Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Yes, i agree. For example, in the United States Hillary Clinton lost in the Democratic party’s primary to Barak Obama. There were some rumors that the only way he could be elected President would be if he chose her as his running mate. He did not, however, after he was elected President, he did nominate her as Secretary of State.

Now i recall seeing several pictures and video clips of Hillary Clinton after her nomination, and in all of them she looked quite sad. I wanted to know what she was thinking. Was she feeling regret for not obtaining the Vice Presidential position? Did she see no chance of making a second run for the Presidency? Was their trouble in her marriage? Did she eat something that didn’t agree with her? And ask as i might, i never got an answer from Hillary. The pictures and video clips just continued showing the same frown, without explanation.

It seems to me that books are a lot like photographs and video clips. The circle the world giving themselves promiscuously to anyone who will take them–both to those who understand them and to those who do not. Ask them what they mean when they say such and so, and they just stare silently at you with the same, unaltered message. And when they are slandered by their readers, they say not a word in their defense, but require their authors to speak for them. For the book (like the photograph) cannot defend itself.

So when you give me a link to an article, do you think that is enough to help me? It’s likely the article will raise more questions than it gives answers! But if you understand the author’s intentions, then you will be able to prevent me from slandering his work. I don’t mind reading whatever you want, as long as you are willing to explain it to me should i begin scratching my head.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.
…

Eucharistic, i could just kiss you (on the cheek, of course)!

So the Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with Protestants that Jesus actually meant this,
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)
rather than this:
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)What more proof do we need than *the *Catechism? Christ was indeed not saying Peter was the rock. Rather, it was Peter’s profession of faith on which the Catholic Church is built.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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   ::) ).

Thanks a million for taking the time to think through this with me!

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.

Sounds reasonable to me!

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 ?

This is exactly the question i have in mind.

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 ?”)…

That one is easy. As my good friend John tells me,
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

(1 John 5:13-15)

If one is not healed when he prays, it is not God’s will that he be healed, at least, not that he be healed at that time.

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:

Perhaps you are correct. But i’m not asking about how the Catholic Church intends the interpretation of Christ’s words to be. At the moment, i’m asking about what Christ intended the *result *of His words to be. Let’s look at one premise at a time and see to what conclusion the premises lead. The first premise:

1. The Son of God’s words in Matthew 16:17-18 are ambiguous in that they can be taken to mean different things.

I’m assuming you agree with premise (1). The next premise:

1. Matthew accurately recorded every word the Son of God spoke in Matthew 16:17-18.
   I’m not sure where you stand on this premise. The next premises:
2. The Son of God carefully chose every word in Matthew 16:17-18.
3. The Son of God, being omniscient, knew the present and future consequences of the words He spoke.
   Please let me know if you agree with the premises thus far.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

I’m not thinking that at all. My thinking is this:1. When i ask what evidence there is that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes, the answer nearly everyone gives is Matthew 16:17-18.

1. The Son of God could only have *one *meaning for the word rock in this passage, for He said “on this rock I will build my Church” rather than “on these rocks I will build my Church”.
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Son of God actually meant that Peter’s profession of faith is the rock of which Jesus spoke.
3. Since the Son of God was speaking of only one rock, He did never meant that Peter was the rock on which He would build His Church.

Therefore,

A. Matthew 16:17-18 cannot be used to prove that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes.

and

B. If there is scriptural evidence that the Son of God instituted the papacy, we will have to find it elsewhere.

Now, if you do not accept conclusions (A) and (B) then logic demands that you must show that either one of the premises (1 - 4) is false, or that the premises do not support the conclusions. As it stands, i’m convinced. But perhaps you will be able to change my mind.

 

[paul_c]

I’m not thinking that at all. My thinking is this:1. When i ask what evidence there is that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes, the answer nearly everyone gives is Matthew 16:17-18.

1. The Son of God could only have *one *meaning for the word rock in this passage, for He said “on this rock I will build my Church” rather than “on these rocks I will build my Church”.
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Son of God actually meant that Peter’s profession of faith is the rock of which Jesus spoke.
3. Since the Son of God was speaking of only one rock, He did never meant that Peter was the rock on which He would build His Church.

Therefore,

A. Matthew 16:17-18 cannot be used to prove that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes.

and

B. If there is scriptural evidence that the Son of God instituted the papacy, we will have to find it elsewhere.

Now, if you do not accept conclusions (A) and (B) then logic demands that you must show that either one of the premises (1 - 4) is false, or that the premises do not support the conclusions. As it stands, i’m convinced. But perhaps you will be able to change my mind.

That’s not what the Catechism says at all. Did you read the rest:

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.

Yes, the catechism quotes St.Leo,
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.

But that does not in any way say that Peter wasn’t named the first Pope. As described above, it also recognizes that Peter was uniquely given the keys to the kingdom and undeniably was also called the ROCK of the church.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That’s not what the Catechism says at all. Did you read the rest:

Yes, the catechism quotes St.Leo,
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.

But that does not in any way say that Peter wasn’t named the first Pope. As described above, it also recognizes that Peter was uniquely given the keys to the kingdom and undeniably was also called the ROCK of the church.

Confused i be, PC. Did Christ say His Church is built on one rock, or three?



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)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

http://www.emmys.tv/news/2005/september/images/denver2.jpg

Q. 9.

Did Jesus say
His Church
would be built
on one rock,
or on three?

 

[Supliant]

Soc, I have to agree with what pneuma has been saying, though I admit I hadn’t thought about it that way until now. Peter and his profession of faith can be one and the same rock that the Church was built on. Why was Peter significant? Why would Jesus chose to build his Church on him if we do read the passage that way? Because of the faith in his Lord that he had just expressed. Similarly, a simple profession that Jesus is the Son of God is not enough to build a Church on, as evidenced by the myriad of Churches that do just that, and yet reject many of the basic tenants of the Christian faith. Apart, neither idea is enough to build His Church on. Peter, filled with so much grace from God that he recognized Jesus as the Son of God when no one else could, now that was a strong foundation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, I have to agree with what pneuma has been saying, though I admit I hadn’t thought about it that way until now. Peter and his profession of faith can be one and the same rock that the Church was built on. Why was Peter significant? Why would Jesus chose to build his Church on him if we do read the passage that way? Because of the faith in his Lord that he had just expressed. Similarly, a simple profession that Jesus is the Son of God is not enough to build a Church on, as evidenced by the myriad of Churches that do just that, and yet reject many of the basic tenants of the Christian faith. Apart, neither idea is enough to build His Church on. Peter, filled with so much grace from God that he recognized Jesus as the Son of God when no one else could, now that was a strong foundation.

Supliant:

I think P7 does make a good point, that it is possible there are three rocks on which the Church is built. Many Protestants would say there are not three, but only two–Jesus, and the truth about who He is. Are there three, or merely two, or only one? I suppose how many there are is not important. What is important, at least to me, is that Jesus does not make it clear which of the three He calls the rock. So i think it’s fair to say that one cannot know by Jesus’ words to Peter alone whether our Lord advocated the papacy, or not. Or am i wrong?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016&version=NIV

 

[paul_c]

Supliant:

I think P7 does make a good point, that it is possible there are three rocks on which the Church is built. Many Protestants would say there are not three, but only two–Jesus, and the truth about who He is. Are there three, or merely two, or only one? I suppose how many there are is not important. What is important, at least to me, is that Jesus does not make it clear which of the three He calls the rock. So i think it’s fair to say that one cannot know by Jesus’ words to Peter alone whether our Lord advocated the papacy, or not. Or am i wrong?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016&version=NIV

You are wrong in saying that one can not know by Jesus’ words that Peter advocated the papacy. Even if you come to the conclusion that Peter is not the rock, (which is ludicrous, since that is the name Jesus gave him, he was still given the keys to the kingdom, told to tend the flock, and asked to strengthen the other Apostles. And he still acted as the leader throughout ACTS.

 

[Pax]

Peter as the rock and his profession of faith are the same thing. You cannot separate the man from his profession of faith.

 

[Philthy]

I’m not thinking that at all. My thinking is this:1. When i ask what evidence there is that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes, the answer nearly everyone gives is Matthew 16:17-18.

1. The Son of God could only have *one *meaning for the word rock in this passage, for He said “on this rock I will build my Church” rather than “on these rocks I will build my Church”.
2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Son of God actually meant that Peter’s profession of faith is the rock of which Jesus spoke.
3. Since the Son of God was speaking of only one rock, He did never meant that Peter was the rock on which He would build His Church.

Therefore,

A. Matthew 16:17-18 cannot be used to prove that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes.

and

B. If there is scriptural evidence that the Son of God instituted the papacy, we will have to find it elsewhere.

Now, if you do not accept conclusions (A) and (B) then logic demands that you must show that either one of the premises (1 - 4) is false, or that the premises do not support the conclusions. As it stands, i’m convinced. But perhaps you will be able to change my mind.

Premise 2 is flawed in assuming that intending more than one meaning for the term “rock” necessitates a corresponding plurality of that term.
Premise 3 is flawed in assuming that Peter’s profession can be separated into two entities: the first being Peter and the second his profession. They are in actuality inseparable. Apart from Peter the profession is non-existent. Apart from the profession, Peter is not identifiable as worthy of being rock. Peter and his profession are a package deal! The CCC implicitly affirms this in the paragraph under discussion.
Others also made this claim - like Nathaniel. Yet Christ does not respond to these professions of faith as anything unique. Peter also makes this profession in John 6:69, but again Christ offers nothing remarkable.
Premise 4 is flawed in assuming that since it is the profession of faith per se that is what the Church will be built upon that somehow precludes Peter as uniquely being the founding father that the Church will be built upon of all those who will subsequently make the same profession.

 

[pneuma07]

Loved his *Confessions! * And eating pizza was a metaphor.

They’d not call it a super-denomination, but a super (or universal) Church. Some call it the true catholic Church, making a point that catholic is spelled with a small c. Catholics, they’d say, are of a different Church, and a different religion. They have a different gospel, and Paul strongly advises us:As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
(Galatians 1:9)

If by Magisterium you mean teachers of the Bible, i’d say yes. They would not call it private judgment, as though a conflicting judgment made by someone would be just as valid. They’d call it a correct judgment, based on a correct understanding of the biblical text.

I guess the point you appear to be implying is that a person, apart from the Magisterium, is incapable of making a correct judgment as to the truth that Sacred Scripture teaches. Is this your second point?

They’d say by the authority of Christ, as His will is revealed in the biblical text. They’d quote such passages as this:In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

(Hebrews 1:1-2)

Dear Soc,

In short: IMHO you’re telling me that they ( ie the staff of this “super Church”):

• claiming no more specific authority than you and I could ( you and I could quote Hebrews 1 as well, if we decided to found a denomination together , couldn’t we ?),
• claim (an exclusivity of) “correct judgment”, before those of other similarly self-appointed “magisteiums”,
• and tell us the one Magisterium able to claim to succeed the Apostles and their leader is condemned, because it manifestly preaches a different Gospel …. than the Apostles

 

[pneuma07]

.
You rightly ask.

*How can i understand the words private judgment when i have no idea what you mean by them? Please define exactly what a private judgment is, and briefly explain what makes it less desirable than a public judgment (which, i assume, is its opposite). *

Sorry for any terminological mess. By “private judgment” I mean “individual judgment” as opposite to the judgment of the Church,( or a protestant teaching body)…

Bless you.
P7. .

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Premise 2 is flawed in assuming that intending more than one meaning for the term “rock” necessitates a corresponding plurality of that term.
Premise 3 is flawed in assuming that Peter’s profession can be separated into two entities: the first being Peter and the second his profession. They are in actuality inseparable. Apart from Peter the profession is non-existent. Apart from the profession, Peter is not identifiable as worthy of being rock. Peter and his profession are a package deal! The CCC implicitly affirms this in the paragraph under discussion.
Others also made this claim - like Nathaniel. Yet Christ does not respond to these professions of faith as anything unique. Peter also makes this profession in John 6:69, but again Christ offers nothing remarkable.
Premise 4 is flawed in assuming that since it is the profession of faith per se that is what the Church will be built upon that somehow precludes Peter as uniquely being the founding father that the Church will be built upon of all those who will subsequently make the same profession.

Philthy:

Good to hear from you again! Yes, i agree that (3) and (4) might be false. The only way to salvage the argument is perhaps this:

1. When i ask what evidence there is that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes, the answer nearly everyone gives is Matthew 16:17-18.

2b. The Son of God was speaking of *only one *rock in this passage, for He said “on this rock I will build my Church” rather than “on these rocks I will build my Church”.

3b. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Son of God, Peter’s profession of faith,and Peter are all rocks on which the Church is built.

4b. The Son of God did not make it clear of which of these three rocks he was speaking.

1. The Son of God might have been speaking of Himself, or of Peter’s profession of faith, and not of Peter.

Therefore,

A. Matthew 16:17-18 cannot be used to prove that the Son of God intended Peter to be the first Pope in a succession of Popes.

and

B. If there is scriptural evidence that the Son of God instituted the papacy, we will have to find it elsewhere.

Is this a more reasonable argument?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Peter as the rock and his profession of faith are the same thing. You cannot separate the man from his profession of faith.

Pax:

I do appreciate you’re always sticking by my side, even though i frequently have the same effect on people that Socrates himself had, as he said:The world in general has not figured me out, and therefore they only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end.

(Theaetetus, 149)
I think you know by now that these endless questions of mine really are aimed at figuring out the truth, and that the end result is to draw me closer to it (or Him, as He is the truth). Speaking of the Truth, when Jesus says,I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(John 14:6)

i could understand if you, or someone else, said that the man Jesus cannot be separated from His words. For He is the Truth, and what He says about Himself is true. They are one and the same. And when Peter says,You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

(Matthew 16:16)
i could understand if you, or someone else, said, “Peter’s profession of faith about Christ, and Christ, cannot be separated.” However, i don’t understand how Peter and His profession of faith are one and the same. For example, a executioner at the foot of Jesus’ cross said:“Surely he was the Son of God!”

(Matthew 27:54)
By the same reasoning, wouldn’t i say that the centurion who oversaw the torture and death of Christ cannot be separated by his profession of faith? My thinking is that the one who professes the truth is *not *synonymous with the truth he professes. Even the devil can, on occasion, speak the truth.

---

That being said, i’ve been shown something at which i’d like you to take a closer look with me. Jesus also said to Peter this:“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)
And it seems to me that Jesus’ profession of truth about Peter cannot be separated from the man about whom He professed. What do you think Jesus was saying, here?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

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

LOL! It seems we are *both *guilty of jumping to conclusions, here!



I’m jumping to the conclusion that the Greek women were suffering from a kind of culture shock of being allowed, for the first time in their lives, to sit in the same room with men as a priest instructed them. Having been segregated all their lives, and now tasting a freedom they had never experienced, i assumed they were behaving badly.

You, James are jumping to the conclusion that there were not enough unmarried or widowed men to go around, so Paul allowed bishops, for this period of Church history only, to be married.

Neither of us has proved his case by citing evidence either in the biblical text, or outside it. So i’m content with saying i just don’t know, if you are.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

In short: IMHO you’re telling me that they ( ie the staff of this “super Church”):

• claiming no more specific authority than you and I could ( you and I could quote Hebrews 1 as well, if we decided to found a denomination together , couldn’t we ?),
• claim (an exclusivity of) “correct judgment”, before those of other similarly self-appointed “magisteiums”,
• and tell us the one Magisterium able to claim to succeed the Apostles and their leader is condemned, because it manifestly preaches a different Gospel …. than the Apostles

IMHO (and the H stands for haughty! just kidding!),



my thinking, P7 is that i’m not so sure you are correct in this one thing: You seem to be saying that, without the Sacred Tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church, one is likely to get the wrong idea about what Jesus said. I think i, however, have demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case. For instance, i think i’m correct in saying that Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 16 is unclear–we simply don’t know of which rock He speaks.

And i think that the reason i’m able to admit that i see this ambiguity is that i’m actually not haughty (unless having pride in one’s humility is possible)! My saving grace is that i take the attitude of Socrates, who said:Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)
And i’m quite amazed that, in all my discussions on this forum and others, i’ve never met a non-partisan, save one (and he was an agnostic who admitted he knew nothing of God). Here, i meet Catholics who say they have no doubt Peter is the one rock of whom Jesus spoke (though they sometimes admit there might be other rocks that Jesus did not mention in Matthew 16). At my favorite Protestant forum i meet partisans who are quite certain Jesus Himself, or Peter’s profession of Him, is the rock about which He spoke. Yet, no one appears willing to admit that any one of the three might be the rock of which Jesus spoke.

Me, i’m willing to admit my ignorance and say Jesus was unclear. I’m willing to admit He has left me with more questions than answers, so that i need the help of others to learn the truth (if indeed others can help me see). In fact, i *do *admit these, and i also admit that i need an authority i can trust to point the truth out to me. I’ve asked the Holy Spirit, and His reply is the sound of silence, but i’m filled with a desire (i know not whether it comes from Him, or from myself) that i cannot ignore and that compels me to keep asking, keep knocking, keep seeking, until the i find the Truth. For finding the Truth is finding Him, i think. And i don’t think it would be possible for me to continue my questioning if Jesus Himself did not tell me,
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”

(Matthew 7:7-11)

Thank heaven for Matthew 7, 7-11.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

.
You rightly ask.

*How can i understand the words private judgment when i have no idea what you mean by them? Please define exactly what a private judgment is, and briefly explain what makes it less desirable than a public judgment (which, i assume, is its opposite). *

Sorry for any terminological mess. By “private judgment” I mean “individual judgment” as opposite to the judgment of the Church,( or a protestant teaching body)…

Bless you.
P7. .

Thank you. Yes, i see, but do you see that when it comes to deciding who i should trust, it’s not up to them, but to me?



Deciding who to trust is in no way a decision that the one in whom i might trust can make for me. It is in fact an individual judgment that only i can make for myself, i believe.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You are wrong in saying that one can not know by Jesus’ words that Peter advocated the papacy. …

PC:

Actually, i’m saying that i cannot know from Jesus’ words that Jesus created the papacy. If you have evidence that Peter, or one of the other Apostles, created the papacy, i’d accept that as all the proof i need.