J
Jubilarian
Guest
If you give someone (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven, it more than lends itself to a significant person. Sounds like a person to build a church on.
- Status
J
joe371
Guest
Seems logical. Keys represent authority.
B
benhur
Guest
Never said there is a disconnect . As your catechism and vat 2 state , we are all “connected”, just that some are more perfectly. I just applied the insinuation of imperfection back at the CC, as relating to early fathers and subsequent evolving/developments. But yes all connected.
" I can understand why you want to believe this is true", I just respectfully disagree.
Of course it all depends on what is essential. Certainly something changed that precipitated or as some would say, necessitated, the reformation. Were they the “essentials” that changed ? If not, then we have not essentially changed that much either and we are both essentially the same, all brothers essentailly as the catechism states.
J
joe371
Guest
You believe that even though the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, it still, nevertheless, is imperfect, doctrinally speaking - right?
We agree, as per the CCC, that we are all connected:
"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the ** Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers** . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."27
B
benhur
Guest
Sounds logical when you use the same word twice . Unfortunately, the inspired text does not.We agree that Simon was renamed Kepha - OK.
Both rocks are the same. Grammatically it’s the only thing that makes sense. You are cephas and on this (same) cephas I will build my church i.e. the second cephas referring back to the first cephas. The only way anything else makes sense i.e. Jesus is referring to a different rock: you are cephas (Simon) and on this other rock…Pretty cut and dried.
If I said - this is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast. Same boat - right?
B
benhur
Guest
No, I believe that one of your errors is saying that the Catholic Church today is that one church that Christ founded, and not any Orthodoxy , even Protestantism
We agree, as per the CCC, that we are all connected:
One for C’s and one for O’s and one P’s
J
joe371
Guest
So your problem is petros and petra? Have you ever reserched that to see why…?
Regarding the following we have already agreed that petros means cephas - right? You are petros and on this petra…"
J
joe371
Guest
OK. The Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus. None of the Protestant Churches were founded by Jesus. That leaves us with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you believe that the EOC was founded by Jesus circa AD 33?No, I believe that one of your errors is saying that the Catholic Church today is that one church that Christ founded, and not any Orthodoxy , even Protestantism
J
joe371
Guest
What do you mean?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
**
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)
"The play on words – ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ – requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. **In Aramaic, the two words would be identical – Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world…" (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. **Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. **In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
B
benhur
Guest
That is your paradigm, this "naming’’, even officiating of rightness. It would be like the Jews demanding from Jesus to proclaim which sect was right, the Pharisees or the Sadducees . He chided aspects of both but said , “Salvation is of the Jews”.
If I may chop your sentence but it is not simple to separate church from defintion/history. Simplicity is knowing words have meanings , with a history to be properly understood.
I don’t think your explanation is as simple as perhaps a protestant one. Just as in the early days, you are either a Christian or you are not. You are written in the Lamb’s book or not. You are part of the Body or not. Your catechism quote is a step in that undeniable simplicity.
B
benhur
Guest
I was just going to end my session when I read your post .Too funny .Thanks for the keen observation that I missed, and a good laugh. Blessings to you now.
J
joe371
Guest
If I don’t have the name of the church founded by Jesus how in the world am I suppose to go there and worship. I’ll try one more time, if you don’t mind: Jesus founded one church and said he would guide His church into all truth until the end of time which means His establish ekklesia is still here; where can I find that church today in view of the fact that there are many churches such as the Baptist, Presbyterian Anglican church etc. etc.? The alternative: Jesus’ one church eventually became an amalgam of all the isolated and divided churches we see in the world today. Is this getting close to what you contend?
J
joe371
Guest
Deep down I think Ben agrees with us. It’s really obvious. He agrees that petros means kepha; his problem seems to be with petra, as if petra is not referring to petros. As a former Protestant, I didn’t even try to get around the obvious; not to mention the name change; why change Simon’s name and immediately focus completely on someone else.
J
joe371
Guest
If they were go the distance and agree with you, then they would also have to admit that doctrinal integrity/unity is unnecessary. The fullness of truth cannot be found in the Protestant sphere. The CC teaches erroneously, according to you, regarding certain thing, and therefore they do not possess the fullness of truth. That means the fullness of truth cannot be known - right? If yes then I guess you are right and church affiliation really does not matter…I have faith that the fullness of truth can be found in Jesus’ established church, which is the CC. The church to which you belong: do you believe it was founded by Jesus or someone else, setting aside doctrinal matters for a second?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Posts #707 & 708.Deep down I think Ben agrees with us. It’s really obvious. He agrees that petros means kepha; his problem seems to be with petra, as if petra is not referring to petros. As a former Protestant, I didn’t even try to get around the obvious; not to mention the name change; why change Simon’s name and immediately focus completely on someone else.
Petros & Petra - Much Ado About Nothing
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Wait,wait,wait, Did I read that right? Are you saying that God needs someone to support Him? Who is bigger than God?
J
joe371
Guest
Jesus is the divine Cornerstone (the cornerstone keeps a structure together) and the divine Rock/foundation of His church, as per the Catholic Church. Simon, renamed Kepha, is the visible rock on which Jesus’ church is built, and the apostles form the visible foundation as well: “…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” Of course Jesus rests on nothing but I can understand why you asked. Actually Jesus is the church, as per Paul.
- Status