Peter as the Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisB103
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Okay.

I haven’t read anything that says that you can convert to Catholicism* after* the end of one’s life (I had initially thought that this was not addressed and, as such, was a mystery. But thanks to your quote above we now know that one must convert to Catholicism before the end of one’s life) so where’s the contradiction?
Click to expand...
Right here. This says salvation is possible without converting to Catholicism. I’m not taking sides. I’m just showing the shift in teaching the faith by Peter’s successors.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
LUMEN GENTIUM
(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
 
ron77nyc said:
We can include all Jews in this thought:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity … But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ … the Son of God is God and man … – This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

**In here he doesn’t even care about baptism of desire. If you’re not Catholic - too bad for you. You’re goin’ down.:eek:
**Cantate Domino (1441)
“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...
I have Denziger and in the first quote you have I cannot find that in the Council of Florence. In the second portion you provide it is a reference from

St. Fulgentius, De Fide,ad Petrum, c.37 ff., n. 78 ff. (ML 65, 703f.)
unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock…
Click to expand...
and more precedes this statement.

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
ron77nyc:
It would be impossible for me to give all the names but from what this says all Eastern Orthodox Christians who lived and died as Orthodox Christians don’t have salvation.
Click to expand...
Not only impossible, but inappropriate. It is not up to us to judge the souls of others. You can’t know if those people lived and died in unity with Christ, or not. No one can know that but God.

They are judged, as we all are, in the light of what was revealed to them. Most of them probably never even heard of the successor of Peter in Rome, nor knew anything about what separated the Western Church from the East.

Nonetheless, as members of His One Body, the Church, they were all subject to the Roman Pontiff. Think of it this way. A peasant might live and die in a far away land, never having met the owner of the property he farmed. If that owner were to come, and he rejected him, then he would be liable for that decision. This is the story of the vineyard Jesus tells to the Jews.

People are only held responsible for what has been revealed to them. I don’t know how many Orthodox you know, but they tend to have quite isolated communities, and have little or no knowledge about the Latin Church, nor to they care. They live faithfully according to what has been given to them.
40.png
ron77nyc:
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her;
(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

According to this; all Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Muslims etc. are separated from Christ. It also says no one can communicate with Christ ouside the Catholic Church so there goes the woman in Africa.
Click to expand...
No, Ron, that is not what it means.

There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved, but that of Jesus Christ, our Lord. And yet, some are saved never having heard that name. This is the teaching of the Church.

Have you ever considered just accepting what the Church teaches? I know it would mean you would have to relinquish the erroneous ideas that you were given. I was given a number of them also. My catechesis was very poor when I was young. However, I am old enough now (as you are) to put aside that childish thinking, and see for myself what the Church really teaches. Let go of it man! It is regrettable that you were misled, or that you misunderstood, but correct it now! Accept the Truth, instead of clinging to these false notions.
40.png
ron77nyc:
“Whoever, therefore, is not united with it is not a member of it, nor does he communicate with its Head Who is Christ. No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos 1928)“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her;
(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

According to this; all Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Muslims etc. are separated from Christ. It also says no one can communicate with Christ ouside the Catholic Church so there goes the woman in Africa.

“Whoever, therefore, is not united with it is not a member of it, nor does he communicate with its Head Who is Christ. No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos 1928)
Click to expand...
You have misundersood, Ron. YOu are clinging to falsehoods. Why does that seem to serve you? What do you get out of hanging on to your erroneous ideas?
 
ron77nyc said:
Right here. This says salvation is possible without converting to Catholicism. I’m not taking sides. I’m just showing the shift in teaching the faith by Peter’s successors.
Click to expand...
What has shifted, Ron, is politics and social realities. The Doctrine of the Faith has not changed. The Church applies the unchangeable doctrines to the situation of the age.

You are failing to take these teachings in their proper historical context, that is why you fall into misapplication of them, and misunderstanding. The teaching of the Church has not changed.

If you mean by “shift in teaching” that the One Faith is understood and applied differently in light of the present circumstances, this is true. When these proclamations were made, there were no Christians that were born and raised apart from the Catholic Church. There were only heretics and apostates. Since the Reformation, people have been born and raised in Christian households and have never been exposed to the fullness of the faith.
 
guanophore said:
You are missing the fact that every saved person is subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Click to expand...
No they are not. If they were they would call themselves Catholics and come to mass on Sunday. Pius the XI doesn’t consider them part of the body of Christ. He calls the pan-christians and then goes on to say they have no connection to Christ. I’m not saying he’s right. I’m just telling you what he said.
vatican.va/holy_father/pi…animos_en.html
MORTALIUM ANIMOS
“[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

He is saying non-Catholic Christians have no connection to Christ. He is not saying what you are saying.
guanophore said:
What has shifted, Ron, is politics and social realities. The Doctrine of the Faith has not changed. The Church applies the unchangeable doctrines to the situation of the age.

You are failing to take these teachings in their proper historical context, that is why you fall into misapplication of them, and misunderstanding. The teaching of the Church has not changed.

If you mean by “shift in teaching” that the One Faith is understood and applied differently in light of the present circumstances, this is true. When these proclamations were made, there were no Christians that were born and raised apart from the Catholic Church. There were only heretics and apostates. Since the Reformation, people have been born and raised in Christian households and have never been exposed to the fullness of the faith.
Click to expand...
Mortalium Animos is an early 20th century teaching so you can’t say it has anything to do with politics and social realities. It was only 40 years prior to Vatican II.
 
ron77nyc said:
Here are all 3.
vatican.va/holy_father/pi…animos_en.html
MORTALIUM ANIMOS

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE - Cantate Domino
Session 11—4 February 1442

papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
UNAM SANCTAM
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
Click to expand...
Ok, now observe the DATES! These statements were made prior to the Reformation. Christendom looked a lot different. Also,k you need to observe the occasions to which they were responding. They were specific promulgations to deal with specific heresies at particular times and circumstances. Yes, they are universal Truths, but they must be understood IN CONTEXT.
ron77nyc said:
No they are not. If they were they would call themselves Catholics and come to mass on Sunday.
Click to expand...
Ron, whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, Jesus gave Peter the Keys, and put him in charge of the care and feeding of the flock. Not just part of the flock, but the WHOLE flock. that means he is charged with the care of all who are in the flock.

You remind me of a person who has enlisted in the Navy, then does not want to be subject to the martial law. Saying that the law does not apply to oneself will not make it so.

Similarly, those who are born in the US are American citizens, whether they want to be, or not. They are subject to the Laws of the US, whether they know it or not, or like it or not.
ron77nyc said:
Pius the XI doesn’t consider them part of the body of Christ. He calls the pan-christians and then goes on to say they have no connection to Christ. I’m not saying he’s right. I’m just telling you what he said.
vatican.va/holy_father/pi…animos_en.html
MORTALIUM ANIMOS
“[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Click to expand...
This is addressed to Catholics who are leaving, or considering leaving the Church.

Indeed, it is foolish and out of place that the mystical body is disunited and scattered. However, when this was written, he had no way of seeing what lay ahead post-reformation. From his point of view, all he knows is that heretics and apostates have separated themselves from the One Body. CONTEXT Ron!

He is saying non-Catholic Christians have no connection to Christ. He is not saying what you are saying.

No, he is saying that people who are not united are not in Christ. Christ only has One Body, therefore, all who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church.
ron77nyc said:
Mortalium Animos is an early 20th century teaching so you can’t say it has anything to do with politics and social realities. It was only 40 years prior to Vatican II.
Click to expand...
The unfortunate situation of the Reformation that caused the splitting of the visible body puts the Church in a situation to recognize that not all those who are members of the mystical body are recognizable as members of the visible Body.

This does not change the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church.

I am not sure why you are having such a hang up over this, but I hope and pray that whatever it is, you will be able to move beyond it. Reading the gross moral relativity of your posts has concerned me for a long time, and up until this week, I had you on ignore for a long time because it is painful to read what you write. I don’t know if your difficulty with these infallible teachings are at the root of it, but whatever it is, I pray the HS will lead you into all Truth.
 
ron77nyc said:
Right here. This says salvation is possible without converting to Catholicism. I’m not taking sides. I’m just showing the shift in teaching the faith by Peter’s successors.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
LUMEN GENTIUM
(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Click to expand...
Again, Catholics give a hearty amen! to the above.

As far as the shift, it does appear that there is a contradiction. One must be a profess to be a Catholic in order to be saved, according to the old popes, and today popes are saying that the definition of Catholic has expanded.

I suppose I reconcile this by saying that the old popes were professing that which they knew for the culture at that time based on the politics, geographical constraints and religious dynamism of that period in history.
 
guanophore said:
Ok, now observe the DATES! These statements were made prior to the Reformation. Christendom looked a lot different. Also,k you need to observe the occasions to which they were responding. They were specific promulgations to deal with specific heresies at particular times and circumstances. Yes, they are universal Truths, but they must be understood IN CONTEXT.
Click to expand...
At that time the Eastern Orthodox, Jews and Muslims to name a few were not in subjection to the pope.
Ron, whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, Jesus gave Peter the Keys, and put him in charge of the care and feeding of the flock. Not just part of the flock, but the WHOLE flock. that means he is charged with the care of all who are in the flock.
Click to expand...
You remind me of a person who has enlisted in the Navy, then does not want to be subject to the martial law. Saying that the law does not apply to oneself will not make it so.
Click to expand...
Similarly, those who are born in the US are American citizens, whether they want to be, or not. They are subject to the Laws of the US, whether they know it or not, or like it or not.
Click to expand...
The USA is not trying to give citizenship to those already here. Why is the Catholic Church trying to unite with those who are already united with her?
 
ron77nyc said:
At that time the Eastern Orthodox, Jews and Muslims to name a few were not in subjection to the pope.

The USA is not trying to give citizenship to those already here. Why is the Catholic Church trying to unite with those who are already united with her?
Click to expand...
Republic vs Kingdom. Government vs Covenant Family.
 
PRmerger said:
Again, Catholics give a hearty amen! to the above.

As far as the shift, it does appear that there is a contradiction. One must be a profess to be a Catholic in order to be saved, according to the old popes, and today popes are saying that the definition of Catholic has expanded.

I suppose I reconcile this by saying that the old popes were professing that which they knew for the culture at that time based on the politics, geographical constraints and religious dynamism of that period in history.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That’s a great explanation. I think that’s what guanaphore was trying to say.
This is a very difficult situation to talk about. Wikipedia has an excellent summation of what I’m trying to say.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Controversy for the Catholic Church
“Those who disagree with the Church’s interpretation of the teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation” claim that the Church has contradicted itself in its teachings on faith and morals. They say that the medieval Church statements indicate that no person could possibly be saved unless a visible member of the Catholic Church on earth, and that this was the meaning intended by the Popes of the time, who made no “lenient statements” on the matter. People like Father Leonard Feeney and some traditionalists believe their understanding of the original doctrine to be correct and that, if the Church were now to teach that the salvation of non-Catholics is possible, it would contradict its earlier teaching, and would violate the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility. Some sedevacantists hold that the Second Vatican Council did in fact defect from the Church’s infallible teaching, and that what is today generally recognized as the Catholic Church is a counterfeit, which therefore is not infallible.”
 
ron77nyc said:
Thank you. That’s a great explanation. I think that’s what guanaphore was trying to say.
This is a very difficult situation to talk about. Wikipedia has an excellent summation of what I’m trying to say.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Controversy for the Catholic Church
“Those who disagree with the Church’s interpretation of the teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation” claim that the Church has contradicted itself in its teachings on faith and morals. They say that the medieval Church statements indicate that no person could possibly be saved unless a visible member of the Catholic Church on earth, and that this was the meaning intended by the Popes of the time, who made no “lenient statements” on the matter. People like Father Leonard Feeney and some traditionalists believe their understanding of the original doctrine to be correct and that, if the Church were now to teach that the salvation of non-Catholics is possible, it would contradict its earlier teaching, and would violate the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility. Some sedevacantists hold that the Second Vatican Council did in fact defect from the Church’s infallible teaching, and that what is today generally recognized as the Catholic Church is a counterfeit, which therefore is not infallible.”
Click to expand...
Bishop Freeney and the Society of Pius? They meet Sept 14th 2011 to rehash the issues laid out in 2009.
 
Not being a theologian or a student of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, I can’t address the meanings of ‘petra’ or ‘petros’. I have a different approach. In trying to understand the Catholic position of Peter being the Rock, I don’t think you are saying that he was the Chief Cornerstone as this refers to Jesus alone. (Isa 28:16, Matt. 21:42, Acts 4:11, Eph 2:20) The Chief Cornerstone established the true line by which the building could be built straight and true. Eph 2:20 tells of God’s household being built on the foundation of the “apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.” In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord." The foundation is the message the apostles and prophets taught; it was not about themselves in any way. Peter describes us all as “living stones” being built into a spiritual house…" with Jesus Christ as our living Stone. (1 Peter 2:4-8)

I also don’t think you are referring to the Rock mentioned in the OT. For example, “Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isa 44:86) and “Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord is the Rock eternal.” (Isa 26:4) David spoke of the “rock that is higher than I.” (Ps 61:26) And finally, “I am the LORD; that is My Name! I will not give my glory to another.”…(Isa 42:8)

Again, I don’t think you are saying that Peter was the “living Stone.” This stone can only refer to Jesus. “The stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall,” and this happens “because they disobey the message.” Nor could you believe that Peter is the one described in 1 Cor. 10:4 - The Israelites “drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them; and that rock was Christ.”

All of these: Chief Cornerstone, Rock, and living Stone can describe only One and that is Jesus Christ.

So now I wonder: What was there about Peter that could make him a rock upon which Jesus would build His church? Certainly Peter was the leader of the disciples, bold and passionate in his love for his Messiah. He was most often the one first stepping out in faith. After being filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he was first to preach the gospel and thus the church began - not because of anything about Peter himself, but rather the message of Jesus crucified and risen as our Savior. Without this message there is no reason for a church. Based on all of this, it does follow that the rock of Matt 16:18 is Peter’s acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ.

Finally, I consider 1 Cor 1-3 where we are admonished against elevating one of Jesus’ servants over another. If we do that, we are “boasting about men!” and not about our Lord who is the only One worthy of praise.

So, would you agree that Peter was not the Rock himself but his message of our Savior is that upon which the church is built? “For no one can lay any foundation other than…Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11)
 
Pure_and_Simple said:
I don’t think you are saying that he was the Chief Cornerstone as this refers to Jesus alone. (Isa 28:16, Matt. 21:42, Acts 4:11, Eph 2:20)]
Click to expand...
Indeed. Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone of the Catholic Church.
The Chief Cornerstone established the true line by which the building could be built straight and true. Eph 2:20 tells of God’s household being built on the foundation of the “apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.” In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord." The foundation is the message the apostles and prophets taught; it was not about themselves in any way. Peter describes us all as “living stones” being built into a spiritual house…" with Jesus Christ as our living Stone. (1 Peter 2:4-8)
Click to expand...
Amen!
I also don’t think you are referring to the Rock mentioned in the OT. For example, “Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isa 44:86) and “Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord is the Rock eternal.” (Isa 26:4) David spoke of the “rock that is higher than I.” (Ps 61:26) And finally, “I am the LORD; that is My Name! I will not give my glory to another.”…(Isa 42:8)
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t think you are saying that Peter was the “living Stone.” This stone can only refer to Jesus. “The stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall,” and this happens “because they disobey the message.” Nor could you believe that Peter is the one described in 1 Cor. 10:4 - The Israelites “drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them; and that rock was Christ.”
Click to expand...
All of these: Chief Cornerstone, Rock, and living Stone can describe only One and that is Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
Right. Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone, the Rock, the living Stone, but does this necessarily mean that Peter cannot be the rock? Why cannot Peter be the foundation when Christ is the Chief Cornerstone?
So now I wonder: What was there about Peter that could make him a rock upon which Jesus would build His church? Certainly Peter was the leader of the disciples, bold and passionate in his love for his Messiah. He was most often the one first stepping out in faith. After being filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he was first to preach the gospel and thus the church began - not because of anything about Peter himself, but rather the message of Jesus crucified and risen as our Savior. Without this message there is no reason for a church. Based on all of this, it does follow that the rock of Matt 16:18 is Peter’s acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ.
Click to expand...
Of course. That Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah is the foundation for Christ promising to build his Church on this visible rock.
 
Pure_and_Simple said:
Finally, I consider 1 Cor 1-3 where we are admonished against elevating one of Jesus’ servants over another. If we do that, we are “boasting about men!” and not about our Lord who is the only One worthy of praise.
Click to expand...
Did you mean 1 Cor 3:21?

If so, this clearly has nothing to do with the supremacy of Peter and his successors. It states: “So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God”

to which Catholic give a hearty Amen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top