Prodigal's Isle

[Jerry_Parker]

Paul C and Socrates 4 Jesus,

**Paul, You wrote: ** I think [that] the fact is, that most people have issues to resolve with any faith arrangement they have. We are almost always works in progress. Find the one that you are most sure is the truth and work toward understand the minor stuff as you mature in the faith.​

Yes, Paul, my sentiments exactly! I like that phrase, that believers “are almost always works in progress”. We think, I suppose, a bit like Pascal, who wrote similarly of accepting the Christian faith more generally, applying that mode of approach to Catholic conviction, that given how much we accept already, and how high the stakes are, that it is unreasonable not to become Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox).

Perhaps Socrates 4 Jesus, you have reservations about Catholicism that truly are not minor matters (though that is not my impression), but ones that touch on truly central issues of soteriology and authority, in which case you should wait and work them out first, before “swimming the Tiber” (or the Bosphorous, if that be an option).

However, to linger in the soul-weakening grip of Protestantism or, worse, of sectarianism, over scrupulosity-driven quibbles about minor and secondary points of scholastic-derived dogma, is not worth the risk to the welfare of your immortal soul. We must be earnest in our search for Christian truth, not mere dilettants forever offering their soul to the highest bidder among the sects!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[JRKH]

And would you say, James that the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition have chosen a different path from Sacred Scripture?
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife …

(1 Timothy 3:2)

If the Church has taken a different path from Scripture on this point then not only has she, but others have as well. The Epischopals have female bishops I believe. Thesean hardly be the “husband of one wife”,
Also this is not the only verse that is no longer practiced in most Churches. 1 Cor 14:34
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

How many Christian Churches today forbid women to speak?? Very few I suspect.
I’m sure other examples could be found.
You have latched onto a point of practice that St Paul wrote about - not Dogma. Practice is something that The Church is free to change as needs change.

Peace
James

 

[Jerry_Parker]

JRKH,

*You wrote: *** The Epischopals have female bishops I believe. Thesean hardly be the “husband of one wife”. Also this is not the only verse that is no longer practiced in most Churches. 1 Cor 14.34​

That the Protestant Episcopal Church has bishopesses (female bishop pretenders), or that other Anglican, Lutheran, and Old Catholic churches or denominations have female clergy (at any rank, not to mention bishopesses!) only invalidates their ministries. This is not some kind of positive precedent.

Female ordination kills (by invalidation) the once catholic orders of any church or denomination! As women ordain and consecrate others, men as well as women, to the priesthood and episocpacy, there are all the more ministries denatured, as the rot spreads.

This is why female priests and bishops are forbidden to be appointed in the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The consecration of a woman is automatically invalid, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches realise this. Such refusal to ordain and to consecrate obstreperous hussies to the priesthood and episcopacy is a good and apostolically sound policy!

Jerry Parker

 

[JRKH]

JRKH,

*You wrote: *** The Epischopals have female bishops I believe. Thesean hardly be the “husband of one wife”. Also this is not the only verse that is no longer practiced in most Churches. 1 Cor 14.34​

That the Protestant Episcopal Church has bishopesses (female bishop pretenders), or that other Anglican, Lutheran, and Old Catholic churches or denominations have female clergy (at any rank, not to mention bishopesses!) only invalidates their ministries. This is not some kind of positive precedent.

Female ordination kills (by invalidation) the once catholic orders of any church or denomination! As women ordain and consecrate others, men as well as women, to the priesthood and episocpacy, there are all the more ministries denatured, as the rot spreads.

This is why female priests and bishops are forbidden to be appointed in the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The consecration of a woman is automatically invalid, and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches realise this. Such refusal to ordain and to consecrate obstreperous hussies to the priesthood and episcopacy is a good and apostolically sound policy!

Jerry Parker

Jerry,
Thank you for that additional information.
Just to let you know, I was not trying to justify such things, but rather pointing out to Soc4Jesus that others view this passage in Timothy as a “Practice” rather than a matter addressing salvation.
Soc4Jesus seems to be having trouble with this passage and I am trying to help him see that he should not let this derail his investigation into the Church. That is why I mentioned the females in other denominations as well as mentioning the thing about women being silent in Church.

Peace
James

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates4Jesus,

**You wrote: ** *It seems to me the way off this lonely place is is to know the truth first, and only then let that truth set me free. Don’t you agree? *​

Yes, I do agree with you. However, it is a question of assessing what the extent of “knowing the truth” is before one in good conscience convert. I simply do not think that one has to be entirely certain about minor matters, even if the Catholic Church has defined them as it has, before one can convert. After all, in the meantime, while one agonises over things of minor importance like Purgatory, Limbo, and indulgences (to enumerate the same points that I mentioned before, to which most born Catholics pay only minor heed), the believer who is on the threshold of Catholic conversion is languishing spiritually in some sect that has no valid ministry, no valid sacraments, is preaching a combination of partial truth and much error, etc., all of which is detrimental to the soul’s needs.

Better it is to “make the leap” and deal with the small stuff later (with, of course, the Holy Spirit’s inner work in process in one’s soul), that “later” being time in which one is an eucharistic communicant and is praying aright with other Christians. One can lose faith altogether if too much time elapses while one is in the dumpheap of Protestantism!

Pax, Jerry

Jerry,

Yes, but in my case i’m considering something of the greatest importance–the question of the reliability of the authority of the Catholic Church. If i have no idea whether it is trustworthy, then what good reason have i to put faith in it?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Perhaps Socrates 4 Jesus, you have reservations about Catholicism that truly are not minor matters (though that is not my impression), but ones that touch on truly central issues of soteriology and authority, in which case you should wait and work them out first, before “swimming the Tiber” (or the Bosphorous, if that be an option). …

I’m somewhat of a man whore, i suppose. My soul is available to the truth, wherever i get her. She is my fix, and i’ll do anything to get her.

 

[paul_c]

Jerry,

Yes, but in my case i’m considering something of the greatest importance–the question of the reliability of the authority of the Catholic Church. If i have no idea whether it is trustworthy, then what good reason have i to put faith in it?

So if you are questioning the reliability of the Catholic Church, what is your specific concern. Do you think that the Chruch is dishonest? or misguided?

 

[Supliant]

I suppose this means one of three things: (1) Allowing me to be deceived is not the same as lying, or (2) the writers of Hebrews is mistaken and it is actually possible for Jesus to lie, or (3) it is irrational and unreasonable to believe any interpretation of Christ’s words besides the correct interpretation.

Now, i need some courageous assistance in my struggle against this monstrosity, for my gut feeling is that (2) is false, though i might be mistaken. You and i already appear to believe that (3) is false, though some might disagree. That leaves us with (1). And (1) is a horrid creature, ready to devour my soul, if we fail to slay it! I will not run from it. I’ve come to far to turn back and flee now! Stand by my side, then, Pax, and i’ll stand by yours, as mortal Eolis stood bravely by immortal Hercules. Fear not, but take up your sword and cleave off the first head of the beast. And with my torch i’ll sear the bloody stub left behind to ensure two heads do not rise up to take it’s place.

Have you ever heard the phrase, “you can’t please them all”? It would have been neigh on impossible for the Bible to have been written in a way that would have left everyone in the whole world for all time to have no doubts about what it meant. Even if it had been written in such a clear cut way, I don’t think that it would have conveyed the meaning as effectively to those who were hearing it in the early Church, or today.

To see my point, answer me this: why did Jesus often teach his disciples by telling them a parable? Would it not have been simpler for Him to simply come out and tell his followers what he was trying to say? Clearly people often misinterpreted his stories, as evidenced by the fact that he often had to explain to the people that heard him first hand.

The question, “why does Jesus allow his words to deceive us?”, is actually not that different from the question of, “why does God allow evil in the world?”, at least from what I can see. In the beginning, man lived in the Garden of Eden, in perfect harmony with God. Because we have free will though, we turned away from his plan, his life, and sought our own. When Jesus first came to teach us, to bring us back to his Father, his disciples knew exactly what he meant, but eventually, with our free will, some have turned away from the lessons that Jesus taught them, and sought their own.

Now its our job to search through the mess that Christianity has become, just as the Jews looked for God in their day, and the disciples of Jesus did in theirs. Just as God spoke to Abraham, and became flesh in Jesus to guide his disciples back, he sends us the Holy Spirit to bring us back to him. As long as we truly listen to Him, we will not be deceived. Keep searching and keep listening Soc.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If the Church has taken a different path from Scripture on this point then not only has she, but others have as well. The Epischopals have female bishops I believe. Thesean hardly be the “husband of one wife”,
Also this is not the only verse that is no longer practiced in most Churches. 1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.How many Christian Churches today forbid women to speak?? Very few I suspect.
I’m sure other examples could be found.
You have latched onto a point of practice that St Paul wrote about - not Dogma. Practice is something that The Church is free to change as needs change.

Peace
James

James:

Are the two (allowing a bishop to have a wife and asking women to not be disruptive at mass) really the same?



In the example you cite, there is a cultural context that does not apply to us today, but there is a biblical principle that does. The culture context: Women and men did not sit together. At mass, as at synagogue, wives sat on one side of the isle and husbands on the other. In this case, the wives were shouting out questions to their husbands during mass, and the husbands were shouting back answers! Paul was telling them to show a little respect for the priest and wait till they get home to have the discussion rather than disrupting the priest. Today, wives and husbands sit together, so the cultural context does not apply. However, the biblical principle does apply–that is, we should not be rude or draw undue attention to ourselves during mass when our attention should be on Christ. So you see, there is no contradiction between Paul’s principle and the Catholic Church’s teaching, in this case.

Now, let’s consider Paul’s recommendation that a man may become a bishop if he has a wife. Please tell me what the biblical principle is that Paul teaches, in this case, and explain how the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church does not contradict this principle.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So if you are questioning the reliability of the Catholic Church, what is your specific concern. Do you think that the Chruch is dishonest? or misguided?

I don’t know, PC, for i don’t have enough information to make a reasoned judgment. Protestants tell me the Church is misguided, or deceived. They say the teaching and tradition of the church contradicts Scripture.

What do you think?

 

[Eucharisted]

Do you think a picture really is worth a thousand words?

Metaphorically speaking, and depending solely on my opinion, and depending also on what picture it is, yes.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Have you ever heard the phrase, “you can’t please them all”? It would have been neigh on impossible for the Bible to have been written in a way that would have left everyone in the whole world for all time to have no doubts about what it meant. Even if it had been written in such a clear cut way, I don’t think that it would have conveyed the meaning as effectively to those who were hearing it in the early Church, or today. …

Yes, i’ve heard of it. The full quote is this:You can please some of the people
all of the time,
Or all of the people
some of the time,
But you can’t please all of the people
all of the time.

–Abraham Lincoln
But do you really think this statement
1.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

is clearer than this one?
1a.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [you]** this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

or than this one?1b.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [or profession of faith] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)
The early Church Fathers disagreed as to whether Jesus really meant (1a) or (1b). They knew either would have been more clear than what Jesus actually said. On that they agreed. Why don’t we?

 

[Eucharisted]

Yes, i’ve heard of it. The full quote is this:You can please some of the people
all of the time,
Or all of the people
some of the time,
But you can’t please all of the people
all of the time.

–Abraham Lincoln
But do you really think this statement
1.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

is clearer than this one?
1a.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [you]** this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

or than this one?1b.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [or profession of faith] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)
The early Church Fathers disagreed as to whether Jesus really meant (1a) or (1b). They knew either would have been more clear than what Jesus actually said. On that they agreed. Why don’t we?

The Church Fathers disagreed on a lot of things, but it is not they but the Church that defines doctrine and defends the truth. This is what the Church teaches regarding the above verse (from the Catehism):

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

 

[pneuma07]

Notice: This post contains sexual language that might not be suitable for all readers.
Viewer discretion is advised.

---

P7:

Sorry, could not resist posting one more reply. (And i hope most of all that you will take the time to reply to this one, as it interests me the most at the moment.)

In answer to your question i’d say, no, i would not. Please allow me to explain why not: In this country we had a President made famous because he made the passionate, public declaration, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman …” Later, he said that she did commit an act of oral sex, but that was not what he considered sexual relations. The thing is, there is little doubt that he knew that those listening to him would get the idea that he did not commit, or allow her to commit, any sexual act with him. In effect, he was guilty of deception.

Now to say that Jesus is not responsible to deceiving Protestants when He says this"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
instead of saying this"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon [you,]** this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
is like saying the President was not guilty of deception when he said this"I did not have sexual relations with that woman …"
instead of this"I did not have** [oral]** sexual relations with that woman …"

What makes the President’s comment unethical is that he *intentionally *deceived. So the questions i ask myself is thisid Jesus know that people would be deceived by His leaving out the word you?I can find no way of getting around answering yes. The deception was intentional. So i ask myselfid Jesus have a good reason to mislead?

I think i have the answer. But what do you think His reason might have been, P7?

Dear Soc,

    even if I am not so sure I got exactly  the point that is interesting you most at present, I'd say such a concern could be approached in several ways (whether satisfactorily  or not, that's another matter   ::) ).

Whether we are speaking about Jesus’ precise words, although translated into greek, , or about a choice made by the inspired author, Scripture is God’s word in human language, and as such this language and the culture it expresses and addresses are, in the first place, those of the environment of the first christian communities.
Ambiguity is relative to the hearer, and it may be that any age can have its different problems and difficulties in reading this or that pericope. It can be that what would be considered as explicit enough ( and appeciated as such) by some of us, would sound unpalatable in those cultures. You see even nowadays how cultures differ about the degree of “openness” that is appreciated . Moreover that is relative even at individual level: as noted by Pax what you Soc see so clear about Trinity was and is object of unending disputations, so as detailed christological disputations would fill the ancient Church.

Your point seems to me to be potentially connected with wide questions such as: could Scripture be built in such a way that nobody, in any age would dispute on anything ? Or: can we on the other hand suppose that too manifest a Revelation would be against the fundamental option for human freedom ? We probably even come here to the general problem of the “degree of evidence”. We know we often do not see enough evidence in favor of what we do not like to believe, and vice versa. ( you remember questions like “why are amputees not healed by their or our prayers ?”)…
I dare say that Catholicism somehow trains in not considering one’s present reading of a given pericope or of whole parts of Scripture as “the obvious one”, in not giving “perspicuity” for granted, and , as a consequence, maybe also in not being extremely upset by meeting what can appear a particular interpretative difficulty here or there.

Let us not forget, as final remark, that ( whatever we can guess about the above questions ) as a matter of fact Scripture is not a catechism, explaining doctrines one after the other, with the clearest possible way. Within this consideration, I could not say that petrine primacy looks as a specifically ambiguous message.
Quite the contrary.

Hoping something here can be somehow helpful ( and not already dealt with and settled in the last days of the thread), I am looking forward to your own explanation.

Bless you.
P7:

 

[JRKH]

James:

Are the two (allowing a bishop to have a wife and asking women to not be disruptive at mass) really the same?



In the example you cite, there is a cultural context that does not apply to us today, but there is a biblical principle that does. The culture context: Women and men did not sit together. At mass, as at synagogue, wives sat on one side of the isle and husbands on the other. In this case, the wives were shouting out questions to their husbands during mass, and the husbands were shouting back answers! Paul was telling them to show a little respect for the priest and wait till they get home to have the discussion rather than disrupting the priest. Today, wives and husbands sit together, so the cultural context does not apply. However, the biblical principle does apply–that is, we should not be rude or draw undue attention to ourselves during mass when our attention should be on Christ. So you see, there is no contradiction between Paul’s principle and the Catholic Church’s teaching, in this case.

I agree that there are cultural differences that need to be addressed and I think they are applicable to both instances.
In the case of women in assembly I must say that I have reread the passage and do not find much support for your view that the problem was women shouting accross to their husbands. Paul is instructing th faithful on proper manners during assembly. He tells who should do what, and that each should take their proper turn be they reading, prophesying, speaking in tongues, interpreting, etc. Paul certainly accepts that the men may speak and even loudly so that all may hear, yet he does not provide this option for the women. They are to remain Silent - Period.

Now, let’s consider Paul’s recommendation that a man may become a bishop if he has a wife. Please tell me what the biblical principle is that Paul teaches, in this case, and explain how the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church does not contradict this principle.

This too is a cultural issue in the early Church. At that time the vast majority of memebers of the Church were converts and not “Cradle Christians”. Thus it would have been difficult to have a completely celibate priesthood. As time went on and the number of “Cradle Christians” increased, and the Church embraced the benefits of a celibate priesthood, the practice was changed in the west and modified in the East.

In both cases we are talking about a cultural “Practice” that can be changed if the Church so desires.

Peace
James

 

[Jerry_Parker]

James (JRKH),

**You wrote: ** *Just to let you know, I was not trying to justify such things, but rather pointing out to Soc4Jesus that others view this passage in Timothy as a “Practice” rather than a matter addressing salvation.

Soc4Jesus seems to be having trouble with this passage and I am trying to help him see that he should not let this derail his investigation into the Church. That is why I mentioned the females in other denominations as well as mentioning the thing about women being silent in Church.*​

Oh! I apologise for not having understood at what you were getting! I wrote an earlier reply on this, but somehow it does not seem to have gotten posted, so here is another!

The matter of ordination affects the very essence of a body that lays claim to being a church. God’s Sovereign Will is not something for man to toy with; God sets the terms of the Holy Sacraments (and ordination, including episcopal consecration, numbers among them), and it is not for us to adjust them to our fancies or to our trendy whims. God excluded women from the ordained and consecrated ministries of priest and bishop, as the Sacred Scriptures (and Holy Tradition) attest, and all the efforts of men, feminists of both sexes, and bishopesses, including those of the Protestant Episcopal Church, can affect the judgment that female ordinations to the ministry of the altar and pulpit entails: NULL AND VOID.

Thanks for being so patient with Socrates4Jesus’ quest and questions!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[pneuma07]

And i’m grateful for your lending a hand with the task at hand. Maybe i can learn from your experience. Please tell me how you know (1a) rather than (1b) is the specific truth our Lord was trying to convey.

Please Soc,
do not torture yourself with this supposed “aut …aut”.

maybe you had been tought 1b as a way ( even a tool) available to be able to exclude 1a, and with it the abominable ghost of petrine primacy.

Consider that there must not be any such mutual exclusion. That both 1a and 1b can fit into the same truth our Lord was conveying.

How do I suppose to know that ? The Church fathers IMHO can tell you that.

I do hope this is not a further torturing option, but a way out.

In Christ
P7

 

[tukfryer]

In the fashion I walk my path of faith I came across an email to day from Laridian, the people that I purchase my Palm and computer bible study software from. They have recently added
Exploring the Mind and Heart of the Prince of Preachers is a compendium of over 5,000 illustrations and anecdotes sorted under more than 1,000 topical headings drawn from the sermons and writings of the most prolific Christian writer of all time Charles Spurgeon.

I have recently been interested in biblical implications about the mind and heart, reading and commenting here have again opened a door I feel compelled to explore in more detail. In some ways I feel that Socrates4Jesus is at a similar door, “mind and heart” the title of the book book drew my interest, the prince of preaches sounds a bit flamboyant. There is a very real and evident connection in what is taught in the NT. It started with John with the ministry of repentance. For all practical reason repentance is a self realization of the mind and heart.
Then be baptized in the name of Jesus “by Jesus”. How many times is that message repeated? Repent and be baptized by Jesus. All threw the OT God told Israel to turn from their adultery, repent. That was also evident with Johns ministry, this action or sacrament was carried out in a water baptism. It is the beginning shall we say not the complete reception of the HS given by Jesus as John said. Jesus also told the deciples that He would ASK the Father and He woulld send the HS. So now we have first the Father then Jesus involved in the sending of the HS. As I have pointed out in some other reply’s, the 10th chapter of Acts clearly indicates that the first recorded out poring of the HS to the Gentiles did not involve being baptized first. So I have to wonder what is the common denominator? I believe that it is repentance just as John said of his ministry of baptism, a proper mind and heart before God. Its not the act of baptism “READ ACTS 10” Its the Father and Son knowing your mind and heart, that repentant mind and heart, looking to discover the truth in humility and understanding, its a gift you can never earn. Thats when the HS begins your education. Thats when you receive your eyes and ears.

Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Any way I just wanted to share a couple of quotes with Socrates4Jesus I believe he enjoys the search in profound statements.

Spurgeon.

Election - “Whatever may be said about the doctrine of election, it is written in the Word of God as with an iron pen, and there is no getting rid of it; there it stands.”

Disbelief of Election - “I believe the man who is not willing to submit to the electing love and sovereign grace of God, has great reason to question whether he is a Christian at all, for the spirit that kicks against that is the spirit of the devil, and the spirit of the unhumbled, unrenewed heart.”

Total Inability - “No man ever made himself to live. No preacher, however earnest, can make one hearer to live. No parent, however prayerful, no teacher, however tearful, can make a child live unto God. “You hath HE quickened,” is true of all who are quickened.”

Limited Atonement - “I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.”

Irresistable Grace - “I take it that the highest proof of Christ’s power is not that he offers salvation, not that he bids you take it if you will, but that when you reject it, when you hate it, when you despise it, he has a power whereby he can change your mind, make you think differently from your former thoughts, and turn you from the error of your ways.”

 

[paul_c]

Yes, i’ve heard of it. The full quote is this:You can please some of the people
all of the time,
Or all of the people
some of the time,
But you can’t please all of the people
all of the time.

–Abraham Lincoln
But do you really think this statement
1.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

is clearer than this one?
1a.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [you]** this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

or than this one?1b.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [or profession of faith] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)
The early Church Fathers disagreed as to whether Jesus really meant (1a) or (1b). They knew either would have been more clear than what Jesus actually said. On that they agreed. Why don’t we?

What it really says is you are ROCK and on this ROCK, I will build my church.
In Greek, the word for ROCK is Peter, which of course is his NEW name from the Lord.
In English, translators have a choice between retaining the Name Peter in the text and losing the ROCK to ROCK comparison or eliminating the name Peter and keeping the ROCK to ROCk comparison. Most translations choose the first option so as to Retain the name Peter at the expense of clarity that he is the rock. This has led to your confusion.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t know, PC, for i don’t have enough information to make a reasoned judgment. Protestants tell me the Church is misguided, or deceived. They say the teaching and tradition of the church contradicts Scripture.

What do you think?

On what basis do the Protestants you speak of say the Church is misguided or deceived?
When they say the teaching and tradition of the Church contradicts scripture, aren’t they really saying that Catholic teaching contradicts what they THINK scriptrue is saying.

Afterall, it is undeniable that the Catholic Church defined the Canon of the Bible. It is also undeniable that they used two main criteria when doing so

1. that the chosen books were Apostolic
2. that the chosen books were completely consistent with Catholic Teaching.

St. Peter warned us in 2Peter 3 that people would misunderstand the writings of Paul and distortt them to their own distruction, just as they do all scripture.

The Bible was always meant to be a tool to teach the Catholic Faith. Is laughable and illogical that Protestants think they can co-opt it and use it to show the Catholic Faith is wrong.