Prodigal's Isle

[Thing]

No, Skipper, but i seem to be pushing your buttons with all my questions. Don’t i?

I suppose you realize that at your present rate it will take you at least 1,269 years to interrogate all 33,000, (or so I’ve heard), protestant denominations to determine which one is the least ambiguous and most worthy of your trust.

Then of course you’ll have to start on the EO and all the Eastern Catholic churches…

:

 

[Pax]

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?

Yes.

 

[utunumsint]

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.

Yes, but it was never a debate. Both meanings were perfectly acceptable, and some evern used both (Hypolitus for example).

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.

I believe that any passage of scripture can become contentious, especially when it becomes political. To a great extent, the protestant reformation was political, and so they had every motivation in the world to seek out a new, and inovative, way of explaining Matthew 16 to the exclusion of all other possible interpretations. I believe this is where the Protestants err. They seek one meaning only out of this passage, when it can render multiple meanings.

Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle often liked to categorize ideas as equivocal, or univocal, or as having multiple meanings, or just one meaning. I think Matthew 16 is a passage that is equivocal. One meaning does not exclude the other.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Good plan, Ut. You the man!

I aim to please.

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.

It depends on your perspective on clarity.

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.

I think I would just be repeating what many others have offered. But here goes anways. Maybe as a group, they can shed light on one another.

• Matthew 16
• The passage in luke where Jesus tells peter that he prayed to the father to strengthen him alone in order to support the other disciples in their faith.
• The passage in John where Jesus asks him to be the shepherd of his sheep.
• Acts 15
• The way Paul mentions in Galatians that he went to consult with Peter before his missionary journeys, and then again with Peter, James, and John.
• The fact that Peter is almost always named first in all lists of the apostles.
• The way Peter seems to be a bridge figure between the gentil factions and the jewish Christian factions. They all want to claim him as their own.

Of course, I believe Matthew 16 is the most important in this list, especially with all the deep symbolism drawn from the old testament. Matthew’s Gospel is also one of the few that shows the twelve apostles sitting on throwns judging the people of Israel, so I believe that Matthew had a very kingdom oriented church in mind when he was presenting his Gosepl. Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” This is very remenicent of the davidic kingdom with David ruling the twelve tribes. As we know from scipture, each one of the twelve leaders from the twelve kingdoms had specific roles to play in the davidic government, including his vizier.

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

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.

You were lucky. Pisa is a veritable little jewel IMHO. Much more there than the world famous “Torre pendente”. If you ever succed in visiting these lands again,I hope you let me know . .
Can you find a good espresso in Indiana ?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I suppose you realize that at your present rate it will take you at least 1,269 years to interrogate all 33,000, (or so I’ve heard), protestant denominations to determine which one is the least ambiguous and most worthy of your trust.

Then of course you’ll have to start on the EO and all the Eastern Catholic churches…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Well, Skipper, you don’t have to keep beating me over the head with that hat! (I get what you’re saying.)

But if we look at these churches one category at a time, maybe we’ll find that rescue boat sooner than that? Of all the so-called Christian religions, i know of only one (or maybe two) that hold to this idea of a papacy. The Catholic Church (and perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church?) are unique in this respect, and in a few others.

Maybe i deserve to be whacked up side the head for this, but i’m thinking that if we can show by deductive (or i’d settle for inductive) reasoning that Jesus and the Apostles advocated the papal institution, that’s our ticket off this rock! If we cannot prove this inference, then i can stop wasting time with Catholicism and start looking under every Protestant coconut until i find the map to heaven i’m seeking.

 

[pneuma07]

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.
]
​

Dear Soc,

 fine verses as always.  I regret I left my first steps into poetry in my late teens. :)

Just brief considerations here.

The Church does not teach to go “outside” Scripture. This is so true that within Catholicism you can ( although you don’t have to ) perfectly believe in “material sufficiency” , ie that all doctrines have to be at least implicitly present in Scripture. Does material sufficiency equate Sola Scriptura in any of the versions this “formal principle” of Reformation has been given ? Not at all.

The CON-tention is not about the text. It is essentially about the CON-text.

Socrates, as quoted by you, teaches us a text has to be “defended”. Who can defend, guard Scripture (and Revelation ) ? That is precisely the point.

If you consider what Sola Scriptura boils down to, IMHO you can find that
those who were breaking or had already broken with the Church were preaching just this:
that she (through which they admittedly had received Scripture), or better her life ( aka Sacred Tradition) is NOT the CON-text where Scripture can be properly understood and defended.
Weren’t they compelled by mere consinstency to declare that ?

On the contrary, to properly understand Scripture, they went on, you have to consider the following CON-text ______________.
Here, in the positive part, the protestant fellowship could not keep any common vision. And the blank was filled with whatever from “your own personal judgment, rebuilding Christianity from scratch” to " the tradition of denomination X (not Y mind you) with the personal judgment of its founder(s), its teaching body, its commentaries and so on".
Could you somehow agree on this microexposition on the matter ?

Now the question for us today is: what/who can be the most credible guardian of Scripture ? “The Holy Spirit”, many protestant brothers will answer here. To which Catholicism will respond: Amen.
But, let’s keep asking: the Holy Spirit through what/whom ?​

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, but it was never a debate. Both meanings were perfectly acceptable, and some evern used both (Hypolitus for example).

I believe that any passage of scripture can become contentious, especially when it becomes political. To a great extent, the protestant reformation was political, and so they had every motivation in the world to seek out a new, and inovative, way of explaining Matthew 16 to the exclusion of all other possible interpretations. I believe this is where the Protestants err. They seek one meaning only out of this passage, when it can render multiple meanings.

Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle often liked to categorize ideas as equivocal, or univocal, or as having multiple meanings, or just one meaning. I think Matthew 16 is a passage that is equivocal. One meaning does not exclude the other.

God bless,
Ut

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Well, Professor, i appreciate your taking a close look at every word coming from my mouth and pointing out my lack of knowledge. And i’ve got to admit that you must be correct in your scientific assumptions, for i find myself lacking in a great deal of wisdom. I tried reading Aquinas once and started to drown when his thoughts quickly went over my head! I prefer wading in the shallow, calm waters of Paul’s epistles. And i prefer the simple dialogs of Plato to the deeper thoughts of his brilliant protégé Aristotle.

That being said, my simple mind tells me that i think Jesus could have dumbed it down for the easily fooled like me. There must have been a lot of us ignorant Gilligans out there, for the Protestant Revolution has ship wrecked many of us.

Why not keep it simple for the slow among us? After all, all He had to do was say this
“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.”
instead of saying this

“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.”

and it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is only one meaning to those words!

Or He could have said this,

“Take and eat; this is my [actual] body.”
instead of this,

“Take and eat; this is my body.”
In both cases, one little word would have made all the difference! There would be no ambiguity, for there would be only one possible meaning. When it comes to something as important as the authority of the papacy and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, don’t these require the unequivocal? I mean, i can understand a careless fool like me saying the wrong thing and giving many people the wrong idea, but Jesus is smarter than that! Isn’t He, Professor?

The only reason that i can see for not being unequivocal is to purposefully choose words that will allow people to believe a lie if they really wanted to be duped. That’s why i’m saying He chose His words carefully for the sake of mercy. Do you know what i mean, Professor? Or am i being unclear?

 

[pneuma07]

[/INDENT]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

If ( and only if, since we know we’d better build on…rock than on sand) you have come to agree on petrine primacy, than probably the next step you have in your trip is: succession.

Among the possible ways to start tackling the issue, I’d like to try answering a frequent objection: Jesus, as far as as His words were recorded in the Gospels, did not command anything like: and the generations will always have a successor of Peter, to confirm and feed them.

My first impression is that probably it does not often occur to some who propose a similar
objection, that nowhere it is recorded in the Gospels that Jesus commands to write books on Himself and His doctrines, and that a precise collection of these books will have to be considered Scripture. If we should not have a papacy for the mentioned reason, then we should not have a New Testament.

A second consideration is that Jesus does not command on successions likely because in His teaching He keeps well open the possibility that He could come back within a generation. He wants His disciples to be every day ready for His return. This would not be the case, had they been instructed from the beginning that there will be successors to this or that for generations and generations to come.

Last but not least, the question of succession ( apostolic in general more than petrine specifically) does come out during the apostolic generation. Some Pauline letters are witness to this IMHO. So is, most explicilty, Clement’s letter to corinthians.

OK. Maybe I have already written too much for tonight, and accuracy would not gain going on.

Bless you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes.

Yes. And although Abraham was such a pillar and foundation of truth, Isaac was not, for he preferred Esau, the one whom God hated. And Moses, who spoke face-to-face with God was succeeded by Joshua, but after Joshua, there was no one who succeeded him. Does this also sound reasonable, my friend?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You were lucky. Pisa is a veritable little jewel IMHO. Much more there than the world famous “Torre pendente”. If you ever succed in visiting these lands again,I hope you let me know . .
Can you find a good espresso in Indiana ?

In a word: Starbucks! There’s one in walking distance from my home. Some places in Indiana have one every few blocks! I’m a sucker for a triple-shot, espresso macchiato.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

:coffeeread:

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… If you consider what Sola Scriptura boils down to, IMHO you can find that those who were breaking or had already broken with the Church were preaching just this: that she (through which they admittedly had received Scripture), or better her life ( aka Sacred Tradition) is NOT the CON-text where Scripture can be properly understood and defended. Weren’t they compelled by mere consinstency to declare that ? …

P7:

Are you saying, then, that to properly understand Scripture, you must go back to the religion from which it originated?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… My first impression is that probably it does not often occur to some who propose a similar objection, that nowhere it is recorded in the Gospels that Jesus commands to write books on Himself and His doctrines, and that a precise collection of these books will have to be considered Scripture. If we should not have a papacy for the mentioned reason, then we should not have a New Testament.

…

Trying not to bite off more than i can chew (especially now that i’ve had to wisdom teeth extracted this week and don’t feel much like chewing)! So, let’s just take your first impression, for now.

First impressions often have a way of deceiving me. Many of my first impressions about the Catholic Church, i’ve found from speaking to thoughtful people like yourself, were wrong. So, please don’t think i’m being smug by asking this about your first impression: You said, nowhere. But what about here?
[Jesus] said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

(Luke 24:44-49)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Of course, I believe Matthew 16 is the most important in this list, especially with all the deep symbolism drawn from the old testament. Matthew’s Gospel is also one of the few that shows the twelve apostles sitting on throwns judging the people of Israel, so I believe that Matthew had a very kingdom oriented church in mind when he was presenting his Gosepl. Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” This is very remenicent of the davidic kingdom with David ruling the twelve tribes. As we know from scipture, each one of the twelve leaders from the twelve kingdoms had specific roles to play in the davidic government, including his vizier.

God bless,
Ut

Professor (i hope you don’t mind my calling you that, as you remind me of the scientist with the keen intellect on Gilligan’s Isle):

Do you find Matthew 16 to be the most compelling because it states that Peter is the rock on which Jesus built His church? If so, i’m beginning to see what you mean. I mean, after talking with you, it seems to me that Peter is similar to Abraham, for Abraham was the rock on which God built the Jewish religion. Don’t you think?

 

[Pax]

Yes. And although Abraham was such a pillar and foundation of truth, Isaac was not, for he preferred Esau, the one whom God hated. And Moses, who spoke face-to-face with God was succeeded by Joshua, but after Joshua, there was no one who succeeded him. Does this also sound reasonable, my friend?

Soc in Christ,

The leadership continued by way of the priesthood. Problems of course did arise with Israel falling into idolatry. The old covenant had its failures. The old is only foreshadowing of the good things to come in the new covenant. Jesus makes it clear in the gospel that even though there was failure and sin that the Jews were to do what their leaders told them to do. He even says this in Matthew 23:1-3:

THEN SAID Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

The teaching authority and the apparent correctness of the teaching is interesting and is tied to what Jesus refers to in Jewish tradition as “Moses’ seat.” The modern parallel to this in the Catholic Church is what we refer to as the chair of Peter.

Another interesting NT reference to the authority and prophetic teaching of the Jewish high priest is found in John 11:49-53 where it says:

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.

We learn a number of things about the Jews and the old covenant from all of this. These passages tell us the following:

1. The authority of Moses continued and was passed on to those that sat upon Moses’ seat.
2. The priesthood is the focus of authority and there is a hierarchy.
3. The high priest, even though quite sinful, could still be a voice of prophecy to the people.
4. The things of the old covenant are but shadows of the good things to come.
5. The implications for the NT Church are clear in scripture and are carried out in historical practice subsequent to Pentecost.

I hope this helps.

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

Are you saying, then, that to properly understand Scripture, you must go back to the religion from which it originated?

I am not saying so, Soc

Why don’t you and I interpret the Tanakh ( aka OT) the way it is within the religion from which it originated ? Your quotation from Luke 24 gives us IMHO the answer. It is for the very same reason that we consider the OT as Scripture, in the first place. That’s to say, on Christ’s own authority.
As recorded in the NT, Christ did endorse “Moses and the Prophets” as Scripture, THEREFORE the Church would consider the OT Scripture. Reading it according to the interpretations proposed by Himself and then developed within His Church.
With the Incarnation there is a change of authority: from jewish authorities, to christian authorities. Would you agree ? ( BTW this is why I see a bit of inconsistency in rejecting from the Canon the deuterocanonicals following decisions taken by jewish authorities AFTER Christ had left His message and His Church).

Now, with Reformation the situation looks a bit different. Some smart guys would tell people that the Church was wrong on some essential readings of Scripture ( on soteriology, in the first place). Were they able to clearly show the Church had manifestly deviated from the interpretations of the ECFs ? They were not. Could they claim they had a special authority from Christ ? This being not the case, their claim was: “Scripture is perpicuous, therefore we do not need the Church as its defender and interpreter. Since Scripture is perspicuous, we clearly are right in the readings we propose.”.
We often underestimate IMHO the centrality of the proclamation of the perspicuity of Scripture in the reformed movement and vision. “The Church is wrong. It is written in Scripture that she is wrong, and it is manifest !”, this was the message Europe was filled with in the XVI century. Followed by: “The life of the Church is then the wrong CONtext to get the teaching of Scripture. The right CONtext is the one I am proposing”.Since then many different CONtexts where planted.

I ask then two questions you’ll be able to chew at your convenience.

• In the light of your own repeated observations about the ambiguity of a passage, in the light of your quotation from Phaedrus: what is your present position about “the perspicuity of Scripture “ ?
• Isn’t there a good “antecedent probability” ( as J.H. Newmann would say) that Christ left us a permanent defender or guardian of Scripture, of His Revelation ( whatever/whoever that can be) ?

 

[pneuma07]

Trying not to bite off more than i can chew (especially now that i’ve had to wisdom teeth extracted this week and don’t feel much like chewing)! So, let’s just take your first impression, for now.

First impressions often have a way of deceiving me. Many of my first impressions about the Catholic Church, i’ve found from speaking to thoughtful people like yourself, were wrong. So, please don’t think i’m being smug by asking this about your first impression: You said, nowhere. But what about here?
[Jesus] said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

(Luke 24:44-49)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a351/britishgrenadier/Ascension Thursday/Ascension2.jpg

I’m lucky that this is an easy one.

Jesus is endorsing and interpreting the OT.

My point is that in the NT I cannot see where Jesus commands to …write and compile
a NT. Nevertheless we don’t see protestant brothers explaining that we should not have a NT because of that. They assume developing a NT was the right thing, in spite of that. They trust the early Church IMHO. It was she that decided that having an NT was OK, convenient and faithful to the Master’'s teaching.

Quite curious situation for Sola Scriptura supporters.

Bless you
P7

 

[utunumsint]

http://www.wtv-zone.com/dpjohnson/gingergrant/dentist.jpg

Well, Professor, i appreciate your taking a close look at every word coming from my mouth and pointing out my lack of knowledge. And i’ve got to admit that you must be correct in your scientific assumptions, for i find myself lacking in a great deal of wisdom. I tried reading Aquinas once and started to drown when his thoughts quickly went over my head! I prefer wading in the shallow, calm waters of Paul’s epistles. And i prefer the simple dialogs of Plato to the deeper thoughts of his brilliant protégé Aristotle.

I was forced to read Aristotle and Aquinas during University. Believe me, it was like pulling teeth.

I much prefered Plato and the neo-platonists.

That being said, my simple mind tells me that i think Jesus could have dumbed it down for the easily fooled like me. There must have been a lot of us ignorant Gilligans out there, for the Protestant Revolution has ship wrecked many of us.

I understand what you are saying Soc. I really do. Which leads me to the need for an authoritative interpreter of scripture.

That being said, I can see only two possible interpretations of Matthew 16. Little rock and big rock is not one of them. I mean honestly, I don’t think this argument appeared until the 20th century.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Professor (i hope you don’t mind my calling you that, as you remind me of the scientist with the keen intellect on Gilligan’s Isle):

Keen intellect! That’s a laugh. I have three kids all below the age of four. I’ve had maybe three full nights of sleep in the last four years. My brain is mush right now.

Do you find Matthew 16 to be the most compelling because it states that Peter is the rock on which Jesus built His church? If so, i’m beginning to see what you mean. I mean, after talking with you, it seems to me that Peter is similar to Abraham, for Abraham was the rock on which God built the Jewish religion. Don’t you think?

I think you can draw parallels with Abraham, but also with the office of David’s vizier. I think the different gospels focus on different sides of Jesus’ geneology. Jesus is often called son of David, and I think he is also sometimes called son of Abraham. In Matthew’s Gospel, I think the focus is more on his Davidic lineage.

But yes, Abraham is considered a rock in the psalms I think.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Are you saying, then, that to properly understand Scripture, you must go back to the religion from which it originated?

I am not saying so, Soc …

Then, please explain what you meant when you said this:

Originally Posted by pneuma07 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
… If you consider what Sola Scriptura boils down to, IMHO you can find that those who were breaking or had already broken with the Church were preaching just this: that she (through which they admittedly had received Scripture), or better her life ( aka Sacred Tradition) is NOT the CON-text where Scripture can be properly understood and defended. Weren’t they compelled by mere consinstency to declare that ? …

It sounds to me that you are advising me to interpret the New Testament in the context of the religious tradition of the Catholic Church. If that’s not your meaning, then please tell me what is.