# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates4Jesus:
I’ve been thinking about your two Gospel theory, the Catholic and the Evangelical. I do want to point out that there is much more in common between the two than what separates them. Often what separates the two is simply semantics:

For instance, does it really matter whether works are the results of faith, completion of faith or demonstration of faith?

The biggest single issue between Catholics and Evangelicals is that by separating from the Apostolic succession, Evangelicals deprive themselves of the life giving Sacraments. Of course, they have also convinced themselves that the sacraments aren’t necessary - only Faith in Jesus - but that doesn’t make it the truth.

Actually, it’s not my gospel theory. It’s the Evangelical one. I’m familiar with it because i used to trust it. Now i’m unsure.

To say the Catholic gospel and the Evangelical gospel are the same is, i believe, inaccurate. But perhaps i’m wrong? Will you explain why you believe they are one and the same, or at least not significantly different?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

For nothing is impossible with God." Luke 1:37

Genesis 18:14 "Is anything too difficult for the LORD?

Nothing is too difficult for You Jer 32:17

but with God all things are possible Matthew 19.26

But: Titus 1:2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

is with your quotation of Heb 6.18.

Then ? Some non christians would tell us we have deep contradictions here.

I do not think so. Fisrt we could say the “nothing” is not an absolute one, but one which is qualified, eg by Heb 6.18 and titus 1:2.

But, more specifically so, because IMHO, the thrust of all the quotations together is one:
God keeps His promises.
In scripture there are seeming contradictions.

True. The passages you cite give the true meaning of the idea of what is possible for God. The reality is not that nothing is impossible for Him, but that no *good *thing is impossible for Him. The lie of Satan, which goes back to the beginning of Genesis, is that to be able to do what God Himself cannot do is power and freedom. It’s actually weakness (in that it is a lack of self-control) and slavery (to sin).

That said, I do accept, besides taking it, your point. It could in general be that three statements might appear harmonius, yet being two false and one true, or vice versa.

But what i repeat in our own case is that ECFs do not speak about harmony. They collectively state the three readings of petra. Each of the three is stated as sound. None of them is object of exclusion, attack.

If these men were wise, then the modern exclusion of Petros=petra, with all those broadsides against it, does not appear wise.

IMHO what helps us more is the thrust of the ECFs , rather than single passages. But if you ask for a single quotation providing food for thought, we could maybe try with;

Sermon 26 ( or 76, in other lists) by St Augustine

" For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven.” Then He added, “and I say unto you.” As if He had said, “Because you have said unto Me, ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto you, ‘You are Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church.

"For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers ( this central part is the one often quoted by non catholic brothers).
…

1. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced “blessed,” bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was “blessed,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was “Peter,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be “built upon the Rock,” displeased the Lord…
2. …Yet see this Peter, who was then our figure; now he trusts, and now he totters; now he confesses the Undying, and now he fears lest He should die. Wherefore? because the Church of Christ has both strong and weak ones; and cannot be without either strong or weak; whence the Apostle Paul says, “Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.” In that Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he represents the strong: but in that he totters, and would not that Christ should suffer, in fearing death for Him, and not acknowledging the Life, he represents the weak ones of the Church. In that one Apostle then, that is, Peter, in the order of Apostles first and chiefest, in whom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be represented, that is, both the strong and weak; because the Church does not exist without them both."

We have here IMHO that

• in teaching that Christ is to be considered the Petra and Petros is so called from Christ, and built on Christ ( which is beautiful BTW, IMHO)
• in teaching that Peter is the type of the One Church (same as above, IMHO) …
  Augustine teaches us petrine primacy.
  Repeatedly and clearly.
  And teaches that it is a primacy in love. And that it is a very real primacy, not just a matter of place of honor. “Chief place” of New Advent translates “principatus”. This is a strong word for a primacy. It can look like “rule”, “supremacy”.

Many people, quoting out of context the central passage, suppose and let suppose that this sermon by Augustine …disproves petrine primacy !

We could also see a famous passage stating petra=Peter’s confession.

Thank you for those. I’ll consider them carefully when i have more time.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

IMHO He was giving the keys specifically to Peter.

And i respect your opinion, P7. So i want to carefully consider whether it is true. Why do you hold this opinion? Is it for reason that verse 17 indicates Jesus was clearly speaking only to Peter, and not the other Apostles who were present?

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:17-19)

 

[Pax]

… why do you beleive that the LORD and the Lord only function threw Peter and the Pope?

I do not believe this nor does the Church teach such a thing. This has already been addressed.

God bless.

 

[paul_c]

Maybe you could explain to me where we see someone besides the LORD leading and in charge of the new covenant. The verses previous to the one below from Ezk is speaking about how Israel has gone astray. The LORD will preform this work to preserve His name. We then see Him having command of the situation. In both examples just how do you find room for Peter leading the church? God, threw Jesus making this possible, putting His Spirit in men and causing them to walk in His ways. To your interpretation that Jesus just turned the whole thing over to Peter and the pope. To finalize my question why did God say such a thing about the new covenant then not do it, but instead give the whole new way of ministering to men threw the Spirit right back into men hands again? In both verses He says that “I will” not Peter will or my appointed man will shepherd you. That is exactly what the church is to catholics god manifest on earth and that is what the church teaches. If you say you what to lead people to Christ, thats fine, but the CC goes way beyond leading to Christ, it replaces Christ and the HS. Jesus instructed us to reason together reasoning with the CC is impossible, many dont buy into it simply because it is impossible to justify with the NT. The church knows this and is just fine with that fact. Like its statement about Marys Immaculate Conception and Assumption.
The Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.
Confronted with statements like that you make my choice easy, I’ll stick with scripture. All of your carefully worded presentations from the scripture supporting your doctrine means nothing, the bottom line to a catholic is its just a tool used to sell the pope, from their on out scripture is useless you believe what Rome says.

Silencethelambs:
There is considerable evidence in the New Testament of men taking leadership roles after Jesus ascended into heaven. Peter clearly took the lead in the days after Jesus ascended. He picked a replacement for Judas, talked to the crowd at pentacost, told the 3000 converts what they needed to do, healed the paralyzed man and then witnessed forcefully to the crowds and to the Sanhedrin. He set doctrine at the Council of Jerusalem, declared Paul’s writings scripture, excommunicated Simon Magnus, raised Tabitha from the dead. Paul too demonstrated authority in the church, instructing Titus and Timothy how to act as Bishops and how to pick replacements.

Please note, however, that these men don’t replace Jesus, they are doing what they were commissioned to do in Matthew 28:
16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.
17 When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

 

[paul_c]

Actually, it’s not my gospel theory. It’s the Evangelical one. I’m familiar with it because i used to trust it. Now i’m unsure.

To say the Catholic gospel and the Evangelical gospel are the same is, i believe, inaccurate. But perhaps i’m wrong? Will you explain why you believe they are one and the same, or at least not significantly different?

I didn’t say that the Gospels are the same. There are differences, but I think that in many ways they are overplayed. All Christians, afterall, believe in salvation through Jesus Christ and follow his teachings. There is much to be said for that. Unfortunately, there is some misunderstanding about some of the teaching, but in general, I think all Christians grasp that they should love their neighbor as themselves and love God with all their heart, all their mind and all their strength. The disagreements, comparatively, are minor, and really derive from the question of authority and what consistitutes acts of love.

Remember, the Anglicans broke with the Catholics because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, which clearly was against chruch teachings. He subsequently declared that the King should be the ultimate authority, not the Pope, and then several other things had to follow. He had to accept Sola Scriptura, because he separated himself and his subjects from Rome and lost that teaching authority. He of course had to accept divorce. and on and on… But still, the Anglicans understanding of salvation very closely resembles that of the Catholic Faith from which they started.

Luther’s started his schism by arguing against indulgences, Instead of arguing, however, against the misuse of indulgences, (which was a real problem), he went after the authority of the Church, making himself an alternative authority. He was supported by the German aristocracy for many political and nationalistic reasons. Luther was in total warfare against the Catholic hierarchy, which excommunicated him. He denied their authority to ordain, declaring a preisthood of the people. Without a preisthood, the sacraments had to become symbolic rather than real. He denied their authority to teach, declaring sola scriptura. He was aware of his personal sinfulness, and declared a new doctrine where all that was needed was faith and where it was possible to “Sin Boldly”, having full trust in the merciful God. Yet, there has been recent agreement between the Lutherans and the Pope that the statement, Salvation by Faith alone, was acceptable if you understood that Faith must be demonstrated by works to be real. So in the end, the differences aren’t as great as originally presumed.

You see, every religious body can trace its origin and its teachings back to a founder. The Anglicans to HenvryVIII, the Lutheran’s to Luther, the Mormon’s to Joseph Smith, etc. The Catholic churches foundation is Jesus’s and then his Apostles. The teachings of the Catholic Church are entirely Apostolic in origin. These teachings are preserved not only by the Pope and the Bishops, but in the collective memory of all the Faithful. They are documented as well in writings: council minutes, papal bulls, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the work of Catholic theologians over the last 2000 years, and of course, as its basis, the Catholic Bible so any change in doctrine would be very apparent. When you separate yourself from Rome, you are therefore doing much more than separating from the Pope and the Magesterium, you are separating yourself from a 2000 year old tradition, born in the hearts of billiions of Faithful and passed down from generation to generation. And yes, some people lost the thread of truth, but the cumulative church maintains it under the watchful eye of the Holy Spirit, and keeps in on course. The Popes job is to facilitate that and to make sure that the truth is maintained, using Church councils, the teachings of his predecessors and the wisdom of his brother Cardinals and Bishops to ensure that nothing is lost or changed. Jesus said in Mathhew 28 to the 11 Apostles.
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

The church has been fulfilling that commission ever since.

 

[utunumsint]

Ut:

What did the early Church Fathers say about Jesus’ words in Matthew 16? Do you have any extremely early quotes (perhaps from the second century AD) that you and i might consider together?

There is this one from Tertullian’s work on the Heretics. He is arguing against the Gnostics who believed that they had some kind of hidden occult knowledge.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers),(3) keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things(4) which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,”(5) which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,”(6) who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”(7) with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?"

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

There is also evidence that the bishops, and especially the bishop of Rome held authority based on the keys.

In Tertullian’s work on Modesty, during his heretical phased, when the bishop of Rome declared that fornicators and adulterers could be forgiven, Tertullian has this to say:

I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus[7]–that is, the bishop of bishops[8]–issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!”

Tertullian could not allow for the possibility that such sins like adultery and fornication could be forgiven by the church.

Here is some more context to see why Tertullian disagreed with the bishops.

CHAP. XXI.–OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCIPLINE AND POWER, AND OF THE POWER OF THE KEYS.

If the apostles understood these (figurative meanings of the Law) better, of course they were more careful (with regard to them than even apostolic men). But I will descend even to this point of contest now, making a separation between the doctrine of apostles and their power. Discipline governs a man, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that power is the Spirit, but the Spirit is God. What, moreover, used (the Spirit) to teach? That there must be no communicating with the works of darkness.(9) Observe what He bids. Who, moreover, was able to forgive sins? This is His alone prerogative: for “who remitteth sins but God alone?”(10) and, of course, (who but He can remit) mortal sins, such as have been committed against Himself,(11) and against His temple? For, as far as you are concerned, such as are chargeable with offence against you personally, you are commanded, in the person of Peter, to forgive even seventy times sevenfold.(12) And so, if it were agreed that even the blessed apostles had granted any such indulgence (to any crime) the pardon of which (comes) from God, not from man,

This is a further refinement on the concept of what sins are mortal and what sins are venial. A very early church teaching. For Tertullian, Mortal sins cannot be remmitted by the church. Only venial. Mortal sins are those sins that are committed against God.

it would be competent (for them) to have done so, not in the exercise of discipline, but of power. For they both raised the dead,(13) which God alone (can do), and restored the debilitated to their integrity,(14) which none but Christ (can do); nay, they infflicted plagues too, which Christ would not do. For it did not beseem Him to be severe who had come to suffer. Smitten were both Ananias(1) and Elymas(2)–Ananias with death, Elymas with blindness–in order that by this very fact it might be proved that Christ had had the power of doing even such (miracles). So, too, had the prophets (of old) granted to the repentant the pardon of murder, and therewith of adultery, inasmuch as they gave, at the same time, manifest proofs of seventy.(3) Exhibit therefore even now to me,(4) apostolic sir, prophetic evidences, that I may recognise your divine virtue, and vindicate to yourself the power of remitting such sins!If, however, you have had the functions of discipline alone allotted you, and (the duty) of presiding not imperially, but ministerially;(5) who or how great are you, that you should grant indulgence, who, by exhibiting neither the prophetic nor the apostolic character, lack that virtue whose property it is to indulge?

Here we have the reason for Tertullians rejection of the church’s authority. He believe that only with manifest examples of power from the holy spirit can such sins be remitted. It requires spiritual manifestation of power.

Here is the Church’s (e.g. the bishop’s rebuttle)

“But,” you say, “the Church has the power of forgiving sins.”

I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to “the Church.”

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,”(7) “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” (8) or, “Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,”(9) you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “On thee,”

From this it is clear that the bishops and the bishop of Rome in particular, believed that they had authority over the church from the passage of Matthew 16.

He says, “will I build My Church; “and,” I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shall have based or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth.(10) (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are “loosed” the sins that were beforetime “bound;” and those which have not been “loosed” are “bound,”

In summary, we have evidence that Tertullian believed that Peter was the rock. We also have evidence that he rejected apostolic succession, or at least the Catholic understanding of Apostolic succession. And we have evidence that the normal church of his day believed that the bishops and the bishop of Rome in particular inhereted the keys from Peter, and the power of binding and losing.

So along the same thought I had about trajectory, assuming the passage about Peter in Matthew 16 is point A, along the the pathway of church Father interpretations of this text, we have a few other points to deal with.

Point B would be Clements letter against the Corinthians for ejecting their bishops. The bishops, for Clement, were the legitimate successors of the apostles.

Point C would be Irenaeus’ praise of the church of Rome, in whom all other churchs need to conform to on a doctrinal basis.

Point D would be from Tertullian. This would be Tertullian. Here we have specific evidence concerning how the church interpreted Petra. We also have evidence that the early church considered itself to have authority derived from Matthew 16.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Here is another one from Origen, a person who was greek.

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail Matthew 16:18 left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.

God bless,
Ut

 

[fhansen]

Really? I’ve spent many hours discussing the Bible with both Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of the LDS Church and never came to that conclusion. Please tell me what a JW or Mormon told you that you found quite plausible.

I haven’t dialogued with Mormons but If you think that you’d arrive at the concept of the Trinity on your own or even that the divinity of Jesus can’t be argued plausibly either way, going by scripture alone, then I think you need to read more objectively.

Evangelicals tell me the buck stops with the authors of the Bible.

Yes, well then everyone must agree on its meaning. But somehow I’ve missed that.

If by “right only on matters of faith and morals” you mean practicing what one preaches, the Catholic Church has it’s hypocrisy, too.

Exactly. If you read Matt 23:1-3 you’ll find the principle that teachings (faith and morals) can be correct while the teachers themselves are hypocrites. IOW, this hypocrisy, itself, constitutes no reason for leaving the Church or doubting her doctrine.

I’ve never heard of a pedophile being removed from the office of priest for his unspeakable crime against children and God. In contrast, i’ve never heard of a pastor who had an extramarital affair keeping his position of pastor. In fact, i’ve personally known two extremely gifted pastors who were removed from their positions due to such sexual misconduct.

Yes, well, Jimmy Swaggart still has a church of some kind. And that’s the point. Any maverick, whether a pastor, a sede vacantist priest, or John Doe, who gets in trouble with his church or doesn’t agree with some doctrine or practice, can just go start another church-so we end up with more disunity and division.

I have no problem with confessing one’s sin to a spiritual leader. Much of any Protestant pastor’s time is devoted to private or marital or family counseling. And confessing sins should not be reserved only for the confessional or only behind the closed door of a pastor’s office. James was not writing only to pastors when he wrote, “confess your sins to each another”.
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

(James 5:16)

Counseling is one thing- Catholic pastors do this as well. Confession is viewed with wide diversity within Protestantism, if considered at all. In any case, this has to do with theological differences, the early church agreeing with the modern CC view; post-baptismal sins need to be dealt with throughout life because of the Catholic doctrine on justification.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, i’ve spent a great deal of time asking questions from you and others about this. It seems to me that Evangelicals make a distinction between salvation and sanctification. Salvation, to them, is being saved from the penalty of sin. It is an event in their lives when they first believe, or an event when they believe once more after falling from grace. Sanctification, the Evangelical believes, is being saved from the presence of sin. It’s not an event; it’s a process. Now, one might say this is just semantics–whether one believes salvation and sanctification are one or two does not matter. But here is where it does matter, and why it is not merely semantics: Evangelicals believe salvation is what gets them to heaven and sanctification has absolutely nothing to do with getting into heaven.

Yes, I understand, and this is a crucial difference because it involves salvation. Most protestants actually believe that justification and sanctification are separate whereas Catholics beleive they are intimately connected. In practice, I think many Protestants actually do things more in line with the Catholic teaching because its intuitive, for one thing. There’s nothing wrong with moral responsibility with reward or punishment as the outcome- even this world works that way -and, after all, God’s the boss and expects us to consciously follow an objective morality as He sets forth. The difference is that Catholics believe that God’s grace will help us to completely fulfill His commandments, epitomized by Love, rather than simply grant us the right to heaven through an escape clause which means we don’t really have to be righteous. In Catholicism we’re forgiven for our sins and then must go, and sin no more.

You might be surprised to learn that Evangelicals believe the same. Yet, they say perfection has nothing to do with what to do, it has only to do with how God sees them. Practically, they still sin. Positionally, God sees them as sinless, for the righteousness of Christ himself is imputed to them. This is one reason they believe that salvation as nothing to do with sanctification and everything to do with trusting Christ alone.

Yes, and I believe this is a grave error. God’s whole purpose from the beginning was not to give man some whimsical or arbitrary laws he could never live up to and then save him anyway, but rather to draw man to complete, willful obedience.

Agreed. And most Evangelicals agree, too. However, some Evangelicals are also Calvinists and do not agree. I don’t find much support for their view in Sacred Scripture.

And this is the point, “sola scripturalists” disagree.

 

[fhansen]

All good reasons to believe! I find nothing irrational or unreasonable in your belief. Yet, Evangelicals have good reasons to believe what is contrary to Catholicism, and i find nothing irrational or unreasonable in their beliefs. And Sacred Scripture is no help to me, for it is unclear. As you said, i need an authority i can trust. Can you tell me why that authority should be the Catholic Church?

I’ve tried to defend her position but an important step for me was in coming to see definitively that scripture alone-the written word- does not and cannot serve as authority.

 

[pneuma07]

And i respect your opinion, P7. So i want to carefully consider whether it is true. Why do you hold this opinion? Is it for reason that verse 17 indicates Jesus was clearly speaking only to Peter, and not the other Apostles who were present?

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:17-19)

Dear Soc,

i hold this opinion because:

• Our Lord was speaking to S. Peter. He is recorded as expressing His intention by saying: And I say to thee. . … I will give to thee.
  ( You know that the “ambiguity” between singular and plural in the second person is a peculiarity of modern English. In other languages, modern as well as ancient, the distinction is clear).
• In Isahia 22:19-23 an explanation of the meaning of the keys can be acknowledged.
  Christ, the eternal davidic King, makes Peter His prime minister. Prime ministers (or stewards) were given keys.
  Or rather He promises that. The fulfillment can be found in John 21 : feed my sheep.

The prime minister of a king is one.
Nobody else is given the keys in the Gospels.

Is that reasonable ?

Blessings.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I didn’t say that the Gospels are the same. There are differences, but I think that in many ways they are overplayed. All Christians, afterall, believe in salvation through Jesus Christ and follow his teachings. There is much to be said for that. Unfortunately, there is some misunderstanding about some of the teaching, but in general, I think all Christians grasp that they should love their neighbor as themselves and love God with all their heart, all their mind and all their strength. The disagreements, comparatively, are minor, and really derive from the question of authority and what consistitutes acts of love. …

PC:

I take it that you are saying that Paul’s words do not apply to Catholics or Evangelicals. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

(Galatians 1:8-9)
But if not to either group, then to whom do his words apply? It could not be Jewish people or Muslims, for they don’t teach a gospel of Jesus Christ. And if you are correct, it could be neither Mormons nor Jehovah’s Witnesses, for they agree that they should, as you said, “love their neighbor as themselves and love God with all their heart, all their mind and all their strength”. Who then are the ones who are eternally condemned for teaching a different gospel of Jesus? and on what grounds are they forever condemned by God?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… From this it is clear that the bishops and the bishop of Rome in particular, believed that they had authority over the church from the passage of Matthew 16.

In summary, we have evidence that Tertullian believed that Peter was the rock. We also have evidence that he rejected apostolic succession, or at least the Catholic understanding of Apostolic succession. And we have evidence that the normal church of his day believed that the bishops and the bishop of Rome in particular inhereted the keys from Peter, and the power of binding and losing.

So along the same thought I had about trajectory, assuming the passage about Peter in Matthew 16 is point A, along the the pathway of church Father interpretations of this text, we have a few other points to deal with.

Point B would be Clements letter against the Corinthians for ejecting their bishops. The bishops, for Clement, were the legitimate successors of the apostles.

Point C would be Irenaeus’ praise of the church of Rome, in whom all other churchs need to conform to on a doctrinal basis.

Point D would be from Tertullian. This would be Tertullian. Here we have specific evidence concerning how the church interpreted Petra. We also have evidence that the early church considered itself to have authority derived from Matthew 16.

God bless,
Ut

Thank you, Ut. If only i were with the early Church Fathers to ask them about what they believed! But since they are absent, i’d like to do the next best thing and ask you, for you appear to be familiar with their writings. Would you say that the Venerated Fathers who confronted Tertullian believed that Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven only to Peter? Or would you say they believed the Keys were given also to John and Matthew and the other Apostles, as well?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Here is another one from Origen, a person who was greek.

God bless,
Ut

Thanks again.

 

[silencethelamb]

Originally Posted by silencethelamb View Post
… why do you beleive that the LORD and the Lord only function threw Peter and the Pope?

I do not believe this nor does the Church teach such a thing. This has already been addressed.

God bless.

Then why do you quote your church fathers as thou they are the word of God.
Why can only the pope speak without error, and all catholics say amen?
Why is it only catholic clergy can properly interpret scripture?

To me, and the statements I have read signifies your belief and suports my statement, that you deny is true.
Let me ask you this can anyone else speak for or represent God outside the CC?
If your answer is yes then you dont believe as many other catholics do, and I stand corrected in your opinion of your church.
If you answer no then you are in denial about your own churches official statements and my statement is true.

It all nice and cozy in this tread and every attempt is made to show just how similar catholics are to evangelicals. You step outside this thread and start reading other post and you soon come face to face with the right wing catholics that believe my statement is true and will be glad to tell you so. You have just provided the evidence that I previously stated, that catholics are all over the board about what they believe also. That phrase catholics so commonly use that implies that protestants are not in agreement about every detail of scripture is true, and the same goes for catholic agreement about the CATECHISM.

"Ecumenical should not mean a silence about particular truths for fear of being out of step with other people. What is true must be spoken openly, without dissimulation. Perfect truth is an aspect of perfect love. Ecumenical should mean to support the inner wholeness of faith, and thus make the separated brother aware that everything truly Christian finds shelter in the Catholic."

• Pope Benedict XVI

So now, is your statement or mine out of step with Rome?

 

[paul_c]

PC:

I take it that you are saying that Paul’s words do not apply to Catholics or Evangelicals. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! I’m not saying that at All. Paul was a Catholic Saint and Apostle. He’s talking to anyone who changes the Gospel and that of course would include Evangelicals. What I am saying is to emphasize the consistency between Gospels and work out the inconsistencies.

(Galatians 1:8-9)
But if not to either group, then to whom do his words apply? It could not be Jewish people or Muslims, for they don’t teach a gospel of Jesus Christ. And if you are correct, it could be neither Mormons nor Jehovah’s Witnesses, for they agree that they should, as you said, “love their neighbor as themselves and love God with all their heart, all their mind and all their strength”. Who then are the ones who are eternally condemned for teaching a different gospel of Jesus? and on what grounds are they forever condemned by God?

I’m not saying that at All. Paul was a Catholic Saint and Apostle. He’s talking to anyone who changes the Gospel and that of course would include Evangelicals. What I am saying is to emphasize the consistency between Gospels and work out the inconsistencies. Many of the supposed differences are merely misunderstandings. The biggest differences are clearly recognizing the authority of the Church and the efficacy of the Sacraments.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m not saying that at All. Paul was a Catholic Saint and Apostle. He’s talking to anyone who changes the Gospel and that of course would include Evangelicals. What I am saying is to emphasize the consistency between Gospels and work out the inconsistencies. Many of the supposed differences are merely misunderstandings. The biggest differences are clearly recognizing the authority of the Church and the efficacy of the Sacraments.

Yes, i see what you are saying, now, but let me be sure: If you had to define the gospel, would you say that the gospel is that (1) one should recognize and submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, and (2) one should trust in the efficacy of the Sacraments to save one from hell?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

i hold this opinion because:

• Our Lord was speaking to S. Peter. He is recorded as expressing His intention by saying: And I say to thee. . … I will give to thee.
  ( You know that the “ambiguity” between singular and plural in the second person is a peculiarity of modern English. In other languages, modern as well as ancient, the distinction is clear).
• In Isahia 22:19-23 an explanation of the meaning of the keys can be acknowledged.
  Christ, the eternal davidic King, makes Peter His prime minister. Prime ministers (or stewards) were given keys.
  Or rather He promises that. The fulfillment can be found in John 21 : feed my sheep.

The prime minister of a king is one.
Nobody else is given the keys in the Gospels.

Is that reasonable ?

Blessings.

P7:

Yes, what you say sounds reasonable. Jesus was clearly speaking only to Peter.



Would you say, then, that only Peter had the power to bind and loose? For Jesus was clearly speaking only to him in Matthew, chapter 16.