# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[utunumsint]

I know this is a big faux pas in a Socratic dialogue, but may I ask a question?

Much of our discussion in this thread regarding the interpretation of specific points of scripture really depends on certain presuppositions about the nature of Church. Is it hierarchical, is it authoritative, does it have a leader, etc…

Would it be accurate to say that in many ways, an interpretation of Matthew 16 and 18 depends upon these ecclesiastical pressupositions? For example, does protestant ecclesiology motivate one to reject Peter as the second rock in Matthew 16, or to try and remove any superior binding authority from Peter in the keys? The same question could be asked to Catholics as well, I suppose.

Maybe arriving at some consensus on what is “Church” may be helpful to resolve some of our issues with Matthew 16.

I’ll leave it up to you if you want to run with this thought Soc.

God bless,
Ut

Maybe as a start, we could ask if the church is made up of bishops, priests, deacons, and laity? Is there historical and biblical support for this? Does this structure constitute “Church”?

Or perhaps I should wait for you to pose the questions Soc? It just seems to me that if we have not defined the “Church” part of “on this rock I will build my Church”, that maybe we don’t have all the elements we need to properly define who the rock is.

 

[pneuma07]

dealing with P7’s points

• Petie’s essay was an exceptional one and/or
• we know the gold star is regularly given to one pupil after another, not many at the same time and /or
• Petie, and only Petie, even received a very particular nickname from the teacher
  related to his present and future behavior and role and/or
• Petie was charged by the teacher to take care of the other pupils, including those with A+, if the teacher were to leave…

I cannot argue with that. Peter was certainly the first of the Apostles to realize Jesus was the Son of God (or at least the first to admit the realization).

1. is settled.

Fascinating! I’ve read Josephus’ The Jewish War and found it helpful in understanding the historical context of the New Testament. Would you say that, according to Josephus, the Keys of the Kingdom are a metaphor for the power to bind (by way of administrating public affairs) and the power to loose (by way of readmitting those whom they pleased)?

1. in the quoted passage there is nothing about keys. we are told many were involved in "binding and loosing2. This has correspondence with Matthew 18.
   Shall we suppose every pharisee had the queen’s keys ?

If we can agree that the keys were perceived as an attribute of the prime minister/master of palace, then they are a gold star for one. ( see Isaiah 22:20_24) . The master of palace was one, and had successors in his office.
The difficulty you have expressed is opposite to the one many protestant brothers exhibit, by quoting Revelation 3.7 in order to show Jesus always keeps His keys.
The answer to this being IMHO that if you associate anybody to a power, you do not exclude yourself from that.

We can infer that receiving the keys in a jewish context was a metaphor for receiving the supreme office next the King. Which is a job for one.

I think i could learn a lot from St. Ambrose. If what he said was what Christ intended, then He was saying Peter was like Him. But, was not John like Jesus, too? There is a passage in the Bible where God says this:
“I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

(Joshua 1:5)

and these words are repeated several times (Deuteronomy 31:6-8; 1 Kings 8:57; Psalm 9:10; Psalm 37:25; Psalm 94:14). I would say that John certainly showed himself to be like Christ, for he did not forsake Christ at the hour of His death. But what about Peter? At the same moment that John was at Jesus’ side (risking arrest and the same suffering and death) Peter was hiding and weeping like a coward and a child. And, after seeing the scene in the film Saving Private Ryan, where a man hid like a coward as his friend struggled for his life in and died in the next room, I think I shall never look at Peter the same. And i’m certain that at the moment of Christ’s suffering and death, John, more than Peter, was more like Christ. John certainly lived his words:
In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.

(1 John 4:17)

1. John was a splendid pupil of the Teacher. And he received accordingly special rewards and acknowledgments, if he was the disciple  He loved.

And being the one entrust ed to Mary, and to whom she was entrusted as Mother.
Togehter with his brother James the Greater he was with Peter in the innermost circle among the Apostles …
The Lord nevertheless decided that the gold star was to be bestowed to Simon.
And we can multiply the examples, besides the paradigmatic one in Matthew 16, of unique association of Simon to the Lord . For him only did the Lord pay the tax to the Temple , together with His own. Just to mention one. ( the other 11 eleven were not all teen agers, BTW. Matthew for one, as a former tax collector could not be in his teens).

Finally, if you want to be sure about the relative positions Peter and John were given, you can just read the many instances where they are mentioned together. Who is always
mentioned first ?

But not even Peter would say that he himself is the only shepherd, for he writes:
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

(1 Peter 5:1-3)

If during the time when he wrote this elders of the church were shepherds, then how much more so would the other Apostles (who were so much more than merely elders) also be shepherds of Jesus’ sheep. Don’t you agree?

1. I fully agree Peter was not the only shepherd.
   The passage you quote is very suitable IMHO to enlighten our issue.

You may note that Petr in his pastoral letter is addressing a great number of local churches and their local shepherds. I guess we can say he’s shepherding them.

The relation shepherd/sheep is a relative one Soc. A bishop can adress his presbitery as his sheep. Any of these is a shepherd in his parish, in the local flock entrusted to him.
See the words “over those entrusted to you”. We understand each of them had his own local part of the universal flock entrusted.

Now, in these relations shepherd/sheep what was Peter’s place ?
The Lord’s task for him was " feed my sheep".
Which ones ? What part of them ? “My sheep” . No restriction, no specification whatsoever. Peter has to shepherd, govern, the whole of the flock, the universal church,
including local shepherds and excluding noone.
( Which we see him doing in 1 Peter 3. )

I hope this can help .

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

Don’t give up hope. Two out of four ain’t bad!



I’m sure you’ll be able to help me see the truth about (3) and (4) too. Keep up the good work!

Dear Soc,

 Giving up ??  I thought we had  only begun . :D

We have to understand that the stakes are nothing less than an insightful believer examining whether he should change his perspective on Christianity. You have to take
all the time you need.

Thanks for all your kind works.

Bless you.
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Oh sure. He was a theologian afterall. But he has a couple of things in his favour. He is a Greek speeker, and he is only a few generations away from the apostles and Christ. …

Ut:

If i were to say, “It seems to me the Catholic Church is dead wrong thinking that God is a loaf of bread!” would you say that i am 100% certain the Church is wrong, or would you say that my use of the words “seems to me” indicate that i’m allowing for the possibility that i could be mistaken?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, the verse clearly states that only Peter was given the job of feeding the lambs, in fact, he was told three times in succession to ‘do this job’. .

But if Peter is the only shepherd, then how do you explain these words penned by Peter himself?

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

(1 Peter 5:2-3)

Isn’t Peter speaking to others whom he says are also shepherds of God’s flock?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates4Jesus:

There are many places where Peter’s primacy is defined.
We’ve discussed Matthew 16 a lot.
Let’s discuss the two other scriptural Gospel accounts bringing out Peter’s primacy:
Start with Luke 22:

24 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

So you see, the Apostles were arguing about who was the Greatest and Jesus settles it by saying first that the greatest will be the one that serves, and then turns to Peter and tells him to strengthen his brothers.

Thank you, PC. Let’s take this one bite at a time, for i’m afraid i’ll become a glutton by biting off more than i can chew! When Jesus said the words,
I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me …

(verse 29)

was He speaking only to Peter, or was he speaking to the other Apostles as well? (Hint: Verse 30 gives a clue to the answer.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I know this is a big faux pas in a Socratic dialogue, but may I ask a question?

*Faux pas? *Not at all! Socrates was always willing to let others ask him questions, and was often grateful when they did. For he believed answering questions was the best way to receive the truth from God Himself.

Much of our discussion in this thread regarding the interpretation of specific points of scripture really depends on certain presuppositions about the nature of Church. Is it hierarchical, is it authoritative, does it have a leader, etc…

Agreed.

Would it be accurate to say that in many ways, an interpretation of Matthew 16 and 18 depends upon these ecclesiastical presuppositions? For example, does protestant ecclesialogy motivate one to reject Peter as the second rock in Matthew 16, or to try and remove any superior binding authority from Peter in the keys? The same question could be asked to Catholics as well, I suppose.

Perhaps you are correct. In my mind, if i can find irrefutable proof that Jesus created the papacy, that would be good enough evidence for me to accept the authority of the Catholic Church, at least in it’s infancy. After discovering that proof, the next step would be to determine whether the Pope today has the same infallibility as the Peter of ancient yesterday.

Maybe arriving at some consensus on what is “Church” may be helpful to resolve some of our issues with Matthew 16.

I’ll leave it up to you if you want to run with this thought Soc.

God bless,
Ut

Maybe as a start, we could ask if the church is made up of bishops, priests, deacons, and laity? Is there historical and biblical support for this? Does this structure constitute “Church”?

Or perhaps I should wait for you to pose the questions Soc? It just seems to me that if we have not defined the “Church” part of “on this rock I will build my Church”, that maybe we don’t have all the elements we need to properly define who the rock is.

In answer, i’d say that it seems that the church is a collection of every genuine follower of Christ. Some say a church is a building, like St. Peter’s Cathedral. But i like what Peter writes:
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.” 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. 9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

(1 Peter 2:4-10)

Every genuine follower of Christ is a stone in the universal (or Catholic) Church–whether he is a he or a she, one who is rich or living on the street, a Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Protestant. Each is a stone holding up the the Church as a whole, and the Apostles are pillars, and Christ as the cornerstone who keeps it all from crashing down. People, not bricks, are the Church. The mortar that holds the people together is the gospel of Jesus Christ in which they all believe, i think.

What do you think, Ut? Did i answer well, or shall we agree to tear down what i’ve said and try to build again? If i’ve answered well, do you have more to build on the foundation i’ve laid?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

dealing with P7’s points Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

I cannot argue with that. Peter was certainly the first of the Apostles to realize Jesus was the Son of God (or at least the first to admit the realization).

1. is settled.

Yes, P7, it is settled that Peter was the ***first ***to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit about the most important doctrine of the Catholic Church–namely, that Jesus was God in the flesh. What is not settled is whether Peter has a direct line of communication with God that the other Apostles do not have. Was Peter like Moses–being the only one to whom God would speak face to face? Or was Peter one of 12 Apostles who received such revelation?

I know you want to get right to the conclusion, but i want to think this thing through carefully. If i allow you to let me make a hasty decision to join the Catholic Church, it will be easy for someone to get me to make a hasty decision to leave Her once again. When i step foot in Her door, i want it to be for keeps, with no looking back. I want to be sure i’m making the right choice, because Wisdom’s sweet whisper tells me it’s the only choice i can make. Therefore, i want to fully consider one of your four points at a time, starting with (1).

The question that will settle it for me is not whether Peter is the first Apostle to whom God spoke, but whether Peter had revelation that the other Apostles did not have. When i read these words of Paul, he seems to me to be saying that Peter is by no means the only Apostle who received wisdom revealed by God:I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 1:11-12)

If what Paul says is true, then doesn’t this mean that Peter is not the only one blessed with receiving direct revelation from God? Does not Paul, and perhaps the other Apostles, have direct communication from the mouth of God, too?

 

[Thing]

But if Peter is the only shepherd, then how do you explain these words penned by Peter himself?

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

(1 Peter 5:2-3)

Isn’t Peter speaking to others whom he says are also shepherds of God’s flock?

I did not say he was the only shepherd I said he was the only one who was told to ‘Feed His lambs’. You for some reason are assuming the two to be exactly and in every respect the same thing.
Did Jesus not call Himself the good shepherd, so what is happening when other people are referred to as shepherds, are they other Jesus Christs, or do these other people share in something of what it means to be the shepherd but not in every respect are both the Apostle and Jesus Christ exactly the same through they both act in some way as shepherds.
To follow your own reasoning to the extreem as you do then I must assume that Peter is Jesus Christ and there are at least two Gods.
But no, the Apostles act as shepherds in their own way, and when Jesus deliberately singled out Peter and asked him three times in succession to Feed My Lambs, that also, is different again. And again if Jesus had singled out all the Apostles together and told them all three times to Feed His Lambs, then, you could make your point that He was speaking to all of them, and that He was asking them all to equally act as shepherds, though not exactly equal to His own role as the Good Shepherd.
Jesus was the leader of the twelve, but, He was also, as He said, their servant; for He said, that whoever would be leader among them would equally have to become the servant, as He was, of the rest. And it was again to Peter that Jesus was speaking to when He said that.
Peter alone was singled out on many occasions by Jesus; to receive the Keys, to have His church built on Him, to be associated by name with rock, to be told uniquely and singularly three times in succession to Feed His Sheep.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I did not say he was the only shepherd I said he was the only one who was told to ‘Feed His lambs’. You for some reason are assuming the two to be exactly and in every respect the same thing.

Yes, i am making that assumption. What good shepherd would not feed his lambs?



It’s the rational inference to make = peter
o = other Apostles
s = shepherd of God’s flock
f = one who feeds God’s lambs

If

p = s

and
o = s

and

p = f

then

p = o

and

o = f

Did Jesus not call Himself the good shepherd, so what is happening when other people are referred to as shepherds, are they other Jesus Christs, or do these other people share in something of what it means to be the shepherd but not in every respect are both the Apostle and Jesus Christ exactly the same through they both act in some way as shepherds.

That’s a different case. The other Apostles are not God. They have more in common with Peter than Christ.If
C = Christ
G = the God who is Shepherd of God’s flock
p = peter
o = other Apostles
s2 = human shepherds of God’s flock

and

C = G

and

p and o = s2

then

p and o are not = C

and

p and o are not = G

To follow your own reasoning to the extreem as you do then I must assume that Peter is Jesus Christ and there are at least two Gods.

Actually, before i even read the above sentence, i wrote thatp and o are not = G

But no, the Apostles act as shepherds in their own way, and when Jesus deliberately singled out Peter and asked him three times in succession to Feed My Lambs, that also, is different again.

Well, if i was hired as a shepherd’s apprentice, i’d expect to have as part of my job description the following.

1. 
   *]Protecting the sheep from wolves and poachers
   *]Giving medical care to the sheep
   *]Giving birth to lambs
   *]Keeping the sheep from harming one another
   *]Keeping the sheep from running away or getting lost
   *]Finding sheep who run away and get lost
   *]Bringing the sheep out to pasture so they can drink and be feed
   
   I would not expect (7) to be the job of only the head shepherd. I’d expect that the be the job of every shepherd. We’d all take part in bring the sheep out to pasture. If this job was left to only one man, the sheep would starve! An employer who found any shepherd (foreman or not) who refused to do (7) would have good grounds for dismissal. If the shepherd said in his defense, “I didn’t feed the sheep, because i thought that was the head shepherd’s job,” the employer might even think the shepherd had cracked under the pressure of the job. He might even wonder why he ever hired someone so out of touch with reality; don’t you think?
   

   And again if Jesus had singled out all the Apostles together and told them all three times to Feed His Lambs, then, you could make your point that He was speaking to all of them, and that He was asking them all to equally act as shepherds, though not exactly equal to His own role as the Good Shepherd.

   The burden of proof is on you to explain why a sheep owner in his right mind would insist that only the head shepherd would be allowed to do (7). Isn’t (7) the job of every shepherd–from the least to the greatest?
   

   Jesus was the leader of the twelve, but, He was also, as He said, their servant; for He said, that whoever would be leader among them would equally have to become the servant, as He was, of the rest. And it was again to Peter that Jesus was speaking to when He said that.
   Peter alone was singled out on many occasions by Jesus; to receive the Keys, to have His church built on Him, to be associated by name with rock, to be told uniquely and singularly three times in succession to Feed His Sheep.

   Right now we are talking about Peter’s job description as shepherd (we can discuss the Keys and Rock metaphors later, if you like). The question we are trying to resolve is whether Peter was made Head Shepherd, or whether Jesus reserved that job for Himself. Is Peter just another shepherd like the other Apostles, or is he Shepherd of the Apostles, like Jesus, with the other Apostles under his command. What i need, in order to come to the conclusion that Peter is Head Shepherd (and not just one of the Apostolic team) is some indication that he was given a managerial position by God. Let’s look at what Jesus says: 15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
   “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
   Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
   He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
   Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
   17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
   Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
   Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
   
   (John 21)
   Notice that each time Jesus says, “Feed my sheep” (which is the common job of any shepherd). He never says, “Make sure the other Apostles feed my sheep.” If he had, then there would be no doubt that Peter was Head Shepherd. But Jesus does not say this, leaving good reason to doubt.
   
   However, perhaps i’ve missed something in Sacred Scripture, Thing. Can you give me just one example where Christ, or one of the Apostles, or even Peter himself describes him as being in charge of the other Apostles, who are also shepherds?
   
   

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Thing:

Actually, i was wrong. Jesus gave three commands to Peter:

• “Feed my lambs.” (v. 15)
• “Feed my sheep.” (v. 17)
• “Take care of my sheep.” (v. 16)

I think the last one (verse 16 of John 21) covers all seven duties of any shepherd, not just the duty of the head shepherd; don’t you?

---

But even if we cannot find any evidence of Peter being called Shepherd of the Apostles, there might still be evidence elsewhere. If you like, we can look at (a) the binding and loosing metaphor, or (b) the Keys metaphor, or (c) the Rock metaphor. My thought is that we’ve spent enough time considering (c), and considering (a) and (b) might be more productive. So let me know if you want to continue to count sheep, or discuss a different figure of speech.

 

[Thing]

Thing:

Actually, i was wrong. Jesus gave three commands to Peter:

• “Feed my lambs.” (v. 15)
• “Feed my sheep.” (v. 17)
• “Take care of my sheep.” (v. 16)

I think the last one (verse 16 of John 21) covers all seven duties of any shepherd, not just the duty of the head shepherd; don’t you?

---

But even if we cannot find any evidence of Peter being called Shepherd of the Apostles, there might still be evidence elsewhere. If you like, we can look at (a) the binding and loosing metaphor, or (b) the Keys metaphor, or (c) the Rock metaphor. My thought is that we’ve spent enough time considering (c), and considering (a) and (b) might be more productive. So let me know if you want to continue to count sheep, or discuss a different figure of speech.

Whatever you want, Soc.

When you come up with a good reason why Jesus called Peter apart and said to him alone, three times;

Feed My lambs
Tend My sheep
Feed My sheep

I will listen with interest to that idea.

Language is made up of words, and I can take all the words together in a pile, separate each word and analyze it and define it, and thats fine.
But,
I think I must also analyse the scene as I might see it with my own eyes;

There are the Apostles, there is Jesus moving Peter apart from the others by word or by action, and addressing Peter personally and alone; Peter, do you love Me; Feed My lambs; Tend My sheep; Feed My sheep.

I need to know the reason why God produced that scene as He did and find a reason for it and not just simply restrain myself to analyzing individual words as if they were disconnected from how they were delivered.

And remember above all that true ambiguity will mean that you must also see the Catholic side just as equally as the protestant or agnostic side - and to be truely equitable you must argue in favour of the Catholic side just as strongly as you argue for the non-Catholic side.

 

[clmowry]

TWell, there’s much trembling on my part. And it’s not just because the water up to my nose is icy cold; it’s for fear i tremble. Protestants tell me yours is a map, all right–and it will lead me straight to hell! If you look at this quick diagram i put together, you will see my dilemma.

Let’s say i have no idea whether what the Catholic Church teaches is true, but i decide to trust Her just the same. The best for which i could hope as the outcome is to win by making it to heaven. The worst is to lose, by ending up in hell. But if i continue to trust the Protestant gospel, the worst for which i could hope is to break even, by ending up in Purgatory. But the best would be to win heaven. It seems, then, that if i remain in ignorance, the most logical choice is to not trust the Catholic Church, for in doing so i risk losing all for all eternity. If i cannot figure this thing out and get the wisdom i need to lose my ignorance, i’ll have to play the odds and make the less risky gamble. And since the stakes are high (my eternal destiny is at stake!) i must make the safer bet.

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/choose_catholic_or_protestant_75.jpg

Hi Soc, long time no type. I hope you are doing well.

I think your risk analysis may need a litte work.

Perhpas this would warrant it’s own thread, but…

How do you come to the conclusion that by trusting in the “protestant gospel” (whatever version that might be), even if it is false, you can’t go to hell?

Chuck

 

[Thing]

I must work now, Goodbye

 

[clmowry]

Voci:

Sorry for the delay, but i suppose it could not be helped as the forums server was down over the weekend. Yes, what you say is true about many Protestant denominations, which have more in common with Catholicism than Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians. But i’m comparing what i know (Evangelical Christianity) to what i hope to know (Catholicism). So allow me to paint a different diagram:

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/catholic_or_evangelical2_75.png

The Evangelical gospel is one where a person is rescued from hell based on who he trusts, not on what good things he does. The requirements for such salvation are repentance and faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. A person who trusts in what he does (even in what God does through him) is trusting in a different gospel that will not save him from hell. Trusting in God to do good works through one is a good thing to do, but trusting in those good works to rescue one from hell will, they say, have the opposite effect. The Catholic gospel appears to be one that requires a repentance and a kind of faith infused with good works (works done not in one’s own power, but by the power and grade of God). These good works merit salvation, but one cannot be said to earn the reward of purgatory or heaven, for the good works are caused by God, not by himself.

My dilemma, then, is this: If i cannot determine which gospel is the real deal, i must choose one. The logical choice is to choose the gospel that is likely to do the most *good *or the least harm. Which, then, promises the most good? The Evangelical gospel. For this good news is that salvation is an absolutely free gift to anyone who repents and believes. If i believe the Evangelical gospel, and it turns out to be the truth, i win heaven (4). By comparison, if i believe the the Catholic gospel, the best for which i can hope (barring some miracle of God that makes me a martyr and a saint) is only Purgatory, which is better than hell, but much worse than heaven (1).

But which promises the least harm? It’s not the Catholic gospel, for if i trust in the Evangelical gospel, and the Catholic gospel is the truth, the worst that can happen to me is Purgatory (3). Compare this to trusting the Catholic gospel when it turns out to not be true–in this case i get hell, (2) which is far worse than Purgatory.

So it’s a lose-break even situation if i trust the Catholic gospel–i lose with hell if i make the wrong choice (2), and i break even with Purgatory if make the right choice (1). But it’s a break even-win situation if i choose the Evangelical gospel–i break even with Purgatory if i’m wrong (3), but i win with heaven if i’m right (4)!

Therefore, if i cannot determine which is the truth, isn’t the smart thing to do to go back to being an Evangelical? I’m not much of a gambler, especially with my eternal destiny! If i remain ignorant, i should play the odds, i think. I mean, why risk hell when i might win heaven, or at worst break even with Purgatory?

???

Purgatory, alone, isnt’ an option, in Catholic Theology (or anyone else’s as far as I know).

Purgatory is just a stop at the Dry Cleaners on your way to the Pearly Gates.

I still don’t see your basis for assuming Hell not being a possibility if you ebrace a false “Protestant Gospel”.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

But no matter which truth is true, my dilemma remains: I must know how to resolve the ambiguous passages of Sacred Scripture that are keeping me from becoming a Catholic.

Why don’t you need to resolve the ambiguous passages of Sacred Scripture in order to stay protestant?

Chuck

 

[utunumsint]

In my mind, if i can find irrefutable proof that Jesus created the papacy, that would be good enough evidence for me to accept the authority of the Catholic Church, at least in it’s infancy. After discovering that proof, the next step would be to determine whether the Pope today has the same infallibility as the Peter of ancient yesterday.

Maybe this little detour might help clarify this… Its worth a try.

In answer, i’d say that it seems that the church is a collection of every genuine follower of Christ. Some say a church is a building, like St. Peter’s Cathedral. But i like what Peter writes:
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.” 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,” 8and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. 9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

(1 Peter 2:4-10)

Every genuine follower of Christ is a stone in the universal (or Catholic) Church–whether he is a he or a she, one who is rich or living on the street, a Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Protestant.

I agree with this, and the concept of a universal priesthood. But maybe we should ask the question, what makes one a stone, or more specifically, what makes Peter, or Peter’s confession, a rock?

You say the following about what keeps the stones together, calling it mortar.

Each is a stone holding up the the Church as a whole, and the Apostles are pillars, and Christ as the cornerstone who keeps it all from crashing down. People, not bricks, are the Church. The mortar that holds the people together is the gospel of Jesus Christ in which they all believe, i think.

But are the Gospels really the mortar or they the source of our being rock? And if they are the source of our rockness, then how so?

Just to look at Matthew 16,

1-Jesus asks for a statement on what to people believe about him.
2-Then Jesus asks about what the Apostles think of him.
3-Peter then gives a doctrinal statement about Jesus being the messiah, the Son of God.
4-Jesus says Peter’s statment comes directly from the Father.
5-Then Jesus changes Peter’s name and says “On this rock, I will build my church.”

So going back to the previous thread you started on Faith, Hope, and Charity, the question I would like to ask, is this: Is the rock Peter’s doctrinal statement said in a spirit of faith? If yes, then is Christ’s church built on the foundation of correct doctrines revealed by God? Orthodox doctrines? Or perhaps, is Peter’s statement on Christ’s sonship, the only doctrinal statement which Jesus would use to build his Church? If it is not the only one, then are there others? And if yes, how can we know them all?

What do you think, Ut? Did i answer well, or shall we agree to tear down what i’ve said and try to build again? If i’ve answered well, do you have more to build on the foundation i’ve laid?

I don’t know if these questions will help our search, but maybe we can make use of some of them…

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

More interesting quotes from some Fathers if you’re interested.

Interesting quote from Ambrose in his exposition on Faith.

1. How, then, can He not have in His power that which He gives, saying: “To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven”?(5) See the gulf between [the one and the other]. The servant opens, the Lord bestows; the One through Himself, the other through Christ; the minister receives the keys, the Lord appoints powers: the one is the right of a giver, the other the duty of a steward.

An interesting one from Jerome

But you say,[1] the Church was rounded upon Peter: although[2] elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the eider: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them,[3] “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you,” and, “He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all,” would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eihth year after our Lord’s passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men.[5] Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle–the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet.

God bless,
Ut

 

[clmowry]

Soc,

Back to your original question(s):

I believe some of what Jesus said was deliberately ambiguous, because the writers of Sacred Scripture tell me that he explicitly said that was the case (i.e. The Parables.)

I also believe that Christ was very explicit in teaching the Apostles He would use to found His Church the underlying truth behind those same Parables (and the rest of the Gospel message) because that is what the Church who preserved his message tells me.

That said:

Isn’t the written (spoken) word always “made ambiguous” by the predisposition and intent of the reader (listener)?

Are you applying the same burden of proof for biblical interpretations that support Catholic theology as you are to those that you think refute Catholic theology?

Let us suppose for example that you (and Wilson) have been taught, and believe, that “Heaven is in the Sky.”

Your parents tell you heaven is in the sky, your friends agree heaven is in the sky, your church leaders tell you heaven is in the sky.

Then along comes some crazy Catholic who tells you that though we like to think of Heaven as “up above”, it is not a part of the physical universe at all but a state of being that lies beyond the physical universe.

Heaven is “Eternal life with God; communion of life and love with the Trinity and all the blessed. Heaven is the state of supreme and definitive happiness, the goal of the deepest longings of humanity”

You can find several hundred versus in the bible that “explicitly” refer to Heaven as being above the Earth and in the sky. People pointing towards heaven, smoke rising to heaven, people ascending up into heaven, fire coming down from heaven, the stars in the heavens……etc. etc. etc.

You can “prove” that the crazy Catholic is wrong.

I (frequently playing the role of crazy Catholic) can’t find a single “unambiguous” verse of the bible that explicitly says “Heaven is not part of the physical known universe”.

And you stand triumphant….

Yet, I doubt you would actually argue with the Catholic position on this subject, despite the hundreds of “ambiguous” bible verses to the contrary, because it is a position that has been adopted by you, your parents, your friends and your pastor, despite the fact that there are very many “ambiguous” bible verses that can easily be interpreted to say that “Heaven is in the sky.”

Chuck

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Whatever you want, Soc.

When you come up with a good reason why Jesus called Peter apart and said to him alone, three times;

Feed My lambs
Tend My sheep
Feed My sheep

I will listen with interest to that idea.

Language is made up of words, and I can take all the words together in a pile, separate each word and analyze it and define it, and thats fine.
But,
I think I must also analyse the scene as I might see it with my own eyes;

There are the Apostles, there is Jesus moving Peter apart from the others by word or by action, and addressing Peter personally and alone; Peter, do you love Me; Feed My lambs; Tend My sheep; Feed My sheep.

I need to know the reason why God produced that scene as He did and find a reason for it and not just simply restrain myself to analyzing individual words as if they were disconnected from how they were delivered.

And remember above all that true ambiguity will mean that you must also see the Catholic side just as equally as the protestant or agnostic side - and to be truely equitable you must argue in favour of the Catholic side just as strongly as you argue for the non-Catholic side.

Have you ever watched the movie Saving Private Ryan?