Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Socrates4Jesus said:
I guess my answer depends on your answer to this question: How is Peter a pillar of the Catholic Church?

🙂
Click to expand...
Dear Soc,

i suppose your present indepth questioning about the concept of “pillar”, in particular as associated to the nuber three, comes mainly from galatians 2.9 . 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

IMHO this incidental “who seemed to be pillars” has little to nothing to do with Paul stating that the church stands on three pillars meaning
1)they are alone and
2) they are on the very same foot with each other.

On the first aspect we know Paul in ephesians states the church has apostles and prophets as foundations, so you could argue she stands according to him on many more than three.

on the second you read in Galatians just a few lines above:

18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

So there was a person, namely Peter, that Paul would consider as a very special one in order to check the consistency of his own teachings, or to compare them if you prefer , with those of the Church.

So, I’d say the Church has of course Jesus as her ultimate foundation or pillar ( as well as her Head, her Builder, Her Lord…)
You could say the Church has human pillars resting on the ultimate foundation that is Christ.

Peter’s special role as the human pillar/foundation par excellence rests on his
unique relation with the Incarnated Logos. I propose to your consideration that Matthew 16, Luke 22 , John 21 ( dunno whether Francis de Sales’ exposition on these was somehow meaningful for you)and the remaining NT are witnesses to this special relation.

I hope this helps in answering your question.🙂

Going on on the previous line I was proposing, do you agree that the “invisible catholic church” proposed by the Reformation cannot be the locus of legitimate christian authority ?

I guess, by your quotation from Phaedrus, that in your view Scripture cannot be that.
This has essential consequences for our exploration, IMHO.

It could be worth trying, seeing where we can find this authority, considering any reasonable possibility. Including that such an authority is not needed and has never existed. ( which, of course, is not my guess, but I’d say this is for sure an option to be well examined ). What are your opinions and proposals ?

Bless you and good night.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Ut:

Then, why not just say this?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this [stone] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Matthew 16:18)
Click to expand...
Welll first off, Petros does not mean stone, but rock, just like Petra. Second off, Jesus is comparing Peter to the massive rock of Paneas mentioned by Pax, upon which was built the temple of Ceasar (and Pan befor that). So Jesus is saying that Peter is like that rock (or Peter’s faith is like that rock).
/INDENT]That is, why did Christ not say this?
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Petros, and upon this** petros**] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
​
Click to expand...

Well then there would be no comparison.
Or better yet, He could have ended this controversy before it began by saying this:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon** [you]** I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
Yes, he could have said this. But for some reason, Jesus chose to use a metaphor that fit the scene. As Pax showed, all the other statments in this passage personally reffered to Peter, so why not this one? It just doesn’t make sense to me, and in fact does not fit the flow of all the other statements.
This alternative is crystal clear, rather than clear as mud! So, i keep asking a second question: Was Christ being intentionally ambiguous? Please tell me whether you think He was.
Click to expand...
This passage only became ambiguous after the Protestant reformation.

God bless,
Ut​
 
Hi Soc,

I’m willing to conceed that petra could be Peter, or Peter’s faith, but I see no evidence for big rock little rock. You disagree. So lets move on, as, I think, you have suggested, and find some common ground again. 🙂

Lets see, some time back you suggested saying

1-God is the authority.
2-The apostles were considered pillars of the church.

Is there anything else we can add to this list? Maybe this?

3-The apostles, and their associets gave us the Bible to be a source of authoritative teachings.
4-This Bible, although authoritative, can be obscure, and sometimes lead to differing opinions and conclusions (e.g. Matthew 16, John 6).

I’m open to other suggestions. Lets build our discussion here on a rock of commonly accepted facts, and not on sand. 🙂

God bless,
Ut
 
tjm190 said:
I don’t think you can be the foundation of the faith to which your parents belonged 😛
Click to expand...
Fair enough, TJ. And welcome to the discussion!

So you would say that Abraham is the foundation of the Jewish faith, but Moses is merely a pillar who stands on the foundation that Abraham laid?
 
pneuma07 said:
Dear Soc,

i suppose your present indepth questioning about the concept of “pillar”, in particular as associated to the nuber three, comes mainly from galatians 2.9 . 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

IMHO this incidental “who seemed to be pillars” has little to nothing to do with Paul stating that the church stands on three pillars meaning
1)they are alone and
2) they are on the very same foot with each other.

On the first aspect we know Paul in ephesians states the church has apostles and prophets as foundations, so you could argue she stands according to him on many more than three.

on the second you read in Galatians just a few lines above:

18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

So there was a person, namely Peter, that Paul would consider as a very special one in order to check the consistency of his own teachings, or to compare them if you prefer , with those of the Church.

So, I’d say the Church has of course Jesus as her ultimate foundation or pillar ( as well as her Head, her Builder, Her Lord…)
You could say the Church has human pillars resting on the ultimate foundation that is Christ.

Peter’s special role as the human pillar/foundation par excellence rests on his
unique relation with the Incarnated Logos. I propose to your consideration that Matthew 16, Luke 22 , John 21 ( dunno whether Francis de Sales’ exposition on these was somehow meaningful for you)and the remaining NT are witnesses to this special relation.

I hope this helps in answering your question.🙂

Going on on the previous line I was proposing, do you agree that the “invisible catholic church” proposed by the Reformation cannot be the locus of legitimate christian authority ?

I guess, by your quotation from Phaedrus, that in your view Scripture cannot be that.
This has essential consequences for our exploration, IMHO.

It could be worth trying, seeing where we can find this authority, considering any reasonable possibility. Including that such an authority is not needed and has never existed. ( which, of course, is not my guess, but I’d say this is for sure an option to be well examined ). What are your opinions and proposals ?

Bless you and good night.
Click to expand...
Blessings to you, too, P7. I’m curious if we have something in common. If it’s not to personal a question to ask, in what country do you live in Europe? I myself am a bit of a mutt, with ancestors in England and Ireland, on my father’s side, and in France and Germany, on my mother’s side. I also lived two years in Italy.

Regarding the pillars of the early Church, i find good evidence to support that Peter played an important role. He was one of the four in Jesus’ inner circle, along with Andrew, and the two brothers (called Sons of Thunder) James and John.

What i find odd is that after the death of John’s brother, James (the brother of Jesus) appears to play a leading role in the Book of Acts. Someone in this current discussion suggests that Jesus’ brother was the head of the churches in Jerusalem and Judea, Paul was the head of the churches in Asia minor, and Peter was the head of the church in Rome.

So, it appears that, at least in the beginning of the church, there were three flocks, not one, and there was not one shepherd, but three. However, this might have changed with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and with the execution of Paul. What do you think?
 
utunumsint said:
… Yes, he could have said this. But for some reason, Jesus chose to use a metaphor that fit the scene. As Pax showed, all the other statments in this passage personally reffered to Peter, so why not this one? It just doesn’t make sense to me, and in fact does not fit the flow of all the other statements.

This passage only became ambiguous after the Protestant reformation.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Well, someone in this discussion admitted that the early Church Fathers found the passage to be ambiguous–some thinking rock to mean Peter, and others thinking rock to mean Peter’s profession of faith that Jesus was the Son of God.

But, please tell me what you think, Ut. Do you think that Jesus knew His words in Matthew 16 would some day be considered ambiguous? Do you think He was aware of the historical ramifications of the specific words He chose? Did He foresee that they would be written in huge, solid-gold letters, near the ceiling of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome? Before He spoke the words, did he fully understand that they would be a point of contention between the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers? That’s one of the fascinating questions i’m considering, Ut. Tell me your opinion so that we may both step into the unknown and consider something new.
 
utunumsint said:
Hi Soc,

I’m willing to conceed that petra could be Peter, or Peter’s faith, but I see no evidence for big rock little rock. You disagree. So lets move on, as, I think, you have suggested, and find some common ground again. 🙂

Lets see, some time back you suggested saying

1-God is the authority.
2-The apostles were considered pillars of the church.

Is there anything else we can add to this list? Maybe this?

3-The apostles, and their associets gave us the Bible to be a source of authoritative teachings.
4-This Bible, although authoritative, can be obscure, and sometimes lead to differing opinions and conclusions (e.g. Matthew 16, John 6).

I’m open to other suggestions. Lets build our discussion here on a rock of commonly accepted facts, and not on sand. 🙂

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Good plan, Ut. You the man!

👍

The conservative approach, for a non-partisan like myself who is not yet convinced of the truth, would be to avoid each passage of Sacred Scripture that exhibits the weakness of ambiguity. Where the meaning of a passage is in doubt, i’d feel safer finding a clearer passage to interpret the one that is less clear.

Can you think of any other passages of the Bible that show Peter to be the first pope? Or perhaps you can cite a biblical text that supports the idea that Christ created the institution of the papacy? Just two suggestions. If you have a better way of rescuing me from this island, please let me know.

http://blog.rebeltraders.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/minnow_boat.jpg
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Blessings to you, too, P7. I’m curious if we have something in common. If it’s not to personal a question to ask, in what country do you live in Europe? I myself am a bit of a mutt, with ancestors in England and Ireland, on my father’s side, and in France and Germany, on my mother’s side. I also lived two years in Italy.

Regarding the pillars of the early Church, i find good evidence to support that Peter played an important role. He was one of the four in Jesus’ inner circle, along with Andrew, and the two brothers (called Sons of Thunder) James and John.

What i find odd is that after the death of John’s brother, James (the brother of Jesus) appears to play a leading role in the Book of Acts. Someone in this current discussion suggests that Jesus’ brother was the head of the churches in Jerusalem and Judea, Paul was the head of the churches in Asia Minor, and Peter was the head of the church in Rome.

So, it appears that, at least in the beginning of the church, there were three flocks, not one, and there was not one shepherd, but three. However, this might have changed with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and with the execution of Paul. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Dear Soc,
Code: 
          I live in Northern Italy  ( well, this summer a little in Germany, Austria and Central Italy, too  :)) .
i cannot perceive the merit of the “three flocks” theory.

For one, why only three ? Where was John ?
Where were the other surviving Eleven ?
It is said Thomas founded the Church in Southern India. Was it a flock in itself, or, part of which of the three mentioned above ?

If this is not enough, consider that 1 Peter is adressed to congregations in Asia Minor
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,. The letter sounds very pastoral, and is addressed … to what was allegedly Paul’s flock. 🤷

So i think the shepherds were many Be ]shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be, says Peter in 1 Peter 5.
IMHO the flock was one with many local “underflocks” which were under the responsibility of the local shepherd(s), if we can say so.

These many shepherds were sheep in their turn, from a general perspective. This is a major point for us now. (We could say Peter was, with humble tone, precisely shepherding these shepherds here).

And what about nowadays ? You can have your pastor in your parish. He belongs, together yoth you, to the sheep of your bishop. Who belongs, together with you and your direct pastor, to the sheep of Peter’s successor, who belongs with all of you to the flock of the Chief Shepherd.
Does that sound reasonable ?
In a recent post you were asking for plans about rescuing you from the island.

One suggestion is: just show a plan of yours, and let’s all stick to that.

If you want us to propose plans, a possible one from my POW had been outlined in post 37, with point 1) to 5).
We just started examining the last one, as I can remember.

If you do not like the above, ,a further proposable plan is this:

from the fence where you are sitting, you threw away Sola Scriptura ( didn’t you ?).
Do you want to decipher what consequences this can have about the issue of the present thread ?

Bless you
P7
 
pneuma07 said:
Dear Soc,

I live in Northern Italy ( well, this summer a little in Germany, Austria and Central Italy, too :)) …
Click to expand...
I was stationed near Pisa while in the US Army during the Reagan era. My wife says i picked up two bad habits while there: Driving recklessly and drinking espresso!

😃

I’ve traveled to Roma, Venezia, Firenze, and have a cousin who teaches at a university in Firenze. I’d like to visit again, some day, but really cannot afford to travel.
 
pneuma07 said:
… i cannot perceive the merit of the “three flocks” theory.

For one, why only three ? Where was John ?
Where were the other surviving Eleven ?
It is said Thomas founded the Church in Southern India. Was it a flock in itself, or, part of which of the three mentioned above ?

If this is not enough, consider that 1 Peter is adressed to congregations in Asia Minor
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,
Click to expand...
. The letter sounds very pastoral, and is addressed … to what was allegedly Paul’s flock. 🤷

So i think the shepherds were many Be ]shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be, says Peter in 1 Peter 5.
IMHO the flock was one with many local “underflocks” which were under the responsibility of the local shepherd(s), if we can say so.

These many shepherds were sheep in their turn, from a general perspective. This is a major point for us now. (We could say Peter was, with humble tone, precisely shepherding these shepherds here).

And what about nowadays ? You can have your pastor in your parish. He belongs, together yoth you, to the sheep of your bishop. Who belongs, together with you and your direct pastor, to the sheep of Peter’s successor, who belongs with all of you to the flock of the Chief Shepherd.
Does that sound reasonable ?

…

Your inferences are not only reasonable, but persuasive. I especially appreciate the one where Peter writes to the churches of Paul’s so-called flock.

👍
 
pneuma07 said:
… In a recent post you were asking for plans about rescuing you from the island.

One suggestion is: just show a plan of yours, and let’s all stick to that.

If you want us to propose plans, a possible one from my POW had been outlined in post 37, with point 1) to 5).
We just started examining the last one, as I can remember.

If you do not like the above, ,a further proposable plan is this:

from the fence where you are sitting, you threw away Sola Scriptura ( didn’t you ?).
Do you want to decipher what consequences this can have about the issue of the present thread ?

Bless you
P7
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura,
the Bible alone;
Anything else,
takes Christ off His throne.

That’s how those Christians warn me;
Is it just a lie they want me to see?
Tell me please, how you Catholics know
outside Scriptura is safe to go.
Thanks for asking, P7. In past dialogs i’ve tried to guide the discussion, which made for great debate, and for creating controversy and interest. But it was counter productive to thoughtful discussion. This time, i’m taking a different approach by letting others tell me why they believe, and then merely responding to what they have to say. The most popular answer to why i should believe the Catholic Church that all of you have provided is Matthew 16:18. That’s why i’ve asked so many questions about the passage. Based on what you and others have said, i think there are good reasons to believe Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His church.

The next logical step, i think, is for me to keep asking questions about Matthew 16:18 to see if the premise that Peter being the rock necessarily leads to the logical conclusion that Christ created the papacy. Whether we examine only Sacred Scripture to make this inference, or take into account the historical context (from the early Church Fathers and other extra-biblical sources) is up to all of you. I’m the tourist on this trip, not the tour guide. I’m Gilligan the castaway, not the one i hope will rescue me. I’m the lost sheep, not the shepherd. Lead me where you think is the best way Home.

http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/art/trial.jpg
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
I was stationed near Pisa while in the US Army during the Reagan era. My wife says i picked up two bad habits while there: Driving recklessly and drinking espresso!
Click to expand...
Did your driving become more reckless before or after having an espresso?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yes, i think so, too. And would you say that on these foundations and pillars of the Jewish faith (namely Abraham and Moses) God built the Jewish religion?
Click to expand...
This sounds reasonable and both have relevance to our Christian faith as well since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.
 
Pax said:
Did your driving become more reckless before or after having an espresso?
Click to expand...
Made many a quick stop to drink it in one gulp in a shot glass on my way to work, as did many a good Italian! (But never stopped to think that the correlation between the two suggested a causation!)

LOL!

😃
 
Pax said:
This sounds reasonable and both have relevance to our Christian faith as well since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and i imagine i’d not have too difficult a time finding passages in the Old Testament saying that Abraham and Moses were foundations on which the Lord built the Jewish faith. They, like Peter, were rocks on which God build the faith. Don’t you agree, Pax?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top