1
- Status
S
SIA
Guest
Oh no! Please don’t tell me that you are teaching your students that Catholicism is the Early Church and other wild claims like that.
P
phil8888
Guest
I can’t teach them a falsehood. The universal or Catholic Church is the one and only true church founded by Jesus Christ. We affirm that other Christian communities have truth in them, but that the fullness of the truth resides with the Catholic Church.Oh no! Please don’t tell me that you are teaching your students that Catholicism is the Early Church and other wild claims like that.
N
NDfan
Guest
Petros and Petra have 2 different meanings. If Christ wished to convey the church was built on Peter then he would have said “on thee petros”. Instead he said on this petra meaning the identity Peter just gave of Christ. The same word that is used in Hebrew to refer to GOD as rock is the equivalent of Petra which Christ used to build HIS church on. How in the world could the Christian church be built on a human being??? Talk about theatrics.
P
phil8888
Guest
Peter is the authority. and the petros petra thing is passé. that is just the correct verb conjugation. it’s so obvious. he changed Simon’s name to peter, then he said upon Peter I will build my church. It’s like you’re saying he changed simon’s name to peter for no apparent reason, then said he’s building his church on somethign else also called rock. lol. obviously he changed simon’s name to peter then built his church on peter and the authority of peter. doesn’t make sense otherwise.
N
NDfan
Guest
That’s because you obviously don’t understand the Greek. It has nothing to do with conjugation. If Christ wanted to properly conjugate the verb “build” to show Peter was the actual person the church was built on, HE would have said on thee Petros securing Peter. But this not the case.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I hate to flag you here, but Petra, which is big rock in Greek, is a feminine noun. Petros is little rock, but it is masculine. Jesus would not call Peter “Nancy.” Besides, he called him kepha, the aramaic. That is why Paul called him Kephas.
Now, for everyone, whose names or name was on the new Jerusalem’s foundation?
N
NDfan
Guest
Hey Ralph. I’m familiar with this but here’s the clarification that needs to be made. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the foundation then HE would have specified that on “Petros” HE was building HIS church. Instead Christ uses the demonstrative pronoun taute which refers to the object closest to the speaker instead of the object previously referenced. In this case Christ Himself.
If you read Fr. James Silver’s interpretation from Drew University which employs special care to the underlying Hebrew we read the following interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. Incidentally Silver is an excellent linguist.
So I tell you, then, that you are a stone, but I will build My Church on this rock, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Still, I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but whatever you might bind on earth must have been bound in Heaven, and whatever you might release on earth must have been released in Heaven.
One interesting side note is to quote from an ECF which seems to be the norm on these threads
Read what Ignatius writes in his Epistle to the Philadelphians:
From Chapter 9: The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her.
It’s pretty clear that Ignatius saw Christ as the Rock.
PEACE Brother. Hope all is well. Love chatting with you.
L
LilyM
Guest
Christ WAS the speaker, He wasn’t the object closest to the speaker unless there were two of Him and His clone was standing right next to Himself.Hey Ralph. I’m familiar with this but here’s the clarification that needs to be made. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the foundation then HE would have specified that on “Petros” HE was building HIS church. Instead Christ uses the demonstrative pronoun taute which refers to the object closest to the speaker instead of the object previously referenced. In this case Christ Himself.
If you read Fr. James Silver’s interpretation from Drew University which employs special care to the underlying Hebrew we read the following interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. Incidentally Silver is an excellent linguist.
So I tell you, then, that you are a stone, but I will build My Church on this rock, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Still, I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but whatever you might bind on earth must have been bound in Heaven, and whatever you might release on earth must have been released in Heaven.
One interesting side note is to quote from an ECF which seems to be the norm on these threads
Read what Ignatius writes in his Epistle to the Philadelphians:
From Chapter 9: The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her.
It’s pretty clear that Ignatius saw Christ as the Rock.
PEACE Brother. Hope all is well. Love chatting with you.
Why wouldn’t He have simply said ‘I will build my church upon myself’ if that was what He meant (as He did at other points in scripture) and save everyone the resulting confusion?
And why oh why did He change SIMON’S name at that exact point, unless to clarify that the statement was about Simon? Of course a church can be built on a person - we are ALL, each and every one of us, living stones upon which the church is built, as scripture says, no?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Your Greek argument against Peter does not hold water, for one Jesus spoke Aramaic and renamed Simon “Cephas” which has no other meaning than “Rock”. The Greek translators used the masquiline noun “Petros” for translating purposes because every Christian up to the Greek translation understood Peter to be the leader of the apostles, named personally by Jesus, check the book of Acts, Paul records calling Peter, Cephas the Aramaic name for Rock.
As far as the first 300 years of Catholic Christian persecution, the Pope “Peter” was always sought after to end the spread of Christianity.
Before going into word gymnastics, try reading apostolic history, you only find the Catholic church existing.
Its been 2000 years since the resurrection; Peter the Rock Jesus built his church, and gave his authority to Peter to excercise on earth until he returns finding Peter the Pope doing so.
P
phil8888
Guest
Thanks Gabriel and Lily for coming in with that great information.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Peace be with you.
I get my authority from the Body of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic church on earth and Jesus is the head in heaven. No man can seperate what God has joined together.Stephen168
New member
R
ralphinal
Guest
I will ask again: in Revelation, whose name was on the foundation of the new jerusalem?
N
NonCatholic
Guest
No to be rude or anything…that’s not my intention. There is the RC Apostolic Authority and the RCC version of the church Christ started…not to be confused with with the Apostles teaching concerning Christ in the Bible and the church that Christ said “I will build my church”…somewhere He left out the RC, but ahhh who cares what Scripture teaches and who is able to understand the things of God?
R
ralphinal
Guest
WOW.
How long between Jesus leaving the earth and the writing of the first book of the New Testament?
C
Chancellare
Guest
Let’s be more direct here:
Which of the two are you trying to point out:
- “church” …means it’s going to be anything but RC?
- “church” … means it’s going to be non-Catholic?
N
NonCatholic
Guest
That is scary. Several problems with that Matt 16 interpretation, but that argument has been around the Forum a few times. However, explain why Paul went to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews…why wasn’t the first Pope Paul? Explain why when Paul was imprisoned in Rome and wrote the Prison epistles…he never once mentioned Peter; yet those whom he was with and those whom he greeted were always mentioned…yet no Peter. Explain why Paul stated he would not go where another had planted a foundation, yet his desire was Rome? Interesting that the “greatest letter” ever written is Romans (my opinion). Also, Peter addresses himself as “fellow elders” (not priest) or “Apostle of Jesus Christ” or a “bond-servant” so Peter never exalted himself. I’m sure Peter would be appalled by the rich pageantry of the RCC…among a “Host” of other things…
R
ralphinal
Guest
Because Jesus gave Peter the keys, not Paul.
Peter was still free. If you read Peter’s letters, he speaks of being in Babylon, which is understood to be Rome. Peter did not have the protection of being a Roman citizen like Paul did. Being a Christian, and the leader of the movement, was a death sentence. Had Paul mentioned him by name, it would have brought Rome down on Peter. It is the same as the leaders of an underground resistance movement. Basic history.
Rome was a stop off point for Paul. He wanted to go on to Spain. The letter to the Romans was written PRIOR to his trip to Rome toa Church already there.
I doubt it. Elder is bishop. Read Father Mitch Paqua’s book on Paul to understand why “priest” is not used by them.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
- or - (20 years)
- Status