Questions from a Protestant

[Pax]

(I am assuming, for the purpose of discussion, that the text is inerrant.)

Perhaps what impacts most upon Mt 16:18-9 is the difference in the Greek text between “petros”, Peter, the pebble or separate piece of rock, and “petra”, the rock on which Jesus will build, the bedrock whence the pebbles come. According to the text, Jesus did not say that he would build the church on Peter.

…
…

This has been answered numerous times. Please be advised that your understanding of the Greek “petra” and “petros” is incorrect. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and he used the term “kepha” which means rock. Jesus said, “Thou art kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church…” Please be advised that there is a simple and necessary linguistic reason that the Greek uses petros as opposed to petra when Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter. Greek endings denote gender and the translators would have to give recongnition to the fact that Peter is a man. Thus they would by necessity use the term petros. Using petras would have been similar to calling someone named Patrick, Patricia. If you were to look at a French translation of scripture, including all of the earliest ones which pre-date the reformation, you would see that Matthew 16:18-19 would have the same way as the Aramaic. The French reads “Thou art “Pierre” and upon this “Pierre” I will build my church.”

Grammatically and exegetically Peter is the rock. Catholic apologist, James Akin, rightly points out that in Matthew 16:17-19, "Jesus makes three statements. All three begin with an assertion concerning Peter. Each assertion is then followed by a two-part elaboration consisting of a contrast (human/divine revelation, Christ’s/Satan’s activity, heavenly ratification of earthly binding/loosing). This elaboration develops the meaning of the principal assertion.
The exegetical structure of Matthew 16:17-19

Statement/Assertion 1
17 "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
Elaboration # ! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
Elaboration # 2 but my Father who is in heaven.

Statement/Assertion 2
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,
Elaboration #1 and on this rock I will build my church,
Elaboration # 2 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Statement/Assertion 3
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
Elaboration #1 and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
Elaboration # 2 and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The exegetical structure of the passage demands that Peter be the rock:

Statements 1 and 3 have Peter as their principal subject, therefore statement 2 does as well.

Statements 1 and 3 are blessings on Peter, therefore statement 2 is as well. The elaborations in statements 1 and 3 develop the meaning of the assertions in those statements, therefore the elaborations in statement 2 develop the meaning of statement 2.

Faced with these facts, as well as others … I was forced to conclude that Peter is, indeed the rock that Jesus was speaking of. Many Evangelical exegetes admit the same thing. However, they immediately try to block any implications being drawn from this fact. They try to shut down the chain of inference and isolate the datum so that it cannot give rise to any ecclesiological inferences."

There are additional reasons for the connection, and I can elaborate if needed. The argument you presented about petros vs. petra simply doesn’t stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

 

[Pax]

Mystophilus,

I am still at a loss to understand the implications of your distinctions concerning truth. My natural inclination is to accept Jesus “as the way, and the truth, and the life;” per John 14:6, and then view all of the other verses I supplied as explanations as to how the knowledge of that truth is communicated, protected, explained, explored, and properly understood.

The relationship of the former to the latter is where Catholics find doctrinal definition and authority in scripture, the Church and Tradition.

 

[Pax]

Mystophilus,

There is another point concerning the “truth” that further anchors the Catholic position. The seventeenth Chapter of John’s gospel is devoted to Jesus talking about and praying for Christian unity. Jesus first prays for unity among the apostles and then He prays for unity among all later Christians that believe through the word of the apostles. In verses 21-23 Jesus prays as follows: “…that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me…”

The prayer of Jesus makes two very striking points. The first is that “the unity” for which Jesus prays is compared to the unity that He shares with the Father which is perfect unity. The second point is that this unity will be a proof to the world that the Father has, indeed, sent Jesus. This is significant and we have to think about this “unity” and just how it is possible and how Jesus intended it to be preserved. For over 1000 years it was preserved in a single body…the undivided Catholic Church. Then came the Great Schism and then eventually the Protestant Reformation. The unity is founded in the truth. The truth is presented, preserved, and made known through the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is the body of Christ on earth. The fullness of the teachings and promises of Jesus are still in the same place that they resided for the first one thousand years of Christianity. The truth is Jesus and His body is the Church.

 

[StCsDavid]

Kristina P.:

The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ’s mission to all people." Now, whether or not you believe that it continues in ALL the teaching of the apostles…

So you leave open the possibility that some of the apostles might have gone astray to greater or lesser degrees and really couldn’t be trusted to be teaching with Christ’s authority? Let me ask you this…with which apostle did things start to go south for you, and you had to say, “whoa, these guys have gone off course.”? What I’m asking is how many generations was the church heading in the right direction…or maybe which Pope steered Christ’s church so irrecoverably off course to the point that it had to fragment into the thousands of Protestant denominations we see today? Secondly, how could these Protestant faiths trust the sacred scripture assembled by the very church they broke away from? Finally, Christ tells us in scripture he desires unity for His church…Paul confirms this desire in his letters…how do Protestants envision such a reunification taking place?

 

[Contarini]

Pax:

The prayer of Jesus makes two very striking points. The first is that “the unity” for which Jesus prays is compared to the unity that He shares with the Father which is perfect unity. The second point is that this unity will be a proof to the world that the Father has, indeed, sent Jesus. This is significant and we have to think about this “unity” and just how it is possible and how Jesus intended it to be preserved. For over 1000 years it was preserved in a single body…the undivided Catholic Church. Then came the Great Schism and then eventually the Protestant Reformation. The unity is founded in the truth. The truth is presented, preserved, and made known through the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is the body of Christ on earth.

But the unity of the Catholic Church is not the perfect unity that Jesus has with the Father. Many of you don’t even regard many priests and theologians within the visible bounds of your Church as “real Catholics.” Do you have perfect unity with Hans Kung or Richard McBrien? Does the unity you have with them serve as a witness to the world that the Gospel is true?

And even if you say that this is a modern problem, you aren’t off the hook. The unity that Jesus has with the Father is not just a unity of intellect or a full agreement on truth (after all, Satan is 100% orthodox). Is it possible to say that any sinful person is one with any other Christian or with Christ as Christ and the Father are one? Surely not. Perfect unity is impossible in this life, because it requires perfect holiness. Unity without holiness is a mockery of itself. How can anyone living in sin be perfectly one with the Body of Christ? And this applies to your second point as well. The sins of Christians do more than anything else to ruin our witness. And is it possible to deny that our sin mars our unity with Christ and one another?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

StCsDavid:

So you leave open the possibility that some of the apostles might have gone astray to greater or lesser degrees and really couldn’t be trusted to be teaching with Christ’s authority? Let me ask you this…with which apostle did things start to go south for you, and you had to say, “whoa, these guys have gone off course.”? What I’m asking is how many generations was the church heading in the right direction…or maybe which Pope steered Christ’s church so irrecoverably off course to the point that it had to fragment into the thousands of Protestant denominations we see today?

I won’t speak for Kristina, but that’s not how I see it at all. The Catholic Church did not go “irrecoverably off course.” Schism from it was never justified. The Reformers were not completely correct either. It’s simply that they weren’t completely wrong on those points where they disagreed with the Catholic Church. Remember, the Church hierarchy excommunicated them (and yes, they reciprocated in kind). The question isn’t if the Church had gone “irrecoverably off course” or if the schism was a good thing. The question is whether we can say that the Reformers were as utterly wrong as the Church’s authorities said they were. If they were making some good points, then we need to hang onto those, reject the places where they went wrong, and then sit down with you guys and figure out if we can get back together. I’m not so naive as to think that this is likely to happen before the Second Coming, and this is a source of deep frustration to me.

StCsDavid:

Secondly, how could these Protestant faiths trust the sacred scripture assembled by the very church they broke away from?

That’s one of those “have you stopped beating your wife” questions. We don’t think we broke away from the Church.

Edwin

 

[Tigerhawk]

Contarini:

But the unity of the Catholic Church is not the perfect unity that Jesus has with the Father. Many of you don’t even regard many priests and theologians within the visible bounds of your Church as “real Catholics.” Do you have perfect unity with Hans Kung or Richard McBrien? Does the unity you have with them serve as a witness to the world that the Gospel is true?

And even if you say that this is a modern problem, you aren’t off the hook. The unity that Jesus has with the Father is not just a unity of intellect or a full agreement on truth (after all, Satan is 100% orthodox). Is it possible to say that any sinful person is one with any other Christian or with Christ as Christ and the Father are one? Surely not. Perfect unity is impossible in this life, because it requires perfect holiness. Unity without holiness is a mockery of itself. How can anyone living in sin be perfectly one with the Body of Christ? And this applies to your second point as well. The sins of Christians do more than anything else to ruin our witness. And is it possible to deny that our sin mars our unity with Christ and one another?

Edwin

I am having a very hard time understanding your point. Is it that because there is dis-unity, unity should not be attempted? Or because there are people who claim to be in union with the Catholic church that teach error, it is therefore acceptable to have thousands of non-Catholic christian denominations and some how this helps serve as witness to the world?

Please help me with this as I have seen similar arguments before and have up to this point, not really understood them.

Then in the second paragraph, I am confused again. Jesus prayed to the Father for Christians to be perfectly one. I inferred from the tone of your second paragraph that it is your contention that Jesus was being unrealistic and that this goal should be abandoned as folly.

Again, it appears that I must have missed the point you were trying to make.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Contarini:

If they were making some good points, then we need to hang onto those, reject the places where they went wrong, and then sit down with you guys and figure out if we can get back together.

Some examples here might be helpful.

Contarini:

That’s one of those “have you stopped beating your wife” questions. We don’t think we broke away from the Church.

As the teaching of the Catholic Church has not changed before during or after the events being referred to, I don’t see how the separation can be viewed any other way than to say that the Reformers moved away from the Church.

 

[Pax]

Contarini:

But the unity of the Catholic Church is not the perfect unity that Jesus has with the Father. Many of you don’t even regard many priests and theologians within the visible bounds of your Church as “real Catholics.” Do you have perfect unity with Hans Kung or Richard McBrien? Does the unity you have with them serve as a witness to the world that the Gospel is true?

And even if you say that this is a modern problem, you aren’t off the hook. The unity that Jesus has with the Father is not just a unity of intellect or a full agreement on truth (after all, Satan is 100% orthodox). Is it possible to say that any sinful person is one with any other Christian or with Christ as Christ and the Father are one? Surely not. Perfect unity is impossible in this life, because it requires perfect holiness. Unity without holiness is a mockery of itself. How can anyone living in sin be perfectly one with the Body of Christ? And this applies to your second point as well. The sins of Christians do more than anything else to ruin our witness. And is it possible to deny that our sin mars our unity with Christ and one another?

Edwin

There will always be dissenters and scripture warns us about them. This is not a modern phenomenon. What we are talking about is official Catholic teaching. There is the constant teaching of the Church and it is not subject to the whim of dissenters and heretical theologians. Apostasy may mean that the apostate is not in unity with the Church, but the fact that there are apostates does not establish that there is a lack of unity within the flock.

The church is a hospital for sinners. Sin within the members does not destroy the truth. Sinners may sin but they still may know and believe the truth. Within the Catholic Church the sinner can reconcile himself to the Lord and receive absolution and forgiveness through confession.

You are right to point out that sin can be damaging to the body of Christ because of the scandal that it causes. On the other hand, reasonable people will see this for what it is and what it is not. Sin and scandal are condemned for what they are and they need to be rooted out. This having been said, everyone knows that the Church does not teach that these things are somehow Okay, and the sincere members of the flock do not endorse sin in any way.

While we have dissenters on the issue of artificial contraception the official teaching of the Catholic Church still condemns it. This has been the constant teaching within all of Christianity until the early 1930’s. Only the Catholic Church has remained faithful and constant in condemning it. This kind of thing is seen in many other teachings as well. The unity that Jesus is talking about is the unity of belief and doctrine and is not diminished by those that depart from the truth. The truth is the source of the unity and those that adhere to the truth are part of that unity.

Your suggestion that Satan is 100% orthodox is pretty silly. Satan is in complete opposition to God. Holiness is something that we strive for and grow in by the grace of God. Since Jesus prayed for unity and everything is by God’s grace, I can only conclude that you underestimate the power of God’s grace and what He desires for His children.

 

[Kristina_P]

StCsDavid:

So you leave open the possibility that some of the apostles might have gone astray to greater or lesser degrees and really couldn’t be trusted to be teaching with Christ’s authority? Let me ask you this…with which apostle did things start to go south for you, and you had to say, “whoa, these guys have gone off course.”? What I’m asking is how many generations was the church heading in the right direction…or maybe which Pope steered Christ’s church so irrecoverably off course to the point that it had to fragment into the thousands of Protestant denominations we see today? Secondly, how could these Protestant faiths trust the sacred scripture assembled by the very church they broke away from? Finally, Christ tells us in scripture he desires unity for His church…Paul confirms this desire in his letters…how do Protestants envision such a reunification taking place?

I think you misunderstand me. The church I was referring to was the church whose catechism I was quoting, namely, the Episcopal (Anglican) Church. They claim to continue in the Apostolic teaching. I was merely calling into question whether or not they (the Anglican Church) have continued in ALL the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[santaro75]

Kristina P.:

One of the major objections to Protestantism is that it divides the Church that Christ instituted, which survives in the modern day only in the Roman Catholic Church. While I don’t fully agree with this idea, I’m familiar with its justifications and can admit the possibility that it’s valid.
For the sake of conversation, let’s say that I accept this premise that the Catholic Church is the Christ’s historical church. I believe the Nicene and Apostle’s creeds, that scripture is divinely inspired, that Christ is wholly God and wholly Man, all of the things that Catholics and Protestants have in common. I cannot, however, intellectually or spiritually accept certain other doctrines of the Catholic Church, nor can I accept the seemingly inordinate importance placed on those doctrines. What should be my action? Is it more wrong to enter the Catholic Church, knowing that you disagree with several of its most dearly held tenets, or to remain in a Protestant Church in violation of my interpretation of Christ’s prayer for unity? As far as I know, Catholic dogma still denies the possibility of salvation for those outside the Catholic church, so where does that leave me then?
Please understand that I ask these questions only out of a respect for Catholics and Catholicism and a desire to better understand, not in an attempt to further divide us.

I think that you can go to the Catholic church and have your personal relationship with Jesus. It is your home.

 

[Mystophilus]

I am glad that you have such faith in your viewpoint.

 

[santaro75]

Mystophilus:

I am glad that you have such faith in your viewpoint.

Well, there was a time of transition back to the church for me when I had reservations about praying to Mary. I asked a Deacon about it and he said that it was not a requirement and that it was also not a large part of his spirituality. It isn’t like we sit there and pray Hail Mary’s at Mass. It is more of a personal devotional and some groups do it together.

He basically said that it is one of the approved things in the Church that you can do if it really brings you closer to Jesus. If not then you don’t have to.

If you were to think of salvation as a turkey sandwhich, I think Jesus is the bread, without which there would be no sandwhich. The church is the turkey. Other things just make the sandwhich better. But you can fix it up the way you like it!

not a perfect analogy, but sums up the way i look at it which allows me to be Catholic and not necessarily agree with all that people do in the church.

 

[Mystophilus]

I love the analogy!

 

[reen12]

quote: Mystophilus

First of all, the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults requires a profession of faith in all that the Catholic Church teaches. This is what ultimately prevents me from becoming Catholic. Perhaps the doctrines with which I disagree actually are right, and I am wrong, but, unless I actually believe that, I cannot profess belief in them. Thus, I cannot honestly enter the Catholic Church in the sense of becoming an official part of it. On the other hand, I can go to Mass, and I can pray in a Catholic church.

I believe your position is one of integrity.

---

Of course, it occurred to me, one day, that individual people in
the pews may or may not accept infallibility. Some may not
even care. They’re there for Mass.

Could it be that those who give mental assent to infallibility,
who think that the RCC can never err, in matters of faith
and morals, are those who are most vocal in their support
of that position, and that those individuals could conceivably
make it appear that this is what Catholics in the pews hold?

An example: We hear, frequently, the complaint that
the sacrament of Penance is falling into disuse, among
the Catholic faithful.

The response that is frequently given, is that this is a
result of inadequate catechesis.

Or,
Could it be that, if you catechize a child to accept that
their sins can only be forgiven in the sacrament of
Penance, that child may well become an adult who
accepts that claim. Or that of infallibility?

And,
Change the stress in catechesis, or grapple with the
fact that the old Catholic school system of catechesis
can no longer affect these children [due to the demise
of the large system that existed thru the 1950’s] and the

Result:
The possibility that many in the pews nod pleasantly
at the thought of “infallibility” and that the sacrament
of penance is a requirement.

The more time goes by, the more members
in the pews who possibly don’t accept infallibility-
the whole *concept *isn’t even on their “radar”, as
something to even engage in debate over.

IMO, the Catholic school system of the past [1950’s
and earlier] made such things as “infallibility” and
the sacrament of Penance a “live” issue for kids.
But no more.

Best,
reen12