Implicitly postulating a loser?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kent_Wendler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kent_Wendler

Guest
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not
revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

—Matthew, Ch. 16, D-R

In considering the claims by those who say the Catholic Church is in some way false it seems to me that there is one thing at least implicitly in common with each and every one of them, and that is that Jesus did not speak the truth in the verses cited above. If they are not the absolute and perpetual truth and that the Catholic Church headed by Peter and his successors is His church, then I do not see how one can reasonably, logically escape accepting at least one of the following conclusions:
  1. Jesus was only a man and did not have the power to make such a statement.
  2. Jesus lied.
  3. Jesus – God – was/is not omnipotent.
So it appears to me that everyone who opposes the Church with Peter’s successor as its earthly head, whether they realize it or not, is at least implicitly and to some degree worshiping a “loser god”. (Lower case intentional.)

(N.B.: This was originally posted on forum.catholic.org on Feb. 20, 2002, but has expired from there.)
 
Kent Wendler:
In considering the claims by those who say the Catholic Church is in some way false it seems to me that there is one thing at least implicitly in common with each and every one of them, and that is that Jesus did not speak the truth in the verses cited above. If they are not the absolute and perpetual truth and that the Catholic Church headed by Peter and his successors is His church, then I do not see how one can reasonably, logically escape accepting at least one of the following conclusions:
  1. Jesus was only a man and did not have the power to make such a statement.
  2. Jesus lied.
  3. Jesus – God – was/is not omnipotent.
So it appears to me that everyone who opposes the Church with Peter’s successor as its earthly head, whether they realize it or not, is at least implicitly and to some degree worshiping a “loser god”. (Lower case intentional.)
Click to expand...
When I was still protestant, I did not accept the authority of the Church (naturally). While at a certain stage, I did believe that the Church was built on Peter, I did not believe that the following promises of Christ entailed something such as the Catholic Church.

However, I certainly did not accept any of the 3 conclusions you postulated. This is genuinely how I thought:

Well, there are still Christians – many of them, doing many great things in this world. That is proof right there that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church. As God has clearly shown in the past, his ways of accomplishing his promises are not always the way we expect. Therefore, while it might make sense to us for God to have a Church which teaches no error, I didn’t see that as necessary for it to be true that “the gates of hell shall not prevail”.

Naturally, I do not believe that any more. That does illustrate that there are other ways of thinking about it that then ways you presented here.
 
I am quite sure that very, very few Protestants have conciously reached any of those conclusions - consciously they stop short of the realization that rejecting the authority of the Chair of Peter necessarily in strict logical inference implies at least one of those conclusions. This is easy to understand. Almost all of them do want to follow Christ and would be repelled at the consequence of their Petrine rejection, if they actually realized it. But, most people are not logical (like the fictional Mr. Spock) but psychological.
 
Kent Wendler:
But, most people are not logical (like the fictional Mr. Spock) but psychological.
Click to expand...
Although I appreciate your candor, I must point out that all logic originates from the “psych or psycho”. The word comes from the Greek psukho-, soul, life, from psukhe. It means mind or mental.

Since logic or “logos” simply means “reason” - in reality all logic has a “psychogenic” basis. It is the opposite of “pathogenic” which means a physiological origin. That is why psychology has its name, because it deals more with the mind (brain) than the body.
 
Kent Wendler:
So it appears to me that everyone who opposes the Church with Peter’s successor as its earthly head, whether they realize it or not, is at least implicitly and to some degree worshiping a “loser god”.
Click to expand...
The text you quote doesn’t say anything about a successor. Maybe Peter was supposed to give the keys back when he was done with them, instead of passing them on?
 
Shibboleth:

I believe we are in agreement, essentially. I was merely making a small joke of the fact that our reasoning frequently falls short of the results of a strict application of the predicate calculus.

+++

Auberon Quin:

You neglect the implications of the “held bound” charge which Jesus also gave to His Apostles and to Peter in particular. Also the “feed My sheep” instruction. Until He returned in glory. To suppose that the office of Peter would end with the death of Simon Peter is to suppose that Jesus gave an impossible instruction.
 
Kent Wendler said:
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not
revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

—Matthew, Ch. 16, D-R

In considering the claims by those who say the Catholic Church is in some way false it seems to me that there is one thing at least implicitly in common with each and every one of them, and that is that Jesus did not speak the truth in the verses cited above. If they are not the absolute and perpetual truth and that the Catholic Church headed by Peter and his successors is His church, then I do not see how one can reasonably, logically escape accepting at least one of the following conclusions:
  1. Jesus was only a man and did not have the power to make such a statement.
  2. Jesus lied.
  3. Jesus – God – was/is not omnipotent.
So it appears to me that everyone who opposes the Church with Peter’s successor as its earthly head, whether they realize it or not, is at least implicitly and to some degree worshiping a “loser god”. (Lower case intentional.)

(N.B.: This was originally posted on forum.catholic.org on Feb. 20, 2002, but has expired from there.)
Click to expand...

I was often force fed that Catholics were hell bound with a vengence, and that the whole Catholic faith was apostate at best. I disagreed with this, which often got be the left foot of fellowship. Of course this is among the many charactor flaws I struggle with but I believe what people say about their faith. Pathetic I know but it is how I see it.

I often struggled with the history of the Church, something I would never ask in the real world as it would mean getting the boot with a vengence, but I do often wonder.

I personally believe the “one true church” was killed many years ago. Of course that has no meaning but I do find it sad.

I wish it still lived, but that does not seem a possibility.
 
40.png
briand:
I personally believe the “one true church” was killed many years ago. Of course that has no meaning but I do find it sad.

I wish it still lived, but that does not seem a possibility.
Click to expand...
I am curious. When do you think the “one true church” was killed.

I would certainly agree that it has suffered serious wounds over the centuries.

God lives. Jesus showed how to know God the way an only and most beloved son knows his own father. Those who put their faith in Jesus are part of the “one true church.”

The ourward divisions among various groups who profess to follow Jesus does present formidable stumbling blocks, but not insurmountable ones.

Peace

-Jim
 
For me, one o the best things about this arguement is that the Catholic Church is still the largest and most influencial Christian organisation on the face of the planet. To deny it’s authority is like denying Jesus is God, because you are saying he had another plan other than that his followers would become Catholic. The fact is the Catholic faith endures and this alone is enough for me to see the Holy Spirit at work with his people. The Church simply has to be part of God’s plan for us, saying it got it wrong or died out seems to make little sense.
 
Actually, protestants say that Jesus was referring to Peter’s statement of faith (Thou art the Christ) instead of Peter himself. But, with the composition of the sentance would rule that out. LIke in most things, protestants have to twist scripture to mean what they want it to mean. Or ignore the true meaning altogether.
 
40.png
trogiah:
I am curious. When do you think the “one true church” was killed.

I would certainly agree that it has suffered serious wounds over the centuries.

God lives. Jesus showed how to know God the way an only and most beloved son knows his own father. Those who put their faith in Jesus are part of the “one true church.”

The ourward divisions among various groups who profess to follow Jesus does present formidable stumbling blocks, but not insurmountable ones.

Peace

-Jim
Click to expand...
Sorry for the late answer I did not see this way back when. It is a good question. My personal opinion, about a generation after the apostles died. That Church tried to come back to life many times sense then, and each time it was killed again, with a great vengence. But that is just a cynical opinion, take it with a large grain of salt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top