Spirit will guide you into all Truth” = infallibility

 

[guanophore]

Why not ?

…21Therefore it is necessary to select one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Paul did not accompany Jesus during His earthly ministry.

You may not accept this Scripture, since you seem to believe it indicates that Peter an the other Apostles were making a mistake, but this is what the inspired and inerrant Word of God plainly states.

Really ? Never discussed prior to 1500 ? Last I heard the CC has made no determination.

I don’t know what you are “hearing”, and there may have been heretics who denied the college of the 12, or believed as you do that the selection of Matthias was not the will of God.

The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. All the persons involved in the selection of Matthias were Catholic. This Scripture itself is the Catholic “determination” on the matter.

I beg to differ . Jesus personally chose and taught Saul. He wasn’t playing tiddly winks in the desert for three years. Paul says the gospel was taught to him by Christ , by no man.

Blessings

Yes, of course. He was certainly without question called by Christ to be an Apostle. But he did not meet the criteria to be one of the 12.

 

[guanophore]

…would you believe any reform if it had only one voice, one other church, and not 29,999 others ? I suspect not then either.

And surely you do not think a church branching out of, and still showing the unity of the Catholic faith, not having any profound truths ?

Blessings

Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. He never intended for any reform to create “one other church” much less 29,999.

Separation and division is not the work of the Holy Spirit, who unifies.

As to those who have left the unity of the One Faith, yes we affirm that there are profound Truths and workings of the Holy Spirit.

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[Darryl_B]

There is a big difference between reformation and deformation. Protestant history tries to tell me one thing. Observation tells me the other.

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

I think that to take the political, sectarian view that Peter can never be wrong (faith/morals) due to perfect promised Guidance, that therefore Paul was not the twelfth apostle avoids a study of Writ on the matter. .

Are you saying that, if one is to study the New Testament thoroughly, then one will conclude that Paul is, in fact, the 12 Apostle?

How do you explain that the whole Church, both East and West, accepts Acts 1:22 as valid, up until the modern evangelical practice? Why was Jesus so weak and powerless that he could not have corrected SOMEONE in all this time?

Again, The CC has made no such determination.

The CC accepts the New Testament as inspired and inerrant. This includes the passage in Acts 1:22. If you would like another official Catholic document there is BENEDICT XVI
address to the GENERAL AUDIENCE in Saint Peter’s Square
Wednesday, 18 October 2006

"In conclusion, we want to remember he who, after Easter, was elected in place of the betrayer. In the Church of Jerusalem two were proposed to the community, and then lots were cast for their names: “Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias” (Acts 1: 23).

Precisely the latter was chosen, hence, “he was enrolled with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1: 26). We know nothing else about him, if not that he had been a witness to all Jesus’ earthly events (cf. Acts 1: 21-22), remaining faithful to him to the end. To the greatness of his fidelity was later added the divine call to take the place of Judas, almost compensating for his betrayal. "

To claim that the CC does not consider Matthias to be the 12 Apostle just seems absurd.
You may not agree with it, but you will find that all the evidence lists him as Judas’ replacement. Every painting from the early centuries, every icon, every stained glass window, every drawing in every bible.

He may be powerful , but He can not do all things. He can not go against what He wills to be free, as in our wills. Of the seven churches, only two needed no correction. History also shows that some did not heed the warnings and exhortations. Their candle went out. I would not say that shows Gods’ weakness or inability.

Individuals can restrict themselves from God’s plan for HIs Church, but He guides the Church completely and infallibly. If someone chooses not to cooperate, He will find someone who will.

Again, you are presuming that everything Peter did “God established”. The text does not imply one way or other the other of whether the casting of lots was Holy Spirit led.

Of course it does, Ben. Peter prayed, deliberated, and God gave him a revelation through the Scriptures. He stood up among his brethren and announced what needed to be done. There was no dispute, and they all joined in prayer, and believed what Jesus had told them, that if two or more of them were gathered, He would be there. If they were wrong, Jesus would have shown them. He managed to show Peter that the Gentiles needed to be baptized.

Again, you do not separate Peter from his faith, why do you separate "people" from the "church" ?

People separate themselves from the Church when they depart from the Teachings of Jesus. The Church is more than the deficient modern definition of the “believers here on earth”. The Church is incarnational, as Christ is. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the the divine elements that make her infallible, not the human.

They were to tarry and wait. No where did Jesus tell them to appoint a replacement.

You are not privy to what God told Peter, are you? I think you need to look again at the context of this:

Matthias Replaces Judas
…13When they arrived, they went to the upper room where they were staying: Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14With one accord they all continued in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (a gathering of about a hundred and twenty) and said,…

If Jesus did not want to guide HIs fledgling Church in this action, don’t you think He could have found someone in the room to correct Peter?

20“For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘May his dwelling be deserted; let there be no one to live in it,’ and, ‘May another take his office.’…Acts 1:19

How is it that Peter just happened to come up with this verse? Are you suggesting that he did this all by himself? Has not the Holy Spirit ever put a verse in your head/heart?

21Therefore it is necessary to select one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,…

Peter felt this was “necessary” and the Scripture gave him conviction. About 120 persons all prayed “in unity” on the matter. Can you show me where the “mistake” was made?

And if there was, why did not the text make this clear, as in the Book of Galatians when Peter was out of order? Why did the whole Church everywhere (until modern American evangelicalism) accept that what occurred in the is passage was the will of God?

 

[guanophore]

 No, I am saying Paul may have been the actual replacement.

Paul had a very unique and particularly blessed ministry in the Church. If Jesus wanted him to be one of the 12, he would have met the requirements set forth, and would have been in the upper room.

Mostly the enormity of Paul’s ministry, the circumstances of his calling and learning the gospel, and yes, a little of the method of Mathias’s selection, and Peter’s known oft impulsive behavior So the church will never act contrary to God’s plan, even on something as momentary and inconsequential as this ?

No, the Church cannot, because the Spirit of God leads her into all Truth.

But no one believed this was a “momentary and inconsequential” matter. If you read through the prophesies made by Jesus to the 12 you will see that they have both temporal and eternal value. The Apostles understood that their number was not complete.

Again, this is your position, not mine. Your paradigm, not mine.

Not mine either, really , but part of being in the One Faith. I espouse it, because that was handed down to me through the successors of the Apostles, to whom Jesus made the promise that the Church would be led into all Truth.

Sorry , but the CC says the chair has authority over all.The passing is not mentioned in scripture , and somewhat muted in history, but certainly not in what would become a tradition.

I think Apostolic succession is quite clear in Scripture, but then, I read it through the lens of the faith that produced it. I am not reading into it two centuries later through a paradigm created through a separation from that faith.

I do agree, though, that the office of the successor of Peter has certainly grown from a small mustard seed into a large tree.

 

[benhur]

Oh I see. Well, Jesus drew His flesh from hers, so I guess if you think His flesh was taken from flesh born into original sin that is between you and God.

Hi g,

A bit off topic , but it was not required belief for 1800 years. Anyways, in the end, that was the whole point, that God entered a sinful, fallen world. Rubbed elbows with it.

This argument seems similar to saying that what Jesus taught is invalid, because Judas did not walk according to it.

No, it would be similar to Judas not having taught anything new, or on his own ( similar to some of the bad popes not putting forth any new doctrine), thankfully.

And Jesus directed the disciples to obey them anyway

The "anyway is no where in the text. He told them to “beware” of their false doctrine. No one suggests that meant follow bad doctrine.

I think you are saying that Jesus allowed His teaching to be corrupted by men. Therefore, the frailties of men are more powerful than the protection of God to HIs word. Isa 55:11 is really a lie.

Again, too much “either/or”. Indeed we have examples in OT and NT of the Word being corrupted, misapplied or misinterpreted, or not obeyed. This does not detract from the power or integrity of His Word. As some say here, He straightens out what we make crooked, sooner or later.

People separate themselves from the Church when they reject the One Faith.

You can not be part of the church and separate from it at the same time. That is a CC paradigm conundrum.

No, I said that Jesus and Peter spoke Aramaic, where the word is Cephas. Matthew wrote in Aramaic

Well maybe he wrote in Aramaic but he also wrote in Greek. Most believe he penned Matthew in Greek. (his notes may have been in Aramaic, giving credence to Papias remark of recording in Aramaic)

I think what you are saying is that Jesus ignored the prayers of Peter and the Apostles in the selection of a replacement and allowed them to go off His plan. He failed in His promises.

Of course God can ignore a prayer, and certainly many deservedly and thankfully so. He can also say no, or yes, or wait . God is never unplanned, and therefore delivers on His promises. The OT is full of such examples.

Only if one ignores the instruction of Jesus to follow the appointed authority, even if they are bad examples.

Correct but a bad example is not the same as a bad decree or bad teaching, which we are not to follow.

There have been many voices, many prophets, doctors of the Church. None of the redirection given by them to the Pope discounts his appointed role

Nor does it discount the example of Peter in repenting of due criticism as given by Paul.

If you believe He left the Church orphaned, then He lied, and did not keep His Word

We do not believe He left the church orphaned.

That is the CC response to non papists, or to those who say the chair can not be unconditionally infallible.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Paul had a very unique and particularly blessed ministry in the Church. If Jesus wanted him to be one of the 12, he would have met the requirements set forth, and would have been in the upper room.

Paul met the requirements , not sure upper room was one of them.

I think Apostolic succession is quite clear in Scripture

If you mean the apostles appointing presbyters yes. I was referring to the appointing of a head presbyter/bishop.

I do agree, though, that the office of the successor of Peter has certainly grown from a small mustard seed into a large tree

Thank you for that admission.

We differ over that small mustard seed. I understand your view of a later "large tree’’ as I hope you would of my “leavening of the lump”.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

There is a big difference between reformation and deformation. Protestant history tries to tell me one thing. Observation tells me the other.

Yes but we must remember that Reformation was needed, even if the manner in which it was pursued resulted in rotten fruit.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

“Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.” Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1G 13,732.

At this point, we need to focus less on what separated us, an more on how to be reunited.

Paul met the requirements , not sure upper room was one of them.
If you mean the apostles appointing presbyters yes. I was referring to the appointing of a head presbyter/bishop.
Thank you for that admission.

We differ over that small mustard seed. I understand your view of a later "large tree’’ as I hope you would of my “leavening of the lump”.

Blessings

No, Ben, he did not Peter clearly stated the requirements, and Paul did not meet them. Jesus qualified Paul to be an Apostle, but he was not one of the 12.

The Apostles appointed Bishops to oversee the flock after they were gone, presbyters and deacons. The Petrine responsibilities, though shared by all the Bishops, are charged specifically to the successor of Peter.

Lutheranism has taught that the Successor of Peter is the antichrist. This “leaven” certainly does affect the whole lump.

Hi g,

A bit off topic , but it was not required belief for 1800 years.

Are you honestly talking about the appointment of Matthias as a replacement for Judas?! :bigyikes:

If so, you are mistaken. Catholics are required to believe that the Scripture is the inspired and inerrant word of God, and that what is written there is for our instruction. In Acts 1 we see the fledgling church replacing Judas. This is required belief, and always has been, since the day it occurred.

  Anyways, in the end, that was the whole point, that God entered a sinful, fallen world. Rubbed elbows with it.

If you are talking about the immaculate conception, it was formally defined more recently but those who developed the doctrine of the Theotokos did not believe differently. Just like the Church believed the Trinity before 325. Just like the Scriptures were considered Theopneustos the day they were penned, not otherwise until officially proclaimed in 382. You seem to have a problem with authority.

 it would be similar to Judas not having taught anything new, or on his own ( similar to some of the bad popes not putting forth any new doctrine), thankfully.

Not entirely, since you are purporting that the Church went against the will of God in the selection of Matthias.

 The "anyway is no where in the text. He told them to "*beware*" of their false doctrine. No one suggests that meant follow bad doctrine.

If Peter stands up and quotes a Scripture, by which he believes he has been inspired by God to replace Judas, then his teaching on this matter is either right, or wrong. You are saying he “missed” the will of God.

  Indeed we have examples in OT and NT of the Word being corrupted, misapplied or misinterpreted, or not obeyed. This does not detract from the power or integrity of His Word. As some say here, He straightens out what we make crooked, sooner or later.

You seem to be suggesting that, had Peter waited and not been so “impulsive” that God would have chosen Paul to take Judas’ place, even though Paul did not meet the criteria.

You can not be part of the church and separate from it at the same time. That is a CC paradigm conundrum.

Actually, it is Jesus’ conundrum. He taught that we are made members of the One Body in baptism, but that a person can walk away from the faith in which they are baptized.They don’t get “unadopted”. The seal of baptism is permanent. They will go to hell with that seal on their soul.

 

[guanophore]

 Well maybe he wrote in Aramaic but he also wrote in Greek. Most believe he penned Matthew in Greek. (his notes may have been in Aramaic, giving credence to Papias remark of recording in Aramaic)

I don’t know if Matthew was able to write in Greek, but his Gospel was originally in Aramaic. Even if it were in Greek, the events that occurred (the conversation) was in Aramaic. Cephas is an Aramaic word.

I think I will accept the testimony of those closer to the document such as Papias and Irenaeus.

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

 Of course God can ignore a prayer,  and certainly many deservedly and thankfully so. He can also say no, or yes, or wait . God is never unplanned, and therefore delivers on His promises. The OT is full of such examples.

Correct but a bad example is not the same as a bad decree or bad teaching, which we are not to follow.

I agree, but what you are asserting, without any evidence in the text, is that the fervent, unified prayers of the Church were not answered by God, and they all just duped themselves into believing otherwise. And further, that God was unable at that time, or any time since, to correct the Church.

Peter got up and spoke. I don’t know if it can be called a “decree”, but certainly everyone followed his lead. You are claiming that the Holy Spirit allowed them to be led into error.

We do not believe He left the church orphaned.

Except in the matter of choosing Matthias?

 That is the CC response to non papists, or to those who say the chair can not be unconditionally infallible.

Actually, no informed Catholic would claim that the successor of Peter is “unconditionally infallible” since this is contrary to the Church’s teaching. You have created another strawman. Are you feeling your argument weakening? I hope so, because it really will not subtract anything from your faith to accept what scripture clearly teaches here.

 

[Abu]

benhur #109
If you mean the apostles appointing presbyters yes. I was referring to the appointing of a head presbyter/bishop.

Pope Clement, the third bishop of Rome, wrote in his letter to the Corinthians: “The Apostles are from Christ…they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and teachers of the future believers.”
Apostolic succession thereby is confirmed in New Testament times by a non-New Testament source.
The Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 77-78].

 

[Picky_Picky]

I don’t know if Matthew was able to write in Greek, but his Gospel was originally in Aramaic.

I have absolutely no expertise in this matter, but I was surprised to see you say this without qualification, since I thought the general view among scholars was that whoever wrote Matthew wrote it in Greek. Have I got that wrong?

 

[Darryl_B]

Yes but we must remember that Reformation was needed, even if the manner in which it was pursued resulted in rotten fruit.

The Catholic Church made some reforms to practices. It was not really that huge a deal. The seeds were older than the “protestant reformation”, those “fathers” were just prouducts of what seems to have originated with an Englishman. The splinter was unstoppable. No amount of ecumenism would have been able to stop it.

As the bishop of Alexandria Alexander said

Nay, they have had the audacity to rend the seamless garment of Christ, which the soldiers dared not divide.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

“Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.” Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1G 13,732.

Agreed.

At this point, we need to focus less on what separated us, and more on how to be reunited.

I would think that when protestant reformers are viewed with the glamorous enthusiastic perception of righteousness and honour like victorious soldiers in battle, doing God’s work, then perhaps what separated us is the answer to what can reunite, because without any form of governing body it is impossible to unite except one by one. Usually if a protestant pastor comes into communion with the Catholic Church they don’t have the authority to bring their flock with them. Any Rite united to the Catholic Church has always had a benevolent respected governing authority open to unity. With the protestant authority being dead and buried, they are not able to bring the protestant flock back to the apostolic succession of authority.

 

[Porknpie]

Was this done in the early centuries? Or did this idea come about later? I haven’t noticed this concept in the early writings.

Susan, you’ve read the early Church writings and have seen these concepts: ?

• Salvation by Faith Alone
• The doctrine of Bible Alone
• Symbolic Baptism only
• Baptism delayed to the age of reason
• The Eucharist being bread and wine and not the actual body and blood of Christ
• 66 books in the bible

You know what Cardinal Newman said after reading the early Church writings?

Good article here from Dr. David Anders. who had a similar experience. He went out to prove the Catholic Church wrong but while doing so in seminary, found that those who follow the 16th century reformers, don’t really follow what they taught completely, and he found that the early Church was very Catholic.

My favorite topic here from Dr. Anders is that the “New Perspective on St. Paul” is actually a very Old and Catholic one. He cites NT Wright who is probably the most pre-eminent St Paul scholar today (an Anglican Bishop) … who’s writings have brought many people into the Catholic Church, to his chagrin.

(note, excellent book by Wright on St. Paul is** here** )

 

[benhur]

Pope Clement, the third bishop of Rome, wrote in his letter to the Corinthians: “The Apostles are from Christ…they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and teachers of the future believers.”
Apostolic succession thereby is confirmed in New Testament times by a non-New Testament source.
The Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 77-78].

HI Abu .

Totally agree as it agrees with my post .

I was speaking of appointment/ succession of popes , which is a totally different context .

Blessings

 

[Wannano]

The Catholic Church made some reforms to practices. It was not really that huge a deal. The seeds were older than the “protestant reformation”, those “fathers” were just prouducts of what seems to have originated with an Englishman. The splinter was unstoppable. No amount of ecumenism would have been able to stop it.

As the bishop of Alexandria Alexander said

Agreed.

I would think that when protestant reformers are viewed with the glamorous enthusiastic perception of righteousness and honour like victorious soldiers in battle, doing God’s work, then perhaps what separated us is the answer to what can reunite, because without any form of governing body it is impossible to unite except one by one. Usually if a protestant pastor comes into communion with the Catholic Church they don’t have the authority to bring their flock with them. Any Rite united to the Catholic Church has always had a benevolent respected governing authority open to unity. With the protestant authority being dead and buried, they are not able to bring the protestant flock back to the apostolic succession of authority.

From what I read in the Bible that is how the Kingdom grows, one by one. It is only by individual decision that we receive salvation from God. When I die, if my only basis for salvation is that I was forced to join Christ’s Church by threat of death if I didn’t, I don’t think it will help much. Neither will it do much good for me if my governing authority has the ability to say ok now we are joining the Catholic Church. There is another thread currently on caf titled something like I Am Catholic, Right?, a post there summed it all up for me. The answer given was, you don’t have to understand what all the Church teaches and stands for as long as you say you believe it to be true since the Catholic Church is the one true Church and then go to Mass and Confession, you are in! Somehow I believe Jesus’ message was to believe in Him not believe in a church.

 

[benhur]

No, Ben, he did not Peter clearly stated the requirements, and Paul did not meet them. Jesus qualified Paul to be an Apostle, but he was not one of the 12.

Hi g,

OK but was this infallible Peter ? Were they indeed the Lord’s requirements and in a way Paul certainly seems to meet them though in a different manner.

The Apostles appointed Bishops to oversee the flock after they were gone, presbyters and deacons

Amen .Agree…

The Petrine responsibilities, though shared by all the Bishops, are charged specifically to the successor of Peter.

This is what is scant in evidence, a presumption by some.

Lutheranism has taught that the Successor of Peter is the antichrist. This “leaven” certainly does affect the whole lump

Oh boy, as if Jon has not answered this a million times.

Shall I quote other Catholics or some decrees as speaking for the CC forever ?

Are you honestly talking about the appointment of Matthias as a replacement for Judas?! :bigyikes:

Here is how we posted :
“Oh I see. Well, Jesus drew His flesh from hers, so I guess if you think His flesh was taken from flesh born into original sin that is between you and God.” you

“A bit off topic , but it was not required belief for 1800 years. Anyways, in the end, that was the whole point, that God entered a sinful, fallen world. Rubbed elbows with it” me

If you are talking about the immaculate conception, it was formally defined more recently but those who developed the doctrine of the Theotokos did not believe differently. Just like the Church believed the Trinity before 325. Just like the Scriptures were considered Theopneustos the day they were penned, not otherwise until officially proclaimed in 382

Understand. That is why I said it was not “required” till fully clarified. It was definitely required after the 1870 ex cathedra pronouncement. That is you were still a good Catholic before 1870 if you believed only, “Mary full of grace blessed amongst women” , without any IC interpretation" . I will grant you that was a minority sentiment.

Furthermore , I was also commenting on the problems with it being "fitting but not necessary " argument most Catholic put forward.

Not entirely, since you are purporting that the Church went against the will of God in the selection of Matthias.

I am suggesting that possibility. We will know in the future, up in heaven.

If Peter stands up and quotes a Scripture, by which he believes he has been inspired by God to replace Judas, then his teaching on this matter is either right, or wrong. You are saying he “missed” the will of God.

Maybe, maybe not. Not dogmatic on it.

You seem to be suggesting that, had Peter waited and not been so “impulsive” that God would have chosen Paul to take Judas’ place, even though Paul did not meet the criteria.

Well remember the same person that* may have *had the impulse to appoint also set the criteria.

Actually, it is Jesus’ conundrum. He taught that we are made members of the One Body in baptism, but that a person can walk away from the faith in which they are baptized. They don’t get “unadopted”. The seal of baptism is permanent. They will go to hell with that seal on their soul

Total CC conundrum.

Again, if a person “walk(s) away from the faith” he is still member of the Body ?

Trouble is many people are baptized into the Body as P’s or O’s and do not *walk away *from the CC faith, because they were never fully in it.

Either you are a part of the church or you are not. That is my “either/or”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I don’t know if Matthew was able to write in Greek, but his Gospel was originally in Aramaic. Even if it were in Greek, the events that occurred (the conversation) was in Aramaic. Cephas is an Aramaic word.

I think I will accept the testimony of those closer to the document such as Papias and Irenaeus.

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

" Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" Iraneus.

Hi g,

Here are two quotes and respective sites for pro and con of a Hebrew text:

"The testimonies of these three early church fathers were chosen because they offer the clearest evidence that it was believed by the early church that Matthew wrote both a Hebrew and a Greek Gospel of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
“When the early church fathers indicated that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew they never indicated that *the Greek Matthew *was written or translated by Matthew because it was fully accepted.”

hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%20Gospels%20Main%20Evidence.php

against :

“Bottom line: Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek. That is what all of the textual evidence and internal scriptural evidence suggests (and on the other hand there is zero evidence for a Hebrew gospel apart from this one very questionable story). Irenaeus is repeating Papias’ story as others do as well later on”.

ichthys.com/mail-Matthew%20in%20Hebrew.htm

Either way what we have is Greek as inspired Matthew, period. The Greek is explicit, while what they spoke or could have written can help with implications, the inspired rules. He could have written it in Chinese but what of it ?

As far as Aramaic, there is more than one word for stone, and there is also the possibility of gesturing , and voice inflection. All these ponderings may help but are not explicitly known.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

 Hi g,

OK but was this infallible Peter ? Were they indeed the Lord’s requirements and in a way Paul certainly seems to meet them though in a different manner.

First of all, Peter was never “infallible” in the sense that he could not make mistakes. The gift of infallibility was given to the Church, so that she could be led into all Truth. If Jeuss was not leading the Church into all Truth, then Jesus failed to keep His promise to them.

It seems quite presumptuous to me for a person to come along 2000 years after the fact, and begin contradicting the faith of the Church.Jesus taught the Apostles daily for three years, then again for 40 more days after His resurrection. We have no record of the details of most of what he said, particularly the days before the Ascension. We don’t know what kind of instructions He gave them, but Peter seemed quite clear in his understanding of what Christ wanted:

"Therefore it is necessary to select one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts 1:22.

Who are you to decide that this was not, in fact, necessary?

How can you possibly defend the position that Saul of Tarsus met these criteria?

Shall I quote other Catholics or some decrees as speaking for the CC forever ?

If you have sources that state Matthias was not chosen as the 12th Apostle, yes.

“A bit off topic , but it was not required belief for 1800 years. Anyways, in the end, that was the whole point, that God entered a sinful, fallen world. Rubbed elbows with it” me
Understand. That is why I said it was not “required” till fully clarified. It was definitely required after the 1870 ex cathedra pronouncement. That is you were still a good Catholic before 1870 if you believed only, “Mary full of grace blessed amongst women” , without any IC interpretation" . I will grant you that was a minority sentiment.

This is like saying, before 325, you could believe that the HS was an “it” instead of a “He”. Of course some Catholics are poorly catechized (don’t know the fullness of the Truth), but that does not make the Truth’s less present. Mary has been Theotokos since the Angel greeted her. Many Catholics don’t even know this term!

Incomplete understanding of the faith just places a person in the position of Apollos, fervent but ignorant. Was Apollos a “good disciple”?

Furthermore , I was also commenting on the problems with it being "fitting but not necessary " argument most Catholic put forward.

I am suggesting that possibility. We will know in the future, up in heaven.
Maybe, maybe not. Not dogmatic on it.

Dogma’s function to prevent heresy. They keep the faithful from passing through the gates of Hell through embracing heresies, then falling away from the faith. They are part of Jesus’ promise to lead us into “All Truth”. He did not leave us orphans.

 Well remember the same person that* may have *had the impulse to appoint also set the criteria.

Yes. Jesus chose Peter in part because of his “impulsivity”. He was always eager to throw himself toward Christ. What you seem to be saying is that Peters impulsivity is more powerful that Jesus’ ability to restrain and guide him.

Total  CC conundrum.

I guess you are espousing the OSAS idea?

 Again, if a person "walk(s) away from the faith" he is still member of the Body ?

Trouble is many people are baptized into the Body as P’s or O’s and do not *walk away *from the CC faith, because they were never fully in it.

Their baptism is a Catholic baptism, and they are joined to the One Church through it. No one is “fully into it” the day they are baptized, especially infants! Baptism is the beginning if discipleship. Walking away from the faith can happen to anyone, even a person like Apollos who is inadequately catechized.

Either you are a part of the church or you are not. That is my “either/or”.

Baptism makes us a member of the Church. It is a permanent seal. There are members of the Church who are “dead” weight upon the Church. There are some that contaminate the Body by bringing sickness (sin). A Christian who abandons the faith into which they are baptized can fall into a sinful state, separating themselves from God and His Holy Bride. In that case, their last state is worse than their first. It would have been better for them never to have known…