T
teme
Guest
I understand your point, however it is based on a faulty assumption of linguistics. This argument of that the statement is the foundation Jesus established, rather than Peter comes from greek translations of the text, where Peter is “Petros” and Rock is “Petra”. Those interpreting as you do make the argument that the use of “Petra” means the statement, not the person Peter. However, Christ spoke not in Greek. As well, in the greek, if Jesus were to say “Petra” referring to Peter rather than Petros, that translation would leave Jesus would be calling him a woman. As well, all greek words in my understanding of the words used for statement are masculine, and therefore Petra could not be referring to it either. In fact, the greek word for church is feminine, so if we extend the linguistics, Christ established male rock (Peter) to head the female rock (Church), showing again the establishment of male priesthood exclusively. The rock upon which the Church is founded is that of Peter.(1) When Christ said he was building his church upon a rock, recall that Peter had just confessed him as Lord. Was Christ saying that he was building his church on Peter as a person or on the testimony Peter had just given? Not an easy question to answer with any certainty unless you consider the church your one and only authority. I prefer to ponder the scrptures myself. Is that a sin??
But, using this faulty line of thinking can actually still lead to a greater truth. If we assume for the moment that Jesus were saying that the statement was the truth Jesus would establish His Church upon, what does that tell us? Peter was the voice of that truth. Peter was also renamed seremoniously. Sounds quite a bit like the first papal conclave completed there doesn’t it?
You are correct in that Christ’s physical presence requires transubstantiation. I understand the difficulty, as believing that bread and wine transform into Christ’s body and blood is almost as difficult to believe as Christ (God) taking on human flesh, allowing Himself to be crucified, and then rising from the dead. Christ is spiritually present with all of us, especially valiant, who has yet to know the physical presence of Christ. God bless him, and all those who fight tooth and nail to join the feast with our Lord!(2) Now, the notion that the Catholic Church is the only church in which Christ is physically present depends upon acceptance of transubstantiation - the dogma that through the priest bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and body of Christ during mass. I have trouble with that as do millions of modern Catholics. It smacks of the primitive notion that God is only satisfied with a blood (human) sacrifice. Besides, isn’t Christ alive everywhere and at all times? Or, is that heresy?