Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[aussie_stockman]

Whose, other than the Apostles, would those teachings be? A couple hundred years after the Crucifixtion, what groups do we see? There are Christians, Gnostics (not sure on the timing there), Pagans, etc… What do the Christians teach in that time, and before? Who still teaches those same things?

Must a teaching have been seen in writing for it to have been a Tradition passed down? We already know from Scripture that not everything is written down. Would there have been a reason to write down something that was already common knowledge? Is it not reasonable to assume that most Christians in the first couple centuries were quite familiar with Mary and her virginity? But yes, at some point we see it coming up for discussion. Why do we see ANY teachings pop up for discussion? Is it not the result of some debate on the matter, where clarification is warranted?

I think it’s reasonable to assume that most Christians in the first couple of centuries knew about the “immaculate conception”… From what I’ve been reading from early Church Fathers, I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to assume the idea of “Marys perpetual virginity” was “common knowledge” at all.

Besides, if it were common knowledge, then why would there be debates about it? I’m not talking about mere discussions for the sake of clarity. Helvidius wrote to Tertullian (sometime in the mid-300’s?) speaking against the perpetual virginity of Mary, and both Tertullian and Victorinus support him. On the other hand, Jerome replies - contending for the perpetual virginity - and even says that Tertullian was “not a man of the church”.

I’m not seeing any “common knowledge” here. I’m certainly not seeing any of these guys claiming that the idea of Marys perpetual virginity was taught to them by Peter or Paul.

to me, it’s looking like that particular doctrine was something that developed over time.

I would not at all expect that every Tradition was written down, and even if it was, I would not at all expect that every written record remained in existance.

But - this whole idea of non-written Traditions could be streched to the N-th degree. Somebody in “authroty” could claim that Jesus rode a chariot into Jerusalem, not a donkey, and claim it as Tradition. And furthermore, since there is nothing in scripture that comes right out and SAYS it wasn’t a charriot, well, then who’s to say it wasn’t?

So, if guys like Jerome, who write “in favor” of the perpetual virginity can’t say (and don’t say) “this is, and always has been the clear teachings of the Apostles”, then I think it’s a bit “suspect”.

The bottom line, in this particular case, is that I don’t think there is any way at all to KNOW that the perpetual virginity of Mary was either “common knowledge” nor that it was actually ever taught by either Peter or Paul, during their time in Rome, and I don’t at all think it’s safe to “assume” either of these positions. It looks to me like the whole concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary comes out of some kind of Gentile thought that somehow considers the “marital act” as inherently sinful, which is entirely contrary to what we find in Jewish Law. It flat doesn’t sound like something that would come from two Jews - namely - Peter and Paul - who understood that the “marital act” was considered HOLY and non-defiled by God Himself (who invented it), and that in no way would Marys consumation of her marriage to Joseph have EVER “defiled” her in any fashion at all.

But - I’m getting off the topic of whether it (perpetual virginity) was actually a teaching of the Apostles - hence, a Tradition that could be traced to them…

I still have my doubts, because Peter spent DECADES teaching in Rome, and if perpetual virginity (and other Traditions) were indeed his teachings, I think its MOST reasonable to assume that the guys that succeeded Peter would full well know about it, and the rest of the bishops would have totally supported those successors in passing on that teaching. But, that is clearly not what happened…

Unless, of course, I’m missing something… And, that’s also a distinct possibility. I remain open and curious…

 

[aussie_stockman]

ooooooppppssssss!!!

in my previous post, that weird-looking word “authroty” was SUPPOSED to be “authority”…

 

[mark_a]

Unless, of course, I’m missing something… And, that’s also a distinct possibility. I remain open and curious…

A couple of thoughts:

The points you make exactly the reason we need a visible Church with a real office held by a real man, someone who can call a council to make tough decisions. The whole world takes pot-shots at the Peter’s office, but none will put his own soul on the line to call his own teaching infallible.

Catholic dogma can’t be denied by Catholics, but it can be questioned, misunderstood, pondered, challenged, cross-examined, pondered, enquired about, examined, discussed, given the third degree, grilled, pryed, pumped, put through the wringer, roasted, worked over, investigated, quizzed, meditated upon, contemplated, chew over, thought over, excogitated, contemplated, mused, reflected upon, mull over, ruminated, speculated. . . . .

but not denied.

Best wishes!

 

[ahs]

…I still have my doubts, because Peter spent DECADES teaching in Rome, and if perpetual virginity (and other Traditions) were indeed his teachings, I think its MOST reasonable to assume that the guys that succeeded Peter would full well know about it, and the rest of the bishops would have totally supported those successors in passing on that teaching. But, that is clearly not what happened…

Unless, of course, I’m missing something… And, that’s also a distinct possibility. I remain open and curious…

Do we know everything that Peter taught while in Rome? Would it have been necessary to teach Mary’s perpetual virginity in the first few decades of Christianity?

I don’t think it can be assumed at all that the rest of the Bishops would have totally supported any given teaching unless they were first-hand witnesses. We see disagreements pop up very early on. The question is, who settles the the matters? In the book of Acts we see Peter settling things…and all others submitting themselves to his authority.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Do we know everything that Peter taught while in Rome? Would it have been necessary to teach Mary’s perpetual virginity in the first few decades of Christianity?

I don’t think it can be assumed at all that the rest of the Bishops would have totally supported any given teaching unless they were first-hand witnesses. We see disagreements pop up very early on. The question is, who settles the the matters? In the book of Acts we see Peter settling things…and all others submitting themselves to his authority.

you ask "Do we know everything that Peter taught while in Rome? "

Well, if we DON’T know that Peter taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, then it certainly doesn’t fit into the definition of “Church Tradition” as given to me by Nick:

"In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. "

“This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully transmitted to each new generation. (Catechism, 77-78)”

 

[ahs]

you ask "Do we know everything that Peter taught while in Rome? "

Well, if we DON’T know that Peter taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, then it certainly doesn’t fit into the definition of “Church Tradition” as given to me by Nick:

"In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. "

“This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully transmitted to each new generation. (Catechism, 77-78)”

I think it still fits his definition. Just because WE don’t know everything doesn’t mean it was not handed down to each new generation. There are probably many things the Bishops of the Church know that the laity have not heard…or have heard little about. What WE know is what is necessary for our daily walk with Christ…plus whatever we have taken the time to look up or things that have come up over the years.

But let’s take it a step further. If the teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity gives us pause because we don’t see her being discussed for 200 years after Christ’s Crucifixtion (I’m not sure about that timeframe…I’ll take a look) how much more suspect should we be about sola fide or sola scriptura or a rejection off the Sacraments…things that did not come up unitl 1,500 years after His Crucifixtion?

 

[ahs]

Okay, so here we see the topic of Mary being taught in 120 AD.
catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Also, you had mentioned that it would only be natural for Joseph and Mary to have relations…to bring forth offspring from their marriage [actually a betrothal]. Well, no, it would not. In fact, Joseph had already been married and widowed and had a family. Mary had pledged her virginity to God (pledges were not a ‘here today gone tomorrow’ thing) and it was Joseph’s job to protect that. She was betrothed to him so that she could leave the temple. She had to leave the temple because her time of maturation had come (she started her menstrual cycle) and she would be considered unclean.

As James tells us, had Joseph and Mary had relations, it would have been scandalous, or a crime…her virginity was to be protected:

"“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (Protoevangelium of James, 15; 120 A.D.).

Yet we are reassured by the Virgin’s correction of this misunderstanding:

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.)

And this is 120 AD…what significance might that be in this discussion?

 

[ahs]

Something else that stuck out to me was this that you mentioned:

"…You couldn’t BE a Church Father unless you went along with the belief that Simon Peter was “this rock…”

Well, do you see any Christian writings in the times of the ECF’s that are contrary? Which early Christian writer do you think should be considered a Church Father who did not see Simon Peter as “this rock”? (With the understanding that Peter is not apart from his confession…unless you can explain how one can separate Peter from his confession.)

 

[aussie_stockman]

Okay, so here we see the topic of Mary being taught in 120 AD.
catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

Also, you had mentioned that it would only be natural for Joseph and Mary to have relations…to bring forth offspring from their marriage [actually a betrothal]. Well, no, it would not. In fact, Joseph had already been married and widowed and had a family. Mary had pledged her virginity to God (pledges were not a ‘here today gone tomorrow’ thing) and it was Joseph’s job to protect that. She was betrothed to him so that she could leave the temple. She had to leave the temple because her time of maturation had come (she started her menstrual cycle) and she would be considered unclean.

As James tells us, had Joseph and Mary had relations, it would have been scandalous, or a crime…her virginity was to be protected:

"“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (Protoevangelium of James, 15; 120 A.D.).

Yet we are reassured by the Virgin’s correction of this misunderstanding:

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.)

And this is 120 AD…what significance might that be in this discussion?

You are, of course, referring to the Protoevangelium of James… This is the text that Origen uses to support his own belief in the perpetual virginity…

However, the Proto of James was NOT accepted by all as “gospel” (so to speak). Origin, in his writings, does not claim that James was actually the writer of the P of J, and most scholars hold that the P of J was not actually written by James.

The reason for the debate? Just as I’ve mentioned above, this writing, that Origen uses to support his position, was NOT accepted as an actual “Apostolic Teaching” by all.

So, what we have here, in the P of J, is NOT a “clearly Apostolic teaching”… It, along with Origens beliefs, were the subject of debate…

And what happens? Somewhere down the road, it is DECIDED that Mary was perpetually virgin. Effectively, someone decided, at long last, that the P of J was indeed “apostolic teaching”.

So, in regards to my actual question - which is NOT to debate the “perpetual virginity” - but rather, to understand Catholic Tradition - I still fail to see how this example of Origen and the P of J demonstrate that there was any kind of clear, “traceable” line showing that the “perpetual virginity” was indeed Apostolic teaching.

I’m just saying - to ME (for what that’s worth) it LOOKS like the perpetual virginity was an idea that floated around for some time, then finally came to discussion, and eventually somebody just made the decision that it was Apostolic, perhaps based on nothing more than their own preferences. And, if that’s the case, then just about ANYTHING could be - at some point - simply “pronounced” as “Apostolic”, whether it was or not.

There are certainly many documents from earlier centuries - some of which are “attributed” to one Apostle or another (for example, the Gospel of Thomas)- but have not been considered by the Church (to date) as “reliable” documents. Now - what I’m trying to get at is this:

What if the Gospel of Thomas came up for “debate” at this time, and Pope Benedict (or a future Pope) just simply decided that the Gospel of Thomas was indeed valid? Does that really make it so? Is that how it works?

If that’s how it works, just let me know, OK? Please don’t come back with a bunch of “rhetorical questions” for me, as if I am in any position to provide meaningful answers…

I’m asking YOU CATHOLIC GUYS how “Apostolic Tradition” works…

 

[aussie_stockman]

HEY NICK! ARE YOU THERE???

Well, whenever you show up, I’d ask that you not pick up on this current “thread” between myself and ahs…

Rather - if you would, please go back to my original posting in which I began asking about Catholic Tradition…

originally, you posted some good info - some of it from the Catechism - in response… I think you were going to add some more info…

So, if you please - let’s go back to that original msg… I’m really interested in what you have to say…

aussie

 

[ahs]

…So, what we have here, in the P of J, is NOT a “clearly Apostolic teaching”… It, along with Origens beliefs, were the subject of debate…

So, in regards to my actual question - which is NOT to debate the “perpetual virginity” - but rather, to understand Catholic Tradition - I still fail to see how this example of Origen and the P of J demonstrate that there was any kind of clear, “traceable” line showing that the “perpetual virginity” was indeed Apostolic teaching.

But why do YOU need to see a clear traceable line? That’s what I’m trying to get to I suppose…the Deposit of Faith was entrusted to the Apostles and handed down to their successors. The clear traceable line might not be evidence that you or I would readily say “oh yes, I see where this is the case”. And it doesn’t have to be. We don’t have to have the evidence, we accept the teaching Authority that Christ gave His Apostles and His Church. Any evidence we see is certainly nice to have, but it’s not necessary…unless you don’t think Christ handed this Authority to His Church…that’s when it would become necessary, in that person’s mind, to have such proof.

I’m just saying - to ME (for what that’s worth) it LOOKS like the perpetual virginity was an idea that floated around for some time, then finally came to discussion, and eventually somebody just made the decision that it was Apostolic, perhaps based on nothing more than their own preferences. And, if that’s the case, then just about ANYTHING could be - at some point - simply “pronounced” as “Apostolic”, whether it was or not.

I suppose it can seem that way, but it’s not. Nothing can be pronounced “Apostolic” unless it really is. It boils back down to whether or not you think Christ giving Peter the Keys means something…it boils back down to Authority.

There are certainly many documents from earlier centuries - some of which are “attributed” to one Apostle or another (for example, the Gospel of Thomas)- but have not been considered by the Church (to date) as “reliable” documents. Now - what I’m trying to get at is this:

What if the Gospel of Thomas came up for “debate” at this time, and Pope Benedict (or a future Pope) just simply decided that the Gospel of Thomas was indeed valid? Does that really make it so? Is that how it works?

If that’s how it works, just let me know, OK? Please don’t come back with a bunch of “rhetorical questions” for me, as if I am in any position to provide meaningful answers…

I’m asking YOU CATHOLIC GUYS how “Apostolic Tradition” works…

Sorry if I sound like rhetoric…I don’t intend to. I have to make every post as though it were my last (lots of questions that can be dwelt upon) because I never know if I’ll be able to get on here any given day/week.

No, that’s not how Tradition works. The Pope could not simply “decide” something if it implied a change in Tradition. It would be something he knew to be Tradition that does not change Tradition, though it may further explain it. Ask this question in separate thread…you will get a rich bounty of clear answers…probably much more detailed that what I’m giving you.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Any evidence we see is certainly nice to have, but it’s not necessary…unless you don’t think Christ handed this Authority to His Church…that’s when it would become necessary, in that person’s mind, to have such proof.

You’ve hit right at the heart of the matter.

I’m not yet sure that Christ handed that Authority to His Church, if “Church” means “Catholic Church”.

That authority rests on Peter, if I understand correctly what I’ve been reading from my Catholic sources. The “Petrine Primacy”, I think it’s called. Or, perhaps, “Papal Primacy”? At any rate, I mean (respectfully) to refer to the “ultimate” authority of Peter, as taught by the Catholic Church. (BTW - I’m not sure “ultimate” is the best choice of words, but I hope we won’t get stuck on that).

The thing is this: That understanding of that “ultimate authority” is, itself, a Church Tradition. It is not based solely on scripture (but, in saying this, I do NOT mean to somehow “degrade” the validity). I’m simply pointing out that the “level” of authority given to Peter (and subsequent Popes) is a matter of Church Tradition - and, one that (for example) the Orthodox did not subscribe to. They had their own tradition, which they trace back to the exact same moment in time, when Jesus said “…you are Petros, and upon this Petra…”

From what I’ve been reading, those Eastern Churches apparantly NEVER agreed with the level of authority given to Peter, and the whole she-bang blew up in the Great Schism. Their Tradition held to an idea more along the lines that “all Apostles are equal, and Peter was the first among equals” (more or less, I guess… heck, I’m no expert on Orthodoxy)

But - how on earth am I supposed to KNOW which “tradition” is correct?

If “this rock” was Peters confession - (and, according to at least some Catholic writings, you can’t seperate a man from his confession) - then Andrew had made the SAME CONFESSION long before Peter did. So, if “this rock” was Peter, because it was Peters confession, then it could be argued that it was also Andrew, because it was Andrews confession. (Just read in John 1, when Andrew introduces Peter to Jesus. Andrew already claims that Jesus is the Christ). (BIG shrug)

I dunno… Trying to sort through all this “stuff” just has my head spinning.

But, then, I think - this has nothing at all to do with me, and my relationship to Jesus. I know him PERSONALLY. I don’t know about “Church Traditions”. I didn’t grow up with them. Not Catholic Church Traditions, nor Baptist traditions, nor Methodist or Episcopal, or any others. What I DO know is that Christ was resurrected. But I don’t know that just from reading it. I know it because God revealed “Jesus the Risen Christ” to me, in a profoundly powerful and personal way - so profoundly powerful that I have never had a moments doubt that Jesus is the Risen Saviour since then. That revelation had nothing to do with church.

I think I’m going to “retire” from all this for a while. If God thinks it terribly important that I become a Catholic, then it’s gonna happen, and I’ll be looking for you in Mass some Sunday. But, it might be an uphill battle for God (though, I’m sure He’d win). I have this strange notion that I should talk to Jesus every day (since I know him personally), and ask Him for guidance in all things. I’m not sure why He would want me to stop doing that, and look to “Peter”. Seems to me like “Peter” would just sort of be getting in the way between me and Jesus, which would be a shame, since I like talking to, and hearing from Jesus so much. BUT - I’m going to go for some “humility” here, and just say that maybe it’s possible that Jesus doesn’t think I hear quite good enough, and “Peter” can help with the communication. Maybe that’s the whole idea. I’ll be praying about it.

With this, I’m signing off - at least, for a while…

aussie

P.S. - about the “rhetoric” thing… Thanks for saying “Sorry if I sound like rhetoric”, and I just want you to know I understand what you mean about making “every post as though it were your last”… No problem at all, buddy… And, if I sounded offensive when I brought that up, I apologize also. I honestly didn’t want to be offensive, but just to say “hey, I’m the guy with all the questions here!”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, RedDeathsMask,

I, too, found this to be a very sad - and truly pathetic - explanation. The writer of the article goes to great length to condemn the ‘speculation’ of what language Jesus actually spoke, but does not dare to offer his own thoughts on the matter. This is as if to say, “I know the Catholics are wrong - but, I do not know what is right!”

I will agree with one thing - the argument about a ‘feminine’ name for Peter or him being a tiny stone is absurd. The ultimate snag for these misguided Protestants is that they are intentionally and deliberately wedded to Sola Scriptura as the only vehicle that can be used to explain anything in Scripture. This is similar to the seeing everything as a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer! Scripture no more interprets itself then does any other book. People read ancient Greek plays and modern American plays all the time and get different views on what is being said and how these works of art should be presented to an audience. In the case of plays - assuming the author is still alive - he could make a definitive ruling on what the play means and how it is to be presented. But, once he dies - and especially when it becomes part of the Public Domain - all bets are off.

The author beat the Aramaic vs Greek words into the ground - and simply stopped there as if everything depended on Matt 16:18. In the very next verse, Peter receives the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ - something He does not give to any of the other Apostles, Peter is told to Christ has prayed especially for him and for Peter to strengthen his brother (Bishops) - once he regained his senses from having denied Christ! And, Peter is told to feed the lambs and sheep - something not given to the other Apostles. But, lets not stop there!

A previous and early post provided excellent links on Apostolic Succession - and the real key here is that we see how those who actually heard Christ’s words - in whatever language He used - give Peter unique authority - and they then acted that way. And, while we do not have any words in Scripture about Peter’s first successor - we do have the repeated statements of the Early Church Fathers over hundreds of years concerning the Successor of Peter being in charge of Christ’s Church.

To the best of my knowledge, many Protestants do their best to totally ignore the ECF - because they lay bare the lie on which Protestantism is built. Those who have any dealings with the ECF generally stay away with the statements about Peter’s Successor or Rome eek having the authority!

Don’t lose heart. You have over 2,000 years of history to back up the on-going actions of the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the Church of Christ. During this time all of the Caholic Church’s teachings have been consistent - nothing taught by the Apostles and theier successors has every been recinded or voided out. Contrast this with Protestantism - in 5 years many will be ‘celebrating’ Luther’s posting of his 95 Thesis on the Church door on Halloween - launching the Protestant revolt. What will undoubtedly be noticed is how far the Lutherans of today have strayed from the Luther’s own guidance 500 years earlier! This can be seen quite well in tht Luther had a real devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary - that is not the case today. Luther, for all of his faults, upheld and consistently preached about Mary being a Perpetual Virgin - and this certainly sounds out the emptiness of the argument that Mary had ‘other children’.

God bless

Help! Can someone please answer the objections on this website? justforcatholics.org/a124.htm

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie Stockman,

I can not provide any new informatin on the ‘big rock’ vs ‘small stone’ argument. If Aramaic does not provide a gender for its nouns (just like English doesn’t) but Greek does - there is an immediate difference. How the difference is viewed and then responded to is where the action is - not that there is ‘no difference’. But, if we look at this issue from a slightly different perspective - we may see the issus a bit differently.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know any language besides English. These arguments about Greek and Aramaic or Latin and Hebrew are truly beyond my skill level… and there are times my fluency with English is in question! I realize that the name change from Simon to Peter has essentially been dismissed - but, just to look back for a moment… If we believe that Christ is God, and the Bible records where God changed the names of people, we have to ask ourselves what is the significance of this action. Here is an interesting quote:

**When God changed a person’s name and gave him a new name, it was usually to establish a new identity. God changed Abram’s “high father” name to “Abraham,” “father of a multitude” (Genesis 17:5) and his wife’s name from “Sarai,” “my princess,” to “Sarah,” “mother of nations” (Genesis 17:15). We know from history that the descendants of Abraham and Sarah formed many nations, including the Jews’ and Muslims’.

God changed Jacob’s “supplanter” name to “Israel,” “having power with God” (Genesis 32:28). He changed Simon’s “God has heard” name to “Peter,” “rock” (John 1:42). Why did Jesus occasionally call Peter “Simon” after He had changed His name to “Peter”? Probably because Simon sometimes acted like his old self instead of the rock God called him to be. The same is true for Jacob. God continued to call him “Jacob” to remind him of his past and to remind him to depend on God’s strength.**

And here is the link: gotquestions.org/name-change.html

Jesus Christ, True God and true man, changed Simon’s name for a reason. What that reason is we find out as we read the life of Christ and His Apostles.

While I honestly can not get wound up about male and female nouns and how they are used in various languages I do get wound up is on the outcome of the sentences. Given that Jesus spoke to His Apostles in some audible language - what did the Apostles understand Jesus to mean? Truly, I think this really cuts to the heart of the matter.

Matthew 16 provides some other interesting items. We have Christ declaring to all His Apostles that the Father had selected Peter by giving Peter the answer to Christ’s question of ‘Who do men say I am?’. No one argues about this. Peter is selected for a special role. And, while Peter alone receives the Keys, it is noteworthy that Christ did not eleven other copies of these keys to hand out later. Now, if this didn’t happen … I really think it is an amazing stretch to think we all have the keys.

So, as the Life of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, progresses, we find that Peter has not only more references to himself, but has more speaking parts. Peter is recorded as having spoken more than 2x the amount of any of the other Apostles (some of whom are not recorded as having spoken at all). Now, if Peter had written a Gospel we could probably dismiss that as bragging - but, it was 4 other guys who worte those Gospels - and I think this says something for Peter being in charge.

Throughout the Gospels we find Peter getting special attention (and sometimes sharing it with James and John when it came to witnessing something). We read where Christ paid the Temple Tax for Himself and Peter (via a coin found in a fish) - but not for the other Apostles (even the one Jesus loved!). Christ prays especially for Peter at the Last Supper - even though all will be in shock at the arrest of Jesus. Christ tells Peter of his denial - but says nothing of the others fleeing - and tells Peter once he has regained his senses to then strengthen his brothers (fellow Apostles - the First Bishops). Then there is the post-Resurrection commnand to feed Christ lambs and sheep - a command not given to the others. Now, all of this can be dismissed as insignificant and immaterial - and many have. But, these arguments - and many others were used by the people who heard Christ and those who later heard the Apostles tell about what Christ had done - to confirm the Primacy of Peter. (Here is an excellent link: catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession) So with hundereds of years of Early Church Fathers acknowledging the Successor of Peter as the leader of the Catholic Church - why is this being dismissed?

My hunch is that Peter’s role as head of the Catholic Chruch - and this Chruch being guided and protected by the Holy Spirit - has to be dismissed if weed of Sola Scriptura is to be planted in the garden. But, that is just my thinking - I’m confident you have an excellent reason for dismissing it - so, please, share it.

God bless

First, Simon bar Jona was called Kepha LONG BEFORE the scripture in Matt 16:18…

John 1:40-42 - “40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

This was on the FIRST DAY that Jesus and Simon bar Jona met. Get your facts straight.

Why did Jesus bother to change Simon bar Jonas name? Well, look, according to Jastrows Aramaic lexicon, Jesus changed Simons name to (basically) “Little Rock”. I got no idea why. Maybe Jesus wanted to CONTRAST Himself and Simon bar Jona… After all, it is GOD that is the “foundation of the world”. It is GOD that is the Creator, the Provider, the Rock of our Salvation. “Man” can do NOTHING apart from GOD. God is the one, single thing upon which EVERYTHING depends. And Christ IS God Incarnate. So, maybe Jesus just wanted to say (later on) “yep, you’re Little Rock, but EVERYTHING is built on ME, a HUGE rock”. I don’t know…

It doesn’t do YOU any good to be asking “rhetorical questions”. It does nothing at all to prove YOUR point. And, you CERTAINLY are not convincing me one bit that I should become Catholic… I’m thinking I need to talk to somebody else… Frankly, you’re a lousy spokesman for your faith…

As far as the “keys” go, those same keys could be given to EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in Jesus Christ.

And, besides, Ephesians (2:19-22) says “19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

Apparantly, the Church is built on ALL the apostles (and the prophets), not just “Simon bar Jona”…

You keep on wanting to dodge the “petros/petra” question with a bunch of exegesis, but the fact is this: Unless somebody can show - linguistically - how to make “petros” and “petra” mean the same thing, then there’s just no case to be made, is there?

I mean, heck, there are people out there who make (so-called) scriptural arguments that the Pope is the Antichrist… ANYBODY can just about make a scriptural argument for just about any whacked-out position they want to take…

But in this case, if you cant prove that “petros” and “petra” are referring to the same thing (linguistically), then there’s just nothing to go on…

So, if you want to pitch in on a discussion of how “petros” and “petra” are the same thing, then I’m all ears…

If you want to just keep trying to discount it, and keep throwing out this other non-related nonsense, then I’ll just wait for somebody else to help out…

Thanks

 

[LionHeart777]

HEY NICK! ARE YOU THERE???

Well, whenever you show up, I’d ask that you not pick up on this current “thread” between myself and ahs…

Rather - if you would, please go back to my original posting in which I began asking about Catholic Tradition…

originally, you posted some good info - some of it from the Catechism - in response… I think you were going to add some more info…

So, if you please - let’s go back to that original msg… I’m really interested in what you have to say…

aussie

aussie,

Sorry for the delay. I was on vacation and hadn’t been accessing my computer much.

Well, I am learning from this conversation myself and I know you want me to go back to your post relating directly to our conversation and I will. However, I do want to go over what some other posters in here are saying because in just skimming I think there is some points being made that should be considered.

For example, I gave you some definitions of Tradition from those links I gave you, but consider the following statement from the “Catholic Encyclopedia’s” article “Tradition and Living Magisterium” (a very in depth article you should read if you want to better understand Catholic Tradition):

There is, therefore in the Church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor the change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed. Thus, thanks to the living magisterium and ecclesiastical preaching, thanks to the living sense of truth in the Church, to the action of the Holy Ghost simultaneously directing master and faithful, traditional truth lives and develops in the Church, always the same, at once ancient and new–ancient, for the first Christians already beheld it to a certain extent, new, because we see it with our own eyes and in harmony with our present ideas. Such is the notion of tradition in the double meaning of the word; it is Divine truth coming down to us in the mind of the Church and it is the guardianship and transmission of this Divine truth by the organ of the living magisterium, by ecclesiastical preaching, by the profession of it made by all in the Christian life.

Source: Bainvel, Jean. “Tradition and Living Magisterium.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 3 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm. (emphasis mine)

This seems to be in the vein of some of the comments by ahs.

Back to your post here.

First, I think that just because you see people in the Church not being in agreement on a given teaching (you gave the example of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary) it doesn’t mean that a given teaching (let’s say the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) didn’t come from the Apostles. One example is the Deity of Christ. Being the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Christ is Eternal; He was not created. Well, there was a whole bunch of Bishops who denied this (Arians) for quite a while and it became a large controversy/ heresy. I don’t think any of us would deny that this was a teaching that came from the Apostles and yet here was a whole bunch of people in the Church denying it.

Regarding the Church Fathers not being Jews I think it is important to note that the people the Apostle’s passed on the Government of the Church unto were overwhelmingly Gentiles. Look at the succession lists of the various churches and you will see that this is so (in Scripture, Timothy and Titus came to mind.)

Regarding the Phoenix, Pope St. Clement is just using this as an illustration… not everything written by an Early Church Father has been handed down from the Apostles.

Perhaps another snippet from the Catholic Answer’s Tract, “Scripture and Tradition” will be helpful:

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the ‘canon of Tradition’ by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be ‘the pillar and foundation of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15).

Source: catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

 

[LionHeart777]

P.S.

Regarding Pope St. Clement’s reference to the Phoenix (keeping in mind wha I said that “not everything written by an Early Church Father has been handed down from the Apostles”):

Did you know that St. Paul cites pagan poets in the Bible?

Acts 17:28:

28 For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

Scripture source: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A28&version=DRA

Here St. Paul is using pagan poets to explain Truth to his audience. If it troubles you that St. Clement uses the Phoenix to illustrate his point (whether he believed the Phoenix to be true or not–I’m not sure either way), hopefully this will settle the matter.

 

[just_came_back]

Just ignore Protestants. Works for me. They will be shown the errors of their ways someday. Although, the reformers and every denomination starter is gonna have to give a greater account than the ones that followed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Justcameback,

I really do not know that ignoring Protestants is really the answer. The whole idea with CAF is that there is communicaton - freely given with honesty and insight that is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are some Protestants - both those who post and those who lurk - who are honestly interested in the Catholic Church and are seeking answers. Now, most of these folks have invested a lot of time, effort and money in a false religion that they think is the best thing they have.

Ultimately, we are required to spread the message of Christ to all - and ignoring these folks would not be helpful… or enable us to fulfill our responsibilities.

God bless

Just ignore Protestants. Works for me. They will be shown the errors of their ways someday. Although, the reformers and every denomination starter is gonna have to give a greater account than the ones that followed.

 

[just_came_back]

Hi, Justcameback,

I really do not know that ignoring Protestants is really the answer. The whole idea with CAF is that there is communicaton - freely given with honesty and insight that is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are some Protestants - both those who post and those who lurk - who are honestly interested in the Catholic Church and are seeking answers. Now, most of these folks have invested a lot of time, effort and money in a false religion that they think is the best thing they have.

Ultimately, we are required to spread the message of Christ to all - and ignoring these folks would not be helpful… or enable us to fulfill our responsibilities.

God bless

Sorry. Being surrounded by protestants in the South my whole life tears at me. I will try to place nicer.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Justcameback,

Here is a link you may find helpful in addressing the Primacy of Peter: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

It has been my understanding and experience that most Protestants are firm believers in Sola Scriptura - especially if they can pick and choose their own interpretation of the Revealed Word of God. By coming to the table after praying to the Holy Spirit and then with scriptural references you have studied along with the Catholic theology supporting Matt 16:18 - you will do just fine!

God bless

Sorry. Being surrounded by protestants in the South my whole life tears at me. I will try to place nicer.