One does not have to completely accept Catholic ecclesiology to recognize the distinct and vital role that St Peter played in the apsotolic era of the Church.
Jon
- Status
Jon
po18guy
Well-known member
Jesus gave him the keys to the Kingdom of God. That must count for something…
Sure it does. And that’s why I said one doesn have to completely accept Catholic ecclesiology to recognize the role of St. Peter. I can say he accepted the keys for the Church, and that the keys are the Church’s. Catholics would disagree, but both of us recognize who He gave the keys to, whose name He changed, etc.Jesus gave him the keys to the Kingdom of God. That must count for something…
Jon
po18guy
Well-known member
Dr. Scott Hahn discrned that the mass was described in the Book Of Revelation.
Not to mention the obvious messages in Jesus being born in the “City of bread”, or him being placed in a receptacle where food was kept. Did He not command the Apostles to bless and break the bread? Look at Emmaus: He was known in the breaking of the Bread. It is quite apparent - but only if you are looking toward it and not away from it.
Those who maintain that “This is my body” Depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is, sound an awful lot like the nebulous defense of a certain former president.
T
TimothyH
Guest
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
They were both part of the Church that Christ founded. However, if you will recall from the Scripture, Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and earth to PETER. These were not keys to a new Honda. These were keys that gave Peter authority. Jesus even changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter, which means Rock. You are wrong in your interpretation of that passage in Scripture. I would challenge you to find a single early Christian who thought the rock in Matthew 16:18 was “a revelation” rather than Peter. The number of times God changed names of people is small-- Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, but they always meant something huge was happening. This is so often discounted by protestants because they do not read Scripture in the context of the time it was written and they often do not see the parallel between the OT and the NT. Peter was the one who went out and spoke to the crowds immediately after Pentecost. Peter was the one who is clearly making the authoritative decision in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. He spoke and all were silent. Did Jesus give Paul keys? No. Was Paul in the upper room at Pentecost? No. Was Paul preaching the Gospel in the first days of the Church, no, he was busy persecuting the Church-- which Jesus even said was persecuting HIM. Paul came in after the Church was established. That is why it is not really strange that Paul was not the first Pope. However, I would never dream of trying to undervalue Paul’s work-- his service to the Lord and to His Church was truly amazing.
As to the root of your question, the Catholic Church existed before the New Testament. Jesus gave His authority to the Church which, as Scripture attests, is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). We are instructed by Paul to hold fast to the traditions we have been taught either orally or by letter. Catholics and Orthodox (the other ancient Church which is very similar to Catholic) actually follow that instruction. Everything in Scripture is completely compatible with Church teaching. But you have to understand the context in which the Scripture was written and that is where many modern day non-Catholic Christians fail. I always find it amusing that they fully believe that God guided ordinary men into writing inerrant Scripture, but they do not believe that God could guide a shepherd into infallible teaching. Be that as it may, there are many things that Jesus did that were not written in the Scriptures, as the Scripture says. Who do you think hung on to all those things? Do you think that a non-denom Church founded in 1984 has that information?
Some historical issues to consider. The first time you see the name Catholic Church is in 107 ad! (St. Ignatius letter to Smyrna). Consider that when archeologists dig up Church’s from the earliest centuries they always have one thing in common-- an alter for offering. Most non-Catholic churches don’t even have alters anymore. Consider the Didache, and the early Church Fathers. They may not be inerrant but they do say what people believed and were doing at the time.
Here is a website that is full of Scriptures which show how they actually support Catholic teaching. However, the Church is not a religion based on the Bible although we love the Sacred Scripture. How could it be when the Church was here first?
PS… As to the sprinkling of water in baptism, it arose from necessity. First of all, bringing crowds of three thousand to the Jordan would not have been easy. Second, and I believe of more importance, was the fact that early Christians were persecuted and stayed out of sight. As to the Mass, we see that initially in the Last Supper, but many foreshadowing Scriptures as the link will show. See also in Acts 2:42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
C
Catholic80
Guest
I’m going to work backwards on this one…
The Gospels were written in Greek, but Jesus spoke Aramaic. In the Greek, Christ calls Peter “Petros,” which literally means “pebble” and then refers the to Rock as “Petra.” Many Protestants and Orthodox jump all over this saying that since Petros is “pebble” Christ was referring to Himself as “Petra,” not Peter. But in some versions of the Gospel, Peter’s name is presented in the original Aramaic - the language Christ and the Apostles were speaking. Cepha or “Kepha” means “Rock.” Why then, the distinction in the Greek? Because of the use of masculine and feminine nouns. Petros is masculine, whereas Petra is feminine. The translation of Kepha would not be translated into a feminine word since Peter was, well, a man. In order to maintain gender through translation, Kepha was translated into Petra. This doesn’t change the original name, Kepha, which means, “Rock.”
So why would Christ call Peter, “Rock” and “upon this “Rock” I will build my Church,” and be referring to anyone else but Peter? Nothing exists in the Bible as sheer coincidence. Every little tiny minute detail is relevant and important. Would it make any sense for Christ to say this, “I call you ‘Rock’, and upon this ‘Rock’ I will build my Church” and then expect us to think, "Oh, Christ must have been speaking in code and referring to Himself instead of Peter? That doesn’t make any sense at all. The Bible is so simple that even a child can understand it. If you ask a child who Christ is referring to, they will answer, “Peter.” They aren’t going to try to seek a more complicated answer to justify their agendas or beliefs.
To answer your question about Catholicism, The Catholic Church never “became” the Catholic Church, but IS the Church from the very beginning as instituted by Christ. The term “Catholic” was simply a word used to describe the Church years later.
In the encounter with Elizabeth, Elizabeth says, “Who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to visit me.” Mary, yes, is a creature of God. God can do anything that He so desires, and He created Mary to be His mother. It’s a divine mystery. God always existed, and God chose to become incarnate at a specific time. Wow! He chose for Himself to be born of a Woman! Amazing! As Christopher West says, (very paraphrased) that part of the divine mystery is Christ takes on our flesh… a man being born from a woman. ‘In the beginning, man and woman, He created them… in His image.’ Man and woman reflect the Trinity. Incredible! That God, who became Man, be born of a woman is so incredibly powerful.
God could have chosen to become incarnate in a different way. Adam and Eve (supposedly) didn’t have parents. Neither of them were born. Why didn’t God choose to become incarnate in this manner? But no, He chose to be born… to have a mother. Joseph was not the father of Christ. But Mary was Christ’s mother. Christ is God, the Son of the Trinity. Mary is Mother of God the Son. She is not, however, Mother of the Trinity. And I think this is where your confusion lies.
I’m not exactly sure about this one, but if no one answers or has answered it here, then I suggest you post this on the “Ask the Apologists” page.
S
Stevo2112
Guest
First of all, I really appreciate the responses to my questions. Especially those that sincerely wanted to share their faith and give me a better understanding. I Pray the Lord bless you for your fervency of faith and Love of Gods’ people. I could have been more tactful in my initial post, and for that I apologize. I understand know one likes to feel like their faith is on trial or threatened.
I’ve read many of the threads, as well as a lot of apolegetics regarding the Catholic church. I’ve learned a lot. I appreciate the Catholic church for attempting to establish clear and concise doctrine. I believe a foundation is very important to have.
Catholicism is an incredible tradition,and I have a lot to learn from it. One thing Catholicism has opened my eyes to is the possibility of a Purgatory. I’ve read certain scriptures that really sound like Purgatory. I would never have seen this in the bible if I didn’t already believe in it.
I’ve read many of the threads, as well as a lot of apolegetics regarding the Catholic church. I’ve learned a lot. I appreciate the Catholic church for attempting to establish clear and concise doctrine. I believe a foundation is very important to have.
Catholicism is an incredible tradition,and I have a lot to learn from it. One thing Catholicism has opened my eyes to is the possibility of a Purgatory. I’ve read certain scriptures that really sound like Purgatory. I would never have seen this in the bible if I didn’t already believe in it.
S
Stevo2112
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
Steve, you will be fine as long as you are willing to seek the Truth wherever it leads you, using both faith and reason. If I was convinced that any part of the Catholic faith was untrue, I would be gone in a second. And, here on CAF, I find my faith challenged constantly. In defending it, I have better learned it.
Our problem is well stated by our Lord in Matthew 16:24 and Luke 9:23. Before we follow Jesus, we must first deny ourselves, then take up our crosses. We almost always get this completely backward. The Lords recipe is always the best.
C
CatholicRoots
Guest
Firstly I would like to welcome you Stevo2112 to the forum. 
And secondly i’m glad you’re intrigued to learn about Catholcism.
I will start off by saying that I haven’t read all of the responses on this thread, so I may just restate some things already said. But I’m sure the people that have already posted are more apt to reply to you than me anyway. However the point I wanted to make concerning your original post was that your view seems very much based on ‘sola scripture’, now as you have probably found out Catholics hold tradition in equal esteem as scripture. I also would concur with this for many reasons including the simple fact that tradition has to precede scripture and it seems to me that even Protestants would have to concede this.
Otherwise how would we know which books are the correct books to contain in our Bibles? why shouldn’t we include ‘The Gospel of Thomas’? Catholics answer that authoritive tradition/the Fathers have given us the list of canonical books. Now Protestants I assume would have no quarms with accepting that is how they also know which books should be used but that presupposes that an authority has already made that decision and therefore tradition/ the writings of the Fathers precedes the establishing of scriptures.
So I don’t see why we can’t go to authorative tradition/the Fathers for the establishment of other doctrines. And if you read the Fathers they seem very Catholic to me. (E.g. about the Mass, Mary being the mother of God, penance etc…)
Also I’ve always interpreted Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed as talking about the doctrine of the Church, that it starts of as the smallest seed in the garden. (The core beliefs) then grows until it is the largest tree. (The exuberance of Catholcism.) Also ‘the birds of the air sheltered in its branches.’ i.e. This seems to mean peoples from other lands and no Church is as Catholic (Universal) than the Catholic church.
Just my thoughts…
And secondly i’m glad you’re intrigued to learn about Catholcism.I will start off by saying that I haven’t read all of the responses on this thread, so I may just restate some things already said. But I’m sure the people that have already posted are more apt to reply to you than me anyway. However the point I wanted to make concerning your original post was that your view seems very much based on ‘sola scripture’, now as you have probably found out Catholics hold tradition in equal esteem as scripture. I also would concur with this for many reasons including the simple fact that tradition has to precede scripture and it seems to me that even Protestants would have to concede this.
Otherwise how would we know which books are the correct books to contain in our Bibles? why shouldn’t we include ‘The Gospel of Thomas’? Catholics answer that authoritive tradition/the Fathers have given us the list of canonical books. Now Protestants I assume would have no quarms with accepting that is how they also know which books should be used but that presupposes that an authority has already made that decision and therefore tradition/ the writings of the Fathers precedes the establishing of scriptures.
So I don’t see why we can’t go to authorative tradition/the Fathers for the establishment of other doctrines. And if you read the Fathers they seem very Catholic to me. (E.g. about the Mass, Mary being the mother of God, penance etc…)
Also I’ve always interpreted Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed as talking about the doctrine of the Church, that it starts of as the smallest seed in the garden. (The core beliefs) then grows until it is the largest tree. (The exuberance of Catholcism.) Also ‘the birds of the air sheltered in its branches.’ i.e. This seems to mean peoples from other lands and no Church is as Catholic (Universal) than the Catholic church.
Just my thoughts…- Status