Literal or Symbolic?...

[joe370]

Hi joe370 Yes .I did think that my term was “wrong” and untechnical ,negating an answer .Sorry. But yes, they were first known as bishops of Rome ,but even that is inadequate for you did not have such heirarchy (episcopy ?) for quite a awhile .That is ,there may have been many bishops IN Rome at the same time ,making it difficult to say which one was heir to Peter. Anyways, there were four from what I have seen. St.Linus ((64-76), St.Cletus (76-80), St Clement (88-97), St. Evaristus (97-105). Source is:" The Lives of the Popes" by Michael Walsh ,a Catholic historian , former Jesuit. I understand other lists may have slight variations in first five… P.S.-“The Papacy”, by Paul Johnson, British historian has St.Linus, St. Anacietus, St. Clement, St. Evaristus.

I agree that there probably isn’t any universally accepted consensus regarding the proper successive order of Linus, Anacietus, Clement, Evaristus but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one at the time. Jesus’ church universal was still in her infancy when those bishops lived (67 AD to the turn of the 1st century) - and therefore still undergoing certain developments regarding church structure, such as its hierarchy, as well ironing out other important matters such as church doctrines.

Of course I don’t deny the fact that there are very few extant records regarding the Petrine office of Rome in the 1st and early 2nd century, and no doubt that had a great deal to do with to the fact that Christianity was outlawed until the early part of the 4th century, but of course we do see writings in the latter part of the 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century…that clearly testify to the chair of Peter and the primacy of Rome. I was quite surprised to learn this as a former protestant.

Like today, I am sure, back then, there were many bishops in different parts of Rome, which in and of itself in no way undermines the Petrine office, just as it wouldn’t today, and by the time Leo came on to the scene, 400 years later, the Petrine office of Rome was undeniable in my unscholarly opinion, and recognized as such by the church universal, and folks back then were certainly in a better position than either you or me regarding the truth of the matter, again, in my humble opinion.

 

[joe370]

St Augustine later recanted ascribing "rockmass’ to Peter. The Fathers of the Church-St Augustine book 1 page 90

The CC in no way views the following as being mutually exclusive; quite the opposite:

1. Jesus = the rock.
2. Peter = the rock, based on Simon’s profession of faith, from God, that Jesus was in fact the long awaited Messiah and Son of the Living God.

Jesus is of course God and therefore is the invisible Divine Rock and Simon who was re-named Rock, by Jesus, due to what the Father had revealed to him - is the earthly visible Rock on which Jesus’ church is built. Grammatically speaking, this is an undeniable fact.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2,
I wasn’t aware that an “it” can make doctrines. Any time you make blanket statements about Anglicanism, you are talking about everyone in the Anglican Communion, which includes me.

So therefore you were part of the group who made the doctrines? Which way did you vote?

You are not spot on, because not all Anglicans believe what you claim Anglicans believe.

What I claim Anglicanism believes Anglicanism believes because it is part of their doctrines.

So please tell me which one did I get wrong: divorce, contraception, gay marriage, priestesses?

And if not all of them believe these, then why are they Anglican?

Some who really don’t believe these finally saw the light and these are just not acceptable decided to abandon the raft that abandoned the ship.
There are many conservative Anglicans, such as myself, who are heartbroken over the decisions made by a “faction” in the Anglican Communion. Remember the Communion is made up of people, not an “it.”
A faction? Is that all it is? A faction? Once these doctrines are in, these doctrines are in. They become part of Anglican doctrine as heartbroken as you are and others may be.

So again, I ask the question, how can you possibly remain Anglican in light of that?

I know that some are leaving the Anglican Communion. Some are choosing Communion with Rome. Some are choosing Eastern Orthodoxy. Some are leaving the Communion and claiming to maintain historical conservative Anglicanism.

And is that not a fact. The conservative Anglicans are now just a faction within the mainstream Anglican who have abandoned their Christian values. So why remain knowing that the doctrines have become corrupted. We are not talking here about one errant homosexual priest or even a whole swathe of homosexual bishops and priests. We are talking about the spiritual legalization of sin.

How can one stick with a church with such a frame of mind? How can one stick with a Church that has been at the forefront of teaching error?

Others, like me, remain in our conservative Parishes, living out our faith in our communities. Our conservative leaders are aligning with other conservative leaders and are working, from within, for a return to orthodoxy----believing that further splits and splintering do not necessarily serve a good purpose.

The only way out is the way home.

This “willy-nilly” deviation in Christian teaching and practice is not embraced by all Anglicans. There is very little difference between Anglo-Anglicanism and Catholicism–the primary difference involves the view of Papal primacy and authority–one of the same issues that separates Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Whether it is believed or not by all Anglicans does not really matter because if it is the Anglican Communion – then it is the Anglican communion. What is approved by the communion becomes applicable to all.

The Church in England had no problem with the Papacy before the murderous and adulterous King Henry. It truly baffles me that one could pledge allegiance to a Church that was basically started by such a man.

If I convert to Catholicism, it will be because I can embrace the Catholic faith with my whole heart. That day may come, as I have a great respect for Catholics. In the mean time; I’m a conservative in the Anglican Communion, still here discussing the issues with Catholics.

So, back to the thread topic: Literal or Symbolic. . . .

Peace,
Anna

Don’t tarry too long. Time is of the essence. As Scott Hahn said, delayed obedience is disobedience. And don’t decide because you have a great respect for Catholics. Decide because you have realized that the Catholic faith is true. Ask yourself whether King Henry had the right to set up His own Church in defiance of Christ’s own will. It is not this or that doctrine that divides us. I have always maintained that ultimately it is the Papacy and infallibility. Because if this is true, then every thing else is true. If the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ, then everything she declares is true. And if the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ then there is none for it would mean that Christ has left his church to muddle in heresy and thus the gates of hell has prevailed.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, sleep tight, for it all must be a pack of lies.

You mean your defences? I wouldn’t say all but a great majority of it… yes,

 

[benedictus2]

From your POV, I can see why you might perceive the SU that way.

I don’t “perceive” the SU that way. The SU IS that way based on everything that has been said about it. Union is union.

Then put it in Transub words - when it is no longer mere bread, it is simply accidents.

If it is just accidents then it is “no longer bread”, not “no longer mere bread”.

In metphysical terms, think of it as I with and under the accidents.

Metaphysically speaking, can we really speak of substance as being in, with, under the accidents?

If this is so, then you are therefore saying, IWU in metaphysical terms is Transubstantiation. Ergo the Lutherans believe in Transubstantiation. Would you say that is correct?

 

[benedictus2]

Yes -“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build…”. Peter and “rock” are not the same .

Only to you who don’t understand language it seems.

So it would seem to you corazon and heart are not the same. Deo and God are not the same. Hmmm, it seems then people with different language speak of different things all together.

Cephas(stone/rock) and rock are not the same, in the Greek ,which is our original inspired writing.

And guess, what in the original Greek we have Jesus speaking in Aramaic! Or maybe you have a different Bible that you don’t have that?

Jesus calls Simon Cephas. What do you think Cephas means?

And interestingly enough in John, the Greek translation that you believe is inspired says: “You shall be called Cephas which translates to Peter”

So read that David. Cephas which is Rock in Hebrew was translated to Peter in Greek. Therefore Peter here means Rock because Cephas means Rock. And you know why he was not called Petra instead of Peter? Because Petra is a female name.

It is like saying , “your are a stone, and upon this rock I will build”.

Only to someone who has not read the latest Protestant commentary who have all acknowledged that Peter meant rock. You are behind the times even in your own denominations interpretation of the text.

Ther is a greek word for Cephas /stone/rock and a different greek rendering for "rock’ that church will be built on.

Yes, indeed. There is a greek word for rock and it is Petra. Do you seriously think that first century writers would give a woman’s name to a big burly fisherman? Seriously?

OT has rock equal God over 30 times ,so a good Jew would be familiar with the analogy.Stone is a “rock” , but from a bigger rock (stone is generally smaller than rock in this sense)

Do you know that the common Greek term for stone is “lithos”?

.I will not ridicule your position as you do mine ,for it is beautifuly laid out on both sides of the argument.

I ridicule your position becuase it is worthy of ridicule.

Even Protestants scholars have realized how wrong they are and have concededthat Peter means Rock.

Divinely so. Actually the church is built upon Peter , and the other 11 apostles equally,as found in Revelations 21 or 22.

No doubt. But in Matthew 16:18 Jesus was specifically referring to Peter. He started off addressing Peter and He finished His discourse still addressing Peter.

And Peter is Rock because of His confession. Becuase of this knowledge that God the Father has revealed to him. God the Father could have revealed this to all the 12 apostles but He does NOT. He reveals this only to Peter. It seems here that it was God the Father who picked Peter and the Son ratified this choice.

Amen .May I say I use this to show that “church”, magisterium, teachers/parents/even Scripture needs personal divine revelation.

They do? And who decides whether such personal divine revelation is indeed Divinely inspired and not satanically inspired. Who is the adjudicator in this instance?

By themselves they are not enough .It is all about divine revelation, personal knowledge in and thru the Savior. One must be born-again.

Yes one must be born again through baptism. And no personal revelation is not necessary. Sometimes these personal revelations are actually revelations of the evil one and not of God. Then one has to go back to the magisterium to discern which is truly Divine and which one is devilish.

 

[benedictus2]

“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build…”. Peter and “rock” are not the same .Cephas(stone/rock) and rock are not the same, in the Greek ,which is our original inspired writing. .

Here is a link to another thread where a Mr Zetterlund ( a former baptist) explains why was won over by the Catholic Faith.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8492431&postcount=1

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8492435&postcount=2

 

[joe370]

Hey benedictus…

Metaphysically speaking, can we really speak of substance as being in, with, under the accidents?

If this is so, then you are therefore saying, IWU in metaphysical terms is Transubstantiation. Ergo the Lutherans believe in Transubstantiation. Would you say that is correct?

I agree, for if we could see the bread and wine, once blessed, through God’s eyes as everyone does in heaven, would we even see the bread and wine anymore? Of course you, me and Jon would all say - no. For now though, our earthly eyes are veiled for we live by faith nor sight…

 

[Anna_Scott]

So therefore you were part of the group who made the doctrines? Which way did you vote?

What I claim Anglicanism believes Anglicanism believes because it is part of their doctrines.

So please tell me which one did I get wrong: divorce, contraception, gay marriage, priestesses?

And if not all of them believe these, then why are they Anglican?

Some who really don’t believe these finally saw the light and these are just not acceptable decided to abandon the raft that abandoned the ship.

A faction? Is that all it is? A faction? Once these doctrines are in, these doctrines are in. They become part of Anglican doctrine as heartbroken as you are and others may be.

So again, I ask the question, how can you possibly remain Anglican in light of that?

And is that not a fact. The conservative Anglicans are now just a faction within the mainstream Anglican who have abandoned their Christian values. So why remain knowing that the doctrines have become corrupted. We are not talking here about one errant homosexual priest or even a whole swathe of homosexual bishops and priests. We are talking about the spiritual legalization of sin.

How can one stick with a church with such a frame of mind? How can one stick with a Church that has been at the forefront of teaching error?

The only way out is the way home.

Whether it is believed or not by all Anglicans does not really matter because if it is the Anglican Communion – then it is the Anglican communion. What is approved by the communion becomes applicable to all.

The Church in England had no problem with the Papacy before the murderous and adulterous King Henry. It truly baffles me that one could pledge allegiance to a Church that was basically started by such a man.

Don’t tarry too long. Time is of the essence. As Scott Hahn said, delayed obedience is disobedience. And don’t decide because you have a great respect for Catholics. Decide because you have realized that the Catholic faith is true. Ask yourself whether King Henry had the right to set up His own Church in defiance of Christ’s own will. It is not this or that doctrine that divides us. I have always maintained that ultimately it is the Papacy and infallibility. Because if this is true, then every thing else is true. If the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ, then everything she declares is true. And if the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ then there is none for it would mean that Christ has left his church to muddle in heresy and thus the gates of hell has prevailed.

benedictus2,

All of this has been discussed and debated on numerous CAF threads–some discussions became so heated (especially after the ordination of Mary Glasspool), posts were removed and a few people, on both sides, were even banned. No desire to further derail this thread to hash it out again.

My point is that not all Anglicans believe the same thing. We are not all bound by the same doctrines. The Anglican Communion, it just that–a “communion” of Churches (about 85 million people) which are autonomous and diverse in beliefs.

As for not tarrying----if I must “submit mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff, I have to actually believe that is the right thing to do. Not interested in debating the primacy/authority of Peter, yet again.

As for your quote of Scott Hahn saying, “delayed obedience is disobedience”; I’ve read 3 of Hahn’s books. It took about 10 years of study and prayer for both Scott and his wife to embrace Catholicism. It was really a difficult journey for his wife. So, the “delayed obedience is disobedience” statement is somewhat ironic.

Peace to you benedictus2,
Anna

 

[david_ruiz]

I agree that there probably isn’t any universally accepted consensus regarding the proper successive order of Linus, Anacietus, Clement, Evaristus but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one at the time. Jesus’ church universal was still in her infancy when those bishops lived (67 AD to the turn of the 1st century) - and therefore still undergoing certain developments regarding church structure, such as its hierarchy, as well ironing out other important matters such as church doctrines.

Of course I don’t deny the fact that there are very few extant records regarding the Petrine office of Rome in the 1st and early 2nd century, and no doubt that had a great deal to do with to the fact that Christianity was outlawed until the early part of the 4th century, but of course we do see writings in the latter part of the 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century…that clearly testify to the chair of Peter and the primacy of Rome. I was quite surprised to learn this as a former protestant.

Like today, I am sure, back then, there were many bishops in different parts of Rome, which in and of itself in no way undermines the Petrine office, just as it wouldn’t today, and by the time Leo came on to the scene, 400 years later, the Petrine office of Rome was undeniable in my unscholarly opinion, and recognized as such by the church universal, and folks back then were certainly in a better position than either you or me regarding the truth of the matter, again, in my humble opinion.

Thank-you Joe370…Pretty much what I have read also. I would add that as the office emerged more strongly and “undeniably”, so did some resistance or balking, particularily from east .But appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[david_ruiz]

The CC in no way views the following as being mutually exclusive; quite the opposite:

1. Jesus = the rock.
2. Peter = the rock, based on Simon’s profession of faith, from God, that Jesus was in fact the long awaited Messiah and Son of the Living God.

Jesus is of course God and therefore is the invisible Divine Rock and Simon who was re-named Rock, by Jesus, due to what the Father had revealed to him - is the earthly visible Rock on which Jesus’ church is built. Grammatically speaking, this is an undeniable fact.

You know I have heard that from protestsants also ,that the Rock is indeed Jeus ,BUT that Peter’s confession is a “rock” also.Scripture does say that if you confees before men that jesus is messiah that he wil confess you before the father , and that this divine revelation about whom jesus is can resist the gates of hell ,and that death can not take it away.

 

[Nicea325]

Ok. Are you saying St Stephen never ascribed Mat 18 to the headship ,papacy ,see of rome ,or whatever term is appropriate ? Should we write the publishers and call for correction ? If indeed I agreed it was an error it would be a cop-out. Right now I have his word and your word, and neither of you are “primary”. So, if you can say something here on these threads, I suppose Mr Johnson could be represented here also. And let the reader be aware .But for sure , you seem prejudicial, that is you have not shared any evidence.

David why do you continue to carry on with this issue? I told you of the errors and you still try to defend them at all costs. Second, when did I say I was a primary source? You have a lot to learn how historical research is gathered and presented,which apparently you have no knowledge of or the education to do it. Third,the issue was not involving my presentation of any source,hence it has no bearing on the issue. Now if you wish to deny what you been told,then the dialogue ends here.

 

[benedictus2]

My point is that not all Anglicans believe the same thing. We are not all bound by the same doctrines. The Anglican Communion, it just that–a “communion” of Churches (about 85 million people) which are autonomous and diverse in beliefs.

Then how in the world can you even say you are in communion if you hold different beliefs?

As for not tarrying----if I must “submit mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff, I have to actually believe that is the right thing to do. Not interested in debating the primacy/authority of Peter, yet again.

At some point, you need to address that and the rather irrational and illogical gymnastics one must do to remain in a Church that has seperated herself from the Church of Christ.

As for your quote of Scott Hahn saying, “delayed obedience is disobedience”; I’ve read 3 of Hahn’s books. It took about 10 years of study and prayer for both Scott and his wife to embrace Catholicism. It was really a difficult journey for his wife. So, the “delayed obedience is disobedience” statement is somewhat ironic.

Peace to you benedictus2,
Anna

Then you must have read Rome Sweet Home. Kimberley took a long time coming around because she flatly refused to study. She had hardened her heart on the subject. Scott Hahn decided that he will follow the truth where it led. Once Kimberly finally prayed the prayer that her father had taught her, then the change came. That actually was a most beautiful prayer.

Furthermore, they were Methodists with so much more doctrinal issues to get over.

I think if one seriously seeks after truth, then God takes one the rest of the way. But to seek after truth, one needs abandon one’s will to Christ.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .I think if one seriously seeks after truth, then God takes one the rest of the way. But to seek after truth, one needs abandon one’s will to Christ.

I agree.
Peace,
Anna

 

[david_ruiz]

The CC in no way views the following as being mutually exclusive; quite the opposite:

1. Jesus = the rock.
2. Peter = the rock, based on Simon’s profession of faith, from God, that Jesus was in fact the long awaited Messiah and Son of the Living God.

Jesus is of course God and therefore is the invisible Divine Rock and Simon who was re-named Rock, by Jesus, due to what the Father had revealed to him - is the earthly visible Rock on which Jesus’ church is built. Grammatically speaking, this is an undeniable fact.

Hi Joe370, Yes Jesus=rock, 1 Cor 10:4 “and Christ was that rock (petra)”, and Mat 16: 18, “and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church”.

Peter is Cephas (aramaic) which =petros (greek) John 1:42"you shall be called Cephas,which is translated Peter (petras), Mat 16:18, “thou art Peter (petras), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church”. Peter =petras=piece of rock. Jesus=petra=rockmass So Peter is different from church foundation .There is petras and petra. Further notice Peter was called Cephas from the beginning of his ministry, BEFORE any Matt16 confession.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe370, Yes Jesus=rock, 1 Cor 10:4 “and Christ was that rock (petra)”, and Mat 16: 18, “and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church”.

Peter is Cephas (aramaic) which =petros (greek) John 1:42"you shall be called Cephas,which is translated Peter (petras), Mat 16:18, “thou art Peter (petras), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church”. Peter =petras=piece of rock. Jesus=petra=rockmass So Peter is different from church foundation .There is petras and petra. Further notice Peter was called Cephas from the beginning of his ministry, BEFORE any Matt16 confession.

Cephas, the name given to Simon, is not defined as a piece of rock, (petros) - as you know. Cephas, Simons new name, given to him by Jesus, means massrock. Correct?

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe370, Yes Jesus=rock, 1 Cor 10:4 “and Christ was that rock (petra)”, and Mat 16: 18, “and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church”.

Peter is Cephas (aramaic) which =petros (greek) John 1:42"you shall be called Cephas,which is translated Peter (petras), Mat 16:18, “thou art Peter (petras), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church”. Peter =petras=piece of rock. Jesus=petra=rockmass So Peter is different from church foundation .There is petras and petra. Further notice Peter was called Cephas from the beginning of his ministry, BEFORE any Matt16 confession.

You believe the following:

You are cephas aka petros (referring to Simon) - and on this Cephas aka petra (referring to a different rock, that being Jesus) - I will build my church?

Grammatically speaking you see nothing wrong with that?

We agree that Petros is a masculine noun and that Petra is a feminine noun as per the following Greek lexicon - right?

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4073

If so then would it make more sense to refer to the man Simon using a feminine noun or a masculine noun?

 

[david_ruiz]

Last I heard you could only speak one language at a time .The aramaic form Cephas is only written in greek in John 1 ,not in Mat 18, where it is petros

]So read that David. Cephas which is Rock in Hebrew was translated to Peter in Greek. Therefore Peter here means Rock because Cephas means Rock. And you know why he was not called Petra instead of Peter? Because Petra is a female name. So Christ (petra ) is female ?

SIZE=3]Yes, indeed. There is a greek word for rock and it is Petra. Do you seriously think that first century writers would give a woman’s name to a big burly fisherman? Seriously?

 

[david_ruiz]

You believe the following:

You are cephas aka petros (referring to Simon)

 

[david_ruiz]

Cephas, the name given to Simon, is not defined as a piece of rock, (petros) - as you know. Cephas, Simons new name, given to him by Jesus, means massrock. Correct?

Fascinating ,but i guess not .I have read petra is rockmass. Petros is proper noun denoting piece of rock