Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Lib_Christian]

Who was the Matt 16 rock?

Catholics defend positions using Scripture.
Protestants defend using Scripture.
Many Catholics don’t believe the Church could have ever strayed.
Protestants believe it does and needs correction so the gates of hell do not prevail.
No one knows for certain.
It’s called faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who was the Matt 16 rock?

Catholics defend positions using Scripture.
Protestants defend using Scripture.
Many Catholics don’t believe the Church could have ever strayed.
Protestants believe it does and needs correction so the gates of hell do not prevail.
No one knows for certain.
It’s called faith.

Read back through the thread Lib…it’s all there and well articulated.

Thanks for the info Randy.

 

[graceandglory]

But remember we are to glory in God when people do this

When people do what?

You are taking God’s word out of context!!!

***Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.***

**Persecuted for the sake of *RIGHTEOUSNESS. * **

---

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish *****one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16

**ADMONISHMENT:
ADMONISH

ADMON’ISH, v.t. L. admoneo, ad and moneo, to teach, warn, admonish.

1. To warn or notify of a fault; to reprove with mildness.

Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 2Thess. 3.

1. To counsel against wrong practices; to caution or advise.

Admonish one another in psalms and hymns. Col. 3.

1. To instruct or direct.

Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle. Heb. 8.

1. In ecclesiastical affairs, to reprove a member of the church for a fault, either publicly or privately; the first step of church discipline. It is followed by of, or against; as, to admonish of a fault committed, or against committing a fault. It has a like use in colleges.
   av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/admonish.html**

---

"If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart."*

 

[Lib_Christian]

“Full Communion”?

---

Q: In a previous column you referred to a Church document which teaches that anyone who denies even one of the Church documents is no longer “in the full communion of the Catholic Church.” This seems quite drastic. Please explain.

A: The document in question is Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio (“on his own initiative”) Ad Tuendam Fidem (“To Protect the Faith”). It deals with certain additions to the Codes of Canon Law of the Catholic and Eastern Churches. In a commentary on certain portions of the document, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith added the words quoted in your question. This does seem drastic, until we analyze the reason for the teaching.

Suppose a Catholic declares that he accepts everything the Church teaches except for her teaching on abortion. Three consequences necessarily follow. First, he has implicitly denied the Church’s ability to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. If she is wrong in even only one respect, she can lay no claim to speaking infallibly in the name of Christ.

Second, to speak metaphorically, that dissenter (as we call him) has taken a position at the top of a very slippery downhill slope. Seldom, if ever, does a dissenting Catholic stop with rejecting only one of the Church’s teachings. Inevitably, he will begin to question and even deny other teachings.

This fact can be demonstrated in the careers of notorious dissenters in this country. Most of them began by rejecting the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception. Soon they began to reject more and more of the Church’s teachings.

Third, by rejecting one of the Church’s teachings, our hypothetical Catholic has taken up a non-Catholic attitude toward all Church teachings. He has made himself the final authority in doctrinal matters. In this scenario, he decides what is authentic Catholicism. In truth, he has become a Protestant.

No dissenter can know the true joy of being Catholic. Iin one way or another he is always at odds with the Church. Only that person who completely submits to the Church’s magisterial authority; only that person who lives in the knowledge that Jesus Christ speaks to him through the Church; only that person can be a truly zestful, ardent Catholic. (The Catholic Answer, January/February 2010, Volume 23, No. 5, pp. 9-10).

I miss your pt. Tweety said she doesn’t agree with everything.

 

[Lib_Christian]

Read back through the thread Lib…it’s all there and well articulated.

Thanks for the info Randy.

Prod, I know it is. And if this were a Protestant forum with the same question, theirs would be well articulated too I would imagine. Obviously some fine Catholic scholars say one thing and fine Protetsant scholars another. If there was agreement and it was so clear, everyone would be the same. In the end it all still comes down to one thing… faith. We even have to accept Scripture to begin with on… faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When people do what?

You are taking God’s word out of context!!!

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

**Persecuted for the sake of *RIGHTEOUSNESS. ***

***Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish *******one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16

"If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart."

[1 Corinthians 5:12](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+5:12&version=NIV)
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prod, I know it is. And if this were a Protestant forum with the same question, theirs would be well articulated too I would imagine. Obviously some fine Catholic scholars say one thing and fine Protetsant scholars another. If there was agreement and it was so clear, everyone would be the same. In the end it all still comes down to one thing… faith. We even have to accept Scripture to begin with on… faith.

Except, no where in scriptures does it teach us to interpret for ourselves. It’s not near the wash you’re trying to make it out to be. Faith is what people choose to believe. The passage we’ve been discussing is a very easy read and just as easy to understand. People choose not to believe it because Catholics use that passage to justify the Papacy and if we’re right on this issue, those with beliefs built on sand see their beliefs start to crumble. It amazes me that people would prefer to deny the inspired word of God than admit they can see how the Catholic interpretation comes from, and is supported by, scriptures…

 

[Lib_Christian]

Except, no where in scriptures does it teach us to interpret for ourselves.

(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

2 Timothy 3
15And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
17That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Prod, I guess it is on faith then that we will just have to decide for ourselves whether searching Scripture to see if things taught are true includes searching what later became the whole Scripture. And agree to disagree and leave it at that. God bless.

 

[rovimax]

Thanks again. Hey I never thought of that idea that they are not Catholics either. See the problem is if you do not agree with all they say or the Church professes you are not a Catholic. And you are right everytime I stae w\hat I believe in the same ones are always there to tell and call me unkind things. But remember we are to glory in God when people do this

Hello tweety, Its just confusing for most in this forum when you are saying you are catholic and yet you don,t believe in catholic doctrines. Sometimes one can’t be in the middle. You have to choose which side you are really with. When I left the RCC I stopped calling myself catholic and when I was cautiously coming back, I do not recite the line in the Apostle’s Creed " I believe in th Holy Catholic Church." But that’s me obcourse you are different from me. Its just an opinion.

 

[tweetymom]

When people do what?

You are taking God’s word out of context!!!

***Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.***

**Persecuted for the sake of *RIGHTEOUSNESS. ***

---

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish *******one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16
"If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart."*

Thank you again.

 

[Justin_Mee]

I never did understand these threads. There is only 3 primary reasons someone reads CA: To learn; to grow in the Catholic faith or to argue. We are never going to get anywhere with the latter. It’s the thrill of the chase syndrome. Well, I’m getting ready to meet my Lord and thank Him for saving my sorry soul. Hope you are too.

 

[rovimax]

Who was the Matt 16 rock?

Catholics defend positions using Scripture.
Protestants defend using Scripture.
Many Catholics don’t believe the Church could have ever strayed.
Protestants believe it does and needs correction so the gates of hell do not prevail.
No one knows for certain.
It’s called faith.

Catholics know for a fact that the Church will not go astray. Where in the Bible says that the Church will go astray? Some members of the Church yes but not the Church, Acts 20:30. The Church will be taught by the Holy Spirit, John 16:13-14, Jesus will be with the Church til the end of age Mat 28:19. What more do you need? If you believe the Church will go astray it simply means that you believe that Jesus abandoned His Church and the Holy Spirit lead the Church astray.uch::dts:

 

[Teneas]

I never did understand these threads. There is only 3 primary reasons someone reads CA: To learn; to grow in the Catholic faith or to argue. We are never going to get anywhere with the latter. It’s the thrill of the chase syndrome. Well, I’m getting ready to meet my Lord and thank Him for saving my sorry soul. Hope you are too.

I try to focus more on the teaching, but I seem to learn a good bit as I go to.

 

[Lib_Christian]

Hello tweety, Its just confusing for most in this forum when you are saying you are catholic and yet you don,t believe in catholic doctrines. Sometimes one can’t be in the middle. You have to choose which side you are really with. When I left the RCC I stopped calling myself catholic and when I was cautiously coming back, I do not recite the line in the Apostle’s Creed " I believe in th Holy Catholic Church." But that’s me obcourse you are different from me. Its just an opinion.

Then most on this forum must be confused about what Church teaching says. Btw Protetsants recite the Apostles Creed. Catholic means universal as in the one holy universal church.

 

[Javl]

Then most on this forum must be confused about what Church teaching says. Btw Protetsants recite the Apostles Creed. Catholic means universal as in the one holy universal church.

Lib Christian: I wish you and Tweety would put on your glasses and read and understand what being Catholic means. Catholic does mean universal, but it also means unity and that all believe and accept the same tenets, doctrines, and dogmas, without exception.
Picking and choosing, disagreeing with, or objecting to, any of these tenets, doctrines and dogmas no longer makes one a Catholic.

P.S. Will I ever get an answer to my post #60?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[luckyfredsdad]

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life’

Would anyone query this? Or is it just filler on your behalf!

Jesus spoke , in the instance above, to all His disciples, have you noticed?
Read Christ’s utterances in John xx 21/23 in this passage it is made very clear there was no dependence on Peter!
As for Cyprian ? "*To all the apostles after his resurrection, he gives equal power and says,’*As the Father sent Me so I send you."
All through his writings Cyprian held the belief that authority,[magisterium,] was held in the collectivity of the Bishops.
**
“
As I have said before the question is not about Peter? For Catholics ,Peter’s place in the scheme of things is secure! What needs proving, by the Romanists, is that the Papacy enjoyed, or inherited any of the special priviliges supposedly held by Peter above and beyond the other apostles! ** There is nothing in the first 300 yrs, There is nothing in Revelation ,Scripture or Holy Tradition!**

 

[Lib_Christian]

Catholics know for a fact that the Church will not go astray. Where in the Bible says that the Church will go astray? Some members of the Church yes but not the Church, Acts 20:30. The Church will be taught by the Holy Spirit, John 16:13-14, Jesus will be with the Church til the end of age Mat 28:19. What more do you need? If you believe the Church will go astray it simply means that you believe that Jesus abandoned His Church and the Holy Spirit lead the Church astray.uch::dts:

Some Catholics BELIEVE their Church will not go astray. There’s a difference. And no, it doesn’t necessarily mean if someone believes otherwise that they believe Jesus abandoned His Church. Jesus would never do that. He told us the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It really depends on what your belief is about the definition of church. If you believe it to be the institution called the Roman Catholic Church, then you might be correct. But if like other Christians, one believes the Church is the the entire body of Christ believers, then Christ I’m certain would be capable of correction and reformation when needed, to in fact ensure the gates of hell do not prevail against it.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life’

Would anyone query this? Or is it just filler on your behalf!

Jesus spoke , in the instance above, to all His disciples, have you noticed?
Read Christ’s utterances in John xx 21/23 in this passage it is made very clear there was no dependence on Peter!
As for Cyprian ? "*To all the apostles after his resurrection, he gives equal power and says,’*As the Father sent Me so I send you."
All through his writings Cyprian held the belief that authority,[magisterium,] was held in the collectivity of the Bishops.
**
“
As I have said before the question is not about Peter? For Catholics ,Peter’s place in the scheme of things is secure! What needs proving, by the Romanists, is that the Papacy enjoyed, or inherited any of the special priviliges supposedly held by Peter above and beyond the other apostles! ** There is nothing in the first 300 yrs, There is nothing in Revelation ,Scripture or Holy Tradition!**

 

[Carlan]

I never did understand these threads. There is only 3 primary reasons someone reads CA: To learn; to grow in the Catholic faith or to argue. We are never going to get anywhere with the latter. It’s the thrill of the chase syndrome. Well, I’m getting ready to meet my Lord and thank Him for saving my sorry soul. Hope you are too.

IWelcome Justin, for me, reading through the threads I believe I have learned and continue to grow even in my old age. I thank Catholic Answers!

In my frustration of the ones who love to argue, I must remember to offer it and them up in prayer.Carlan

 

[Randy_Carson]

Would anyone query this? Or is it just filler on your behalf!

Jesus spoke , in the instance above, to all His disciples, have you noticed?
Read Christ’s utterances in John xx 21/23 in this passage it is made very clear there was no dependence on Peter!
As for Cyprian ? “*To all the apostles after his resurrection, he gives equal power and says,’*As the Father sent Me so I send you.**”
All through his writings Cyprian held the belief that authority,[magisterium,] was held in the collectivity of the Bishops.

The “equal power” refers to the fact that Jesus was sending the Apostles with the same authority with which the Father had sent Him; that is, ALL authority.

Regarding Cyprian, I’ll cover BOTH of them:

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.)

“the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).

As I have said before the question is not about Peter? For Catholics ,Peter’s place in the scheme of things is secure! What needs proving, by the Romanists, is that the Papacy enjoyed, or inherited any of the special priviliges supposedly held by Peter above and beyond the other apostles! There is nothing in the first 300 yrs, There is nothing in Revelation ,Scripture or Holy Tradition!

Romanists? That is considered a slur.

Supposedly? That is simply unbiblical.

Who else received the keys symbolic of the office of the Royal Steward in the court of the Davidic kingdom restored by Jesus. Who else was told to strengthen the others (the stronger supports the weaker), and who else was left to “feed” and “tend” the flock of Jesus Christ but the vicar of Christ, Peter?

(cont.)