Prodigal's Isle

[DrPiano]

What’s up doc? Good to see ya’! Please tell me: How has life been treating you?

Life’s been ok. I’m back in medical school and spending most of my days in the clinic or the hospital. Depending on the rotation I work up to 14 hours a day and up to 6 days a week. So sometimes I’m really tired. When I’m not in the hospital, I’m usually studying, so I’ll have to admit, I probably won’t be on here much. But I am praying for you as you journey.

How have you been?

Have you taken all the passages I sent to the closest Eucharistic Adoration?

Hey, Doc:

Did He change Simon’s name to big Rocky or to little Stone? I’m not certain what words the Latin translation of Matthew’s gospel use, but here’s what one Greek scholar has to say about the Greek translation:

In the Greek, there is a play on words in this statement: “You are Peter petros, a stone], and on this rock petra, a massive rock] I will build my church.” It is upon Christ Himself that the Church is built.

Why do you think Jesus would call Simon petros (a little stone) and then say he would build His church on petra (a ginormous rock)?

I think you’ve seen much proof on the lack of distinction between big rock and little rock. It would be an insult to call a man by a feminine name. So Jesus gave him the masculine version. And, I’ve heard a number of places, and not just from Catholic sources, that the distinction between petros and petra as far as size goes, occurred after the period of time in which Matthew was writing. BUT the most convincing evidence for me, I think, as I was looking into this myself, is that Jesus probably wasn’t speaking Greek - he was speaking Hebrew. So how would he have said it? Well, somewhere in the Gospels, one of the writers notes that Peter’s name is Kepha (or Cephas) in Aramaic - the language Jesus and his disciples would use on a regular basis. And how would he have said “rock”? He would have used the exact same word.

So the passage really does become “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church.” And on TOP of this, he then proceeds to give Peter special duties and privileges (the keys to the kingdom, the power to bind/loose, etc.).

As I worked through these passages, it became untenable to me to believe that Jesus changed Peter’s name, used that very name to describe what he would build his church on but change subjects [to, for example, Peter’s confession], and then go back to conferring these duties and authority on Peter if he didn’t mean Peter throughout. It’s a LOT more gymnastics to go through to explain away the passage instead of simply taking Jesus at his word.

“You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church…” It’s not as ambiguous as you make it out to be…

As for not preserving the work of heretics - as others have noted, there is a significant body of surviving work from those who promoted heresies during the Early church. So, frankly, that argument just doesn’t fly. It’s not only surviving in significant fragments (for example the gnostic gospels), but often, those promoting the truth would quote heretics at length.

And what about the other passages I directed you to?

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ,

There are a number of scholars that argue for Aramaic primacy over the Greek for many books of the NT. The Aramaic Peshitta is quite ancient and it is argued that it is not a translation from the Greek. I have not made up my mind on the issue of Greek vs. Aramaic primacy, but I put a great deal of confidence in the Aramaic “kepha” and “kepha” in Matthew 16:18 because it is, indeed, a very ancient text and there is no compelling reason to believe that it deviates from the original words of Jesus.

God Bless…

 

[pneuma07]

I’ve often had difficulty understanding this position, which you and other Catholics believe is so compelling. Perhaps you will be able to dispel my confusion.

Are you, P7, saying that for an organization to be one, it must have one government headed by one supreme leader?

Dear Soc,

I don’t read so much in ( many would likely say “into” )
”and on this petra I will build my church ”, plus Matthew 18:17, as such .

Let’s say in ch. 16 we have Church1 (C1),
In ch. 18 church2 (C2).

What IMHO we read is that the C2 Jesus is preaching about has a visible and organized dimension, looks like a structured assembly, or community.

Now, what is the relationship between C2 and C1 ?

In the model many protestants quote I have to interact with C2 ( my denomination or its local representation) , but …I cannot interact with C1 ( the undetectable catholic church of the true believers).
Isn’t it a little strange that in the two only passages where He speaks about a church we have to understand C1 and C2 in such different ways that I cannot interact with the first one, and have to with the second one ?

In the catholic model we have simply: C2 is the C1 which is in __________ ( fill with the diocese where you are, or sometimes, for practical matters, your parish).

Remember that the “invisible catholic church” model was proposed because it appeared as necessary as Sola Scriptura in the new ecclesial and theological constructions the reformers were building, to show they were not breaking and breaking the unity of the Church and to give a possible reading to what C1 is.
In any case, IMHO, that model, as such. does not tell us where the christian legitimate authority is. Not more then Sola Scriptura.

Bless you

 

[tjm190]

I doubt, or rather, deny infallibility; however, I still believe the Catholic church has the “best” understanding of moral issues- so I remain a member, despite cries of being a “cafeteria” member or a “dissident”.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Maybe he did so to make you a better Catholic than me, and to punish those who propagate heresies at the same time. What used Mohammad Ali say; “Rope a dope”.

Saint Paul To The Corinthians
19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.

Or maybe some people are just out of their minds to believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is a lie. What did my wife’s late grandmother say?

“Must be dope!”



Kidding aside, i think i’m correct in assuming that you don’t disagree with me on premises 1 or 2, nor will you disagree on three:
Premise 1.

Christ’s words make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.

Premise 2.

Christ intentionally used words that He knew would make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.

Premise 3.

Christ judges us based on what we know, not based on what we don’t know. Those who are ignorant of a their sins are not as culpable in His eyes as those who are fully aware, and refuse to repentant, of their sins.

However, if you doubt the validity of 3, here is some evidence in His own words:
Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

(John 9:40-41)

And these words of Sacred Scripture support 3, too:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

(Hebrews 4:15)

As do the words of the Mother of Christ:
And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.

(Luke 1:46-50)
Are you with me so far?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Clement of Rome makes reference to both Peter and Paul and calls them pillars of the church in reference to the quote from Timothy.
Chapter 5. No Less Evils Have Arisen from the Same Source in the Most Recent Times. The Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

…

Ut:

But does a pillar a papacy make?

I want to be careful to carefully understand the reasoning behind all statements supporting the idea that the Catholic Church is an authority i should trust. In this case, you make the mistake i’ve often made myself: You commit the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. You assert that the premises you use lead to a certain conclusion, when they in fact lead to a different conclusion.

Your premise:
a. Peter and Paul were leaders and pillars of the church.
Your conclusion:

1. Therefore, the papacy of the Catholic Church is justified.
   That is, the common error made is in asserting that conclusion (1) necessarily follows from premise (a) when it does not. One way to demonstrate my meaning is this:
   a. Peter and Paul were leaders and pillars of the early church.

b. Abraham and Moses were leaders and pillars of the Jewish religion.

c. After the deaths of Abraham and Moses, there was nothing resembling a papacy in the Jewish religion.

Therefore,

1. The mere fact that Peter and Paul were pillars of the early church does not justify the papacy of the Catholic Church.

You see, Ut, that the premise you use actually supports the opposite conclusion! I’d need more than the mere fact that men were pillars to prove that God created the papacy. If you have more, please let me know.

 

[Thing]

Or maybe some people are just out of their minds to believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is a lie. What did my wife’s late grandmother say?

“Must be dope!”



Kidding aside, i think i’m correct in assuming that you don’t disagree with me on premises 1 or 2, nor will you disagree on three:
Premise 1.

Christ’s words make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.

Premise 2.

Christ intentionally used words that He knew would make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.

Premise 3.

Christ judges us based on what we know, not based on what we don’t know. Those who are ignorant of a their sins are not as culpable in His eyes as those who are fully aware, and refuse to repentant, of their sins.

However, if you doubt the validity of 3, here is some evidence in His own words:
Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

(John 9:40-41)

And these words of Sacred Scripture support 3, too:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

(Hebrews 4:15)

As do the words of the Mother of Christ:
And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.

(Luke 1:46-50)
Are you with me so far?

Sure, go ahead. I just might point out something you already know; the Apostles spent the remainder of long lives, 30 years to 60 years after Christs death, moving between the Church in different regions preaching what they had been taught by Christ.

To seriously think that St. Peters lifework amounts to two letters, and St John’s lifework, who lived for a further 67 years after Christ, consists only of three letters to the church, would be to miss a great opportunity to learn from the ‘Church of the Apostles’ what Christ taught, what the Apostle understood of what Christ thought.

1 Machabees 15

34 But we having opportunity claim the inheritance of our fathers.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well Tertullian did eventually turn to Montanism. Many of the passages of exegesis on Matthew 16 comes from his Montanist days. Origin was more of a philosopher/Theologian, and was later considered heretical in some of his doctrines, a fact which is questioned today.

Then you have all the Gnostic Gospels, many of which date to this time. Some of them declare Mary Magdalene as rock, or have other metaphors for rocks, but none of them points out the big rock little rock distinction. There are many of these gnostic writings that could have declared this.

God bless,
Ut

I’m trying to not seem harsh by being honest, Ut. So, i hope you are not offended by my saying that the reasoning behind your conclusion suffers from a different fallacy–the fallacy of inference from ignorance (or lack of knowledge). That is, you make the claim that a statement must be true because it has not been proven false. You say that since no ancient writings have been found supporting the Protestant idea, then no one in ancient history held that idea.

Please let me explain what i mean by way of example. If i were to say this,
The place of Jesus’ burial has never been conclusively found, so Jesus was never buried in a tomb. He must have been eaten by dogs.
then i’d be making the same mistake. I’d be saying that a lack of any knowledge of Jesus’ burial site is reason to believe He was never laid in a tomb. However, the ignorance of knowledge of something is not, in and of itself, proof that something does not exist.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Sure, go ahead. I just might point out something you already know; the Apostles spent the remainder of long lives, 30 years to 60 years after Christs death, moving between the Church in different regions preaching what they had been taught by Christ.

To seriously think that St. Peters lifework amounts to two letters, and St John’s lifework, who lived for a further 67 years after Christ, consists only of three letters to the church, would be to miss a great opportunity to learn from the ‘Church of the Apostles’ what Christ taught, what the Apostle understood of what Christ thought.

1 Machabees 15

34 But we having opportunity claim the inheritance of our fathers.

True, but i want to be careful to rely on what i know is true rather than to make the mistake of trusting what i don’t know is true.

 

[Thing]

True, but i want to be careful to rely on what i know is true rather than to make the mistake of trusting what i don’t know is true.

Thus making the same mistake as everyone in the New Testament.

 

[davidv]

Or maybe some people are just out of their minds to believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is a lie. What did my wife’s late grandmother say?

“Must be dope!”



Kidding aside, i think i’m correct in assuming that you don’t disagree with me on premises 1 or 2, nor will you disagree on three:
Premise 1.

Christ’s words make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.
Premise 2.

Christ intentionally used words that He knew would make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.

Premise 3.

Christ judges us based on what we know, not based on what we don’t know. Those who are ignorant of a their sins are not as culpable in His eyes as those who are fully aware, and refuse to repentant, of their sins.

However, if you doubt the validity of 3, here is some evidence in His own words:
Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

(John 9:40-41)

And these words of Sacred Scripture support 3, too:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

(Hebrews 4:15)

As do the words of the Mother of Christ:
And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.

(Luke 1:46-50)
Are you with me so far?

Hi Soc,
I don’t agree with any of your premises.

1. and 2. Christs words are truth. Your premises imply a motive that cannot be true. God does not mislead or deceive. It is man’s limitations, failings and biases that lead to misunderstanding God’s Word.
2. God judges us on what we do not on what we know. Recall the parable of the sheep and goats.

 

[utunumsint]

Ut:

But does a pillar a papacy make?

No, but that was not my purpose. There is a body of evidence, that when taken together, forms a convincing argument for the papacy, in my opinion.

I want to be careful to carefully understand the reasoning behind all statements supporting the idea that the Catholic Church is an authority i should trust. In this case, you make the mistake i’ve often made myself: You commit the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. You assert that the premises you use lead to a certain conclusion, when they in fact lead to a different conclusion.

I have to apologize because I am not usually a person who thinks in syllogism. I was trying to provide evidence that suggests that Peter was in Rome and was martyred in Rome.

Your premise:
a. Peter and Paul were leaders and pillars of the church.
Your conclusion:

1. Therefore, the papacy of the Catholic Church is justified.
   That is, the common error made is in asserting that conclusion (1) necessarily follows from premise (a) when it does not. One way to demonstrate my meaning is this:
   a. Peter and Paul were leaders and pillars of the early church.

b. Abraham and Moses were leaders and pillars of the Jewish religion.

c. After the deaths of Abraham and Moses, there was nothing resembling a papacy in the Jewish religion.

Therefore,

1. The mere fact that Peter and Paul were pillars of the early church does not justify the papacy of the Catholic Church.

ou have to look at the historical evidence as a whole. With history, we are not dealing with syllogistic reasoning, but with a preponderance of evidence. History, because it is history and not logical reasoning, can only suggest conclusion.

You see, Ut, that the premise you use actually supports the opposite conclusion! I’d need more than the mere fact that men were pillars to prove that God created the papacy. If you have more, please let me know.

What I was pointing our was this:

1-It is very likely that Clement’s reference to Peter and Paul’s martyrdom was a reference to their martyrdom in Rome. This, therefore, would be the earliest evidence of Peter’s stay in Rome. The likelyhood of this being true is enforced by later traditions from multiple writers who also make this claim.

2-I was making an quick side note on the similarity of 1st Timothy 3:15
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” and "Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and put to death. "

Again, I am only trying to provide evidence that suggests certain conclusions, but not being very specific about those conclusions, preferring that you yourself make what conclusions you want, or perhaps, to interest you to ask more questions about the topic, formulate your own conclusions, discuss them with us here in the reasonable maner you always discuss these issues with us.

For example, you seem to be stating that the evidence I provided to you suggest that there was no papacy. Could I ask you for what basis you make this claim?

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I’m trying to not seem harsh by being honest, Ut. So, i hope you are not offended by my saying that the reasoning behind your conclusion suffers from a different fallacy–the fallacy of inference from ignorance (or lack of knowledge). That is, you make the claim that a statement must be true because it has not been proven false. You say that since no ancient writings have been found supporting the Protestant idea, then no one in ancient history held that idea.

If you read what I posted before, I mentioned that I do realise I am arguing from silence, and I do know that this is a fallacy, but with historical reasoning, one usually bases ones arguments on facts. Therefore, although it is not possible to rule out the big rock little rock argument, from a historical perspective, there is no evidence to support the claim, and very much evidence to support other claims.

Please let me explain what i mean by way of example. If i were to say this,
The place of Jesus’ burial has never been conclusively found, so Jesus was never buried in a tomb. He must have been eaten by dogs.
then i’d be making the same mistake. I’d be saying that a lack of any knowledge of Jesus’ burial site is reason to believe He was never laid in a tomb. However, the ignorance of knowledge of something is not, in and of itself, proof that something does not exist.

Let me tweak this a little to illustrate my point:

If I were to say this

1. “The place of Jesus’ burial has never been conclusively found so Jesus was never buried in a tomb. He must have been eaten by dogs.”

despite the fact that there is no historical evidence whatsoever for my conclusion, then I would indeed by guilty of this falacy.

But If I were to say this:

1. “There are three different traditions about the burial place of Jesus, and here is why I believe tradition A.”

then I am arguing from the evidence provided in the tradition. I would be able to support my argument based on however many people made reference to this tradition from the historical references available.

To sum it up, there is a linguistic possibility of a distinction between the size of the rocks, but this possibility is not supported by historical evidence. There is ample historical evidence to support other conclusions, such as 1-Peter is the rock, and 2- Peter’s faith is the rock.

Like most protestants, (and I hope you will not be upset by my saying this, I am not trying to provoke you), you jettison historical reasoning because it does not support your conclusions.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Just to illustrate what I mean by preponderance of evidence,

In the criminal court, you must prove a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence.

In a civil court, there is a lower standard of evidence required to prove someone guilty of a crime.

These two courts both analyze historical and logical arguments, and the evidence is weighed. No lawyer would make an argument without evidence.

Given claim 1 is supported by linguistical evidence, and claim 2 has both linguistical and historical evidence, claim 2 would usually win out in a court battle because of the preponderance of evidence supporting it.

Being a programmer, I can see why you would dislike this kind of fuzzy reasoning. Its not C++ !

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Life’s been ok. I’m back in medical school and spending most of my days in the clinic or the hospital. Depending on the rotation I work up to 14 hours a day and up to 6 days a week. So sometimes I’m really tired. When I’m not in the hospital, I’m usually studying, so I’ll have to admit, I probably won’t be on here much. But I am praying for you as you journey.

How have you been?

Have you taken all the passages I sent to the closest Eucharistic Adoration?
…

Years ago i worked in group homes for profoundly intellectually disabled adults. Used to live away from home for a week or more at a time. Didn’t get much sleep at that job, just like you.

My current job is great. Doing technical support and Web site design for a software business. The job is walking distance from my home and the people are great to work with.

Are you working as an intern in an ER? I used to like that TV show ER and wonder how true to life it was.

 

[DrPiano]

Years ago i worked in group homes for profoundly intellectually disabled adults. Used to live away from home for a week or more at a time. Didn’t get much sleep at that job, just like you.

My current job is great. Doing technical support and Web site design for a software business. The job is walking distance from my home and the people are great to work with.

Are you working as an intern in an ER? I used to like that TV show ER and wonder how true to life it was.

I’m not. I’m still a medical student - one step below Intern. I’m still paying to learn, and jumping from branch to branch to branch of medicine (so far, I’ve experienced Surgery, Family Medicine, and now Neurology), while Interns are in their first year of Residency, are in the process of specializing (so they don’t jump quite as much), and are paid to learn. So I’m pretty much the lowest on the totem pole.

As for the accuracy of ER - I used to like that show too. But it’s not a whole lot like real medicine. I tend to not watch most of those shows because they’re, for the most part, annoying because of their inaccuracy. I do, however, like House, not because its particularly accurate (most docs don’t walk around on drugs, and I have no idea what House’s underlings are) but because they tackle tricky diseases and their process of making a list of likely diagnoses (generating a differential) on the whiteboard is similar to what most doctors do in their head. So its kind of fun.

But… back to topic… have you gone and prayerfully meditated on those passages? What are your thoughts?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Thus making the same mistake as everyone in the New Testament.

Not sure i understand. Please explain.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi Soc,
I don’t agree with any of your premises.

1. and 2. Christs words are truth. Your premises imply a motive that cannot be true. God does not mislead or deceive. It is man’s limitations, failings and biases that lead to misunderstanding God’s Word.
2. God judges us on what we do not on what we know. Recall the parable of the sheep and goats.

Thanks for giving me your opinion, David. You might be right, as i’ve often been wrong! Let’s see:

If i were to say to my son the night of his middle school play, “Break a leg!” and someone were to accuse me of wishing him bodily harm, would i be guilty of deception?

 

[Thing]

Not sure i understand. Please explain.

Those who lived in new testament times had even less certainty of the truth of what they heard than we do. We have Sacred Scripture canonized by the Church, & a Church established by Christ to continue the Apostles role of teaching and preaching. And we have the traditions of the Apostles passed down through the Church to tells us both what the canon was and the sacred traditions are.

To the majority living in the new testament days after Christs death, they had not written material to consult, they had to trust to what they heard by word of mouth, and the Church was so young demand within the church laiety for information must have outstripped supply.
Most had no choice but to simply trust what they *heard *from the Apostles, by way of their disciples, and their disciples, and their disciples.
And that is the Church we now trust for everything we know, written or unwritten.
Everyone knows its true *Only *because the Catholic Church tells you its true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No, but that was not my purpose. There is a body of evidence, that when taken together, forms a convincing argument for the papacy, in my opinion.

I have to apologize because I am not usually a person who thinks in syllogism. I was trying to provide evidence that suggests that Peter was in Rome and was martyred in Rome.

You have to look at the historical evidence as a whole. With history, we are not dealing with syllogistic reasoning, but with a preponderance of evidence. History, because it is history and not logical reasoning, can only suggest conclusion.
…

Thank you, Ut. I should apologize, for i seem to have misunderstood that you were saying that our Lord was advocating the institution of the papacy when He said,

“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 16:18)

I now understand that this was not your purpose. So, if Matthew 16 does not teach us that the papacy is a legitimate authority i should trust, then what does? What is the body of evidence you mention? Is it biblical, or extra-biblical, or both?