|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/19/2008 7:58:55 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Mmm, that's probably why the Popes pretty much never invoke ex cathedra, which is an interesting sidestep of the issue. This isn't exactly how ex cathedra works. It's actually kind of an interesting process, and one that I believe takes place in every type of Christian faith, whether or not people 'fess up to it. An example of a "Protestant ex-cathedra" teaching, in my opinion, is the ubiquitous acceptance of the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament; many have no idea who authorized this or why, but it is almost universally accepted and believed (sometimes blindly) with Protestantdom. There's your ex cathedra for Protestants, although none of us are really sure from who's cathedra this teaching came.
Ex cathedra is revealed to the Church. It not something the Pope declares, but something that is discerned and recognized by the Church. There can be many years between a rendering of a teaching or instruction, and the recognition of ex cathedra regarding that teaching or instruction.
And yes, indeed, there has never been a conflict or reversal of any ex cathedra instruction in 2,000 years. I contrast this faiths that seem to change as the wind blows - teaching anything that they can in order to get people in the pews and bucks in the collection plate, without any regard to authenticity or authority back to the deposit of faith.
Well said
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/19/2008 10:48:33 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
This isn't exactly how ex cathedra works. It's actually kind of an interesting process, and one that I believe takes place in every type of Christian faith, whether or not people 'fess up to it. An example of a "Protestant ex-cathedra" teaching, in my opinion, is the ubiquitous acceptance of the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament; many have no idea who authorized this or why, but it is almost universally accepted and believed (sometimes blindly) with Protestantdom. There's your ex cathedra for Protestants, although none of us are really sure from who's cathedra this teaching came.
Ex cathedra is revealed to the Church. It not something the Pope declares, but something that is discerned and recognized by the Church. There can be many years between a rendering of a teaching or instruction, and the recognition of ex cathedra regarding that teaching or instruction.
And yes, indeed, there has never been a conflict or reversal of any ex cathedra instruction in 2,000 years. I contrast this faiths that seem to change as the wind blows - teaching anything that they can in order to get people in the pews and bucks in the collection plate, without any regard to authenticity or authority back to the deposit of faith.
*rubs her eyes*
Okay.
Ex cathedra is a set of undefined teachings. When your teachings aren't defined in the first place, it's impossible to later refute them, because you can just say "well the stuff that disagreed with this previously? Not ex cathedra". So, basically by definition, they're irrefutable because they kind of don't exist in the first place, and they're defined only by "what the Holy Spirit inspired which is never wrong", but you never really say what that IS. There's no list to compare against.
I'm glad science doesn't work this way. "Our established theories are never wrong!" "Cool, what theories are those?" "The ones that are RIGHT of course!"
Sure, there are Protestant faiths that have issues with heresy, I can name a few if you'd like though that might pull us off topic. Thing is, though, that we have our "ex cathedra" and I can hand you a copy of it, and anyone who disagrees with Scripture is either in error or a heretic. Which you guys have already stated can happen with Popes too, so there's really no difference. Papal dispensations anyone?
quote:
Correct. And Papal Infallibility is an act of God, not an attribute of the man. Are you going to tell God how He teaches? Christ chose men to teach, not books to hand out. Are you going to say Christ's chosen method is wrong?
The Holy Spirit chose and worked through men to write down the Scripture. You can call all sorts of things acts of God and teachings of God. Cults do this too. If they contradict Scripture, they don't pass the test. God does not contradict Himself.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/19/2008 8:46:20 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
Peter the Rock
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
CONTINUES HERE
[edited by moderator]
< Message edited by Ps103 -- 7/20/2008 2:39:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/20/2008 2:56:14 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
The only time Peter and the other penman were "infallible" is when they were inspired by God to write His words.....
Correct. And Papal Infallibility is an act of God,... No, papal "infallibility" is simply a doctrine of the RC, it has nothing to do with God. God never instituted a papacy let alone "infallibility". That is simply a doctrine pushed through a council by a pope - nothing more. We find no support for the office of pope in the Bible.
quote:
...not an attribute of the man. Are you going to tell God how He teaches? No, God tells us how and what He teaches; and, He told us He teaches by His inspired written Scripture. He also tells us in this inspired Scripture that He has provided teachers. So if anyone is telling God how to teach, it is RC since they have superimposed their method over God's.
quote:
Christ chose men to teach, not books to hand out. You guys really don't understand precisely how much you disdain the only thing God calls inspired. Or perhaps you do understand but just don't care...."books to hand out"...indeed.
In any event, what God chose for men to teach is inspired Scripture - not all the additional revelations proposed by RC over the centuries which have nothing to do with God or His Holy Word.
quote:
Are you going to say Christ's chosen method is wrong?
No, not at all. What I am going to say is RC's "chosen method" is wrong. We know for a certainty its "chosen method" has nothing to do with Christ's method because you can provide no evidence from Scripture to indicate that it does.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/20/2008 3:01:21 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
This isn't exactly how ex cathedra works. It's actually kind of an interesting process, and one that I believe takes place in every type of Christian faith, whether or not people 'fess up to it. An example of a "Protestant ex-cathedra" teaching, in my opinion, is the ubiquitous acceptance of the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament; You're free to believe whatever you please, of course, regardless of its inaccuracy.
Since it has been FIRMLY established that the Apocrypha is not inspired scripture, there is no need for any "Protestant ex-cathedra" - whatever that is. Rather, it is simply accepting ONLY what God has inspired and not adding to Holy Writ as RC does. RCs really ought to read and take to heart the words of Jerome.
"And thus altogether there come to be 22 books of the old Law [according to the letters of the Jewish alphabet], that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nineof the Hagiographa......introduction to all the biblical books which we have translated from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may know that whatever is not included in these is to be placed among the apocrypha."
Jerome, writing to Paulinus (a Christian Bishop), makes none others canonical than the Protestants. He writes in his preface to the book of Chronicles, “The church knows nothing of the apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples chose their examples. What is not extant in them is to be flung away from us.”
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else” (NPNF2, Vol. 6, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).
quote:
Ex cathedra is revealed to the Church. It not something the Pope declares, but something that is discerned and recognized by the Church. That of course is simply untrue. The Council of Trent was totally under the thumb of the pope and his papal legates. It was in no way a "free" council. It proved it was nothing but a very human work having nothing to do with God.
As for Vatican I, what can be said? It had its seed in the mind of a fanatical Jesuit with the backing of Rome, of course. The government lobbyists in the US must have learned technique from Rome since it excelled at canvassing for votes. The first thing the pope did was to establish a committee. Who chose ALL its members?...yep, you got it...the pope....
All the petitions from the fathers against infallibility, and there were many, had to be submitted to the commission, yep, the very one which had its members chosen by the pope. The only question was which garbage pail they were going to throw those petitions into.....surprise surprise "infallibility" was invented.
Vatican I was many things - but it was never a "free" council. It was handcuffed from before its convocation by papal theologians. No, this whole business was simply the work of men, and not very nice men at that.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/20/2008 9:04:34 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
No, papal "infallibility" is simply a doctrine of the RC, it has nothing to do with God.
And I suppose the infallibility of those who wrote the scriptures had nothing to do with God either. Are you the appointed one who tells God who He can and cannot work through?
[edited by moderator to remove response to deleted material]
< Message edited by Ps103 -- 7/20/2008 2:36:59 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/20/2008 11:31:55 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
I was reading 1 Peter and found this interesting.
1 Peter 5:1
1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
Here's what I found interesting.
Verse 1: Peter appeals as a fellow elder. Not as the boss, not from any position of primacy, but as a fellow elder. If Peter were the de facto leader of the church, he would not need to appeal, he could just say "do this" and the rest would have to do it. Even if Peter were using an "appeal" to be tactful, it would be unwise for someone speaking from a position of de facto authority to claim equality between himself and those being exhorted before making such an appeal.
Verse 2: The flock is referred to as God's flock, not Peter's flock.
Verse 3: Peter warns his fellow elders not to "lord" the responsibility they have been given over the people they are elders of
Verse 4: Peter now refers to the Chief Shepherd, who is not Peter, the reference is obviously to Christ (unless you think that Peter is capable of awarding a "crown of glory".) Peter does not identify himself as any sort of lead shepherd also, or as the earthly stand-in for the Chief Shepherd.
The *only* difference that Peter indicates between himself and the elders of the churches in Asia Minor to whom he is writing, is the fact that Peter was "a witness of Christ's sufferings", which indicates that at least some of the elders that Peter is writing to and addressing as his equals aren't even Apostles.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/20/2008 2:21:46 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11534
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
For new posters:
quote:
TOS 8: 8. You should always view the online community area as a public meeting place. To the extent possible, all conversations are the property of Salem Web Network. By participating you have granted Salem Web Network the license to use them for any purpose whatsoever. For this reason you may not post any material for which you do not own the copyright.
Posting entire articles is prohibited, even if permission has been granted by the copyright holder. Instead please only post a portion of the article with a link to read the rest.
For posters who have been here a while:
quote:
TOS 17. Please do not use community areas to air your grievances against other fellow members. If you have observed a violation of the Terms of Service please use the Offender Report Form instead. (This includes violations or allegations of inappropriate actions by the volunteer staff and administration.)
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 2:07:22 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
No, papal "infallibility" is simply a doctrine of the RC, it has nothing to do with God.
And I suppose the infallibility of those who wrote the scriptures had nothing to do with God either.
Since it was God who inspired the penman of Scripture to write precisely what He wanted written, obviously the Bible has everything to do with God. I'm not sure why you would even ask that question. Were you trying to make a particular point?
quote:
Are you the appointed one who tells God who He can and cannot work through? Nope, I haven't ever "told" God what to do. But, He has told us where we can find all that is necessary to become saved and to lead a Christian life - The Bible. We find God saying of nothing else that it is inspired except - The Bible.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 2:09:23 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
Verse 1: Peter appeals as a fellow elder. Not as the boss, not from any position of primacy, but as a fellow elder. If Peter were the de facto leader of the church, he would not need to appeal, he could just say "do this" and the rest would have to do it. Even if Peter were using an "appeal" to be tactful, it would be unwise for someone speaking from a position of de facto authority to claim equality between himself and those being exhorted before making such an appeal.
Also very interesting that in Acts 8:14, it is the Twelve who send Peter and John to Samaria. If he was the "supreme leader", Peter would have done the sending instead we see him being sent.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 2:29:45 AM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1784
Status: offline
|
quote:
Peter the Rock
The only problem with "Peter the Rock" is that it is completely inaccurate and totally misleading.
It is "Peter the stone" or "Peter the pebble" and "Jesus the Rock" or "God our Rock". "For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST" (1 Cor. 10:4).
There is only one Rock, one Fortress, and one Refuge. God Himself. "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble" (Ps. 46:1). The title "Rock" denotes both refuge and strength.
If Peter were to be sent back to the earth today, the first thing he would do is demolish the papal system. That's what he taught his fellow elders.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 5:50:08 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 742
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Verse 1: Peter appeals as a fellow elder. Not as the boss, not from any position of primacy, but as a fellow elder. If Peter were the de facto leader of the church, he would not need to appeal, he could just say "do this" and the rest would have to do it. Even if Peter were using an "appeal" to be tactful, it would be unwise for someone speaking from a position of de facto authority to claim equality between himself and those being exhorted before making such an appeal.
Also very interesting that in Acts 8:14, it is the Twelve who send Peter and John to Samaria. If he was the "supreme leader", Peter would have done the sending instead we see him being sent.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Sounds to me that they wanted things to be done right, so they sent their two best men. :) Or perhaps Peter led by going out there in person and feeding the Lord's sheep?
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 6:32:18 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 910
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is "Peter the stone" or "Peter the pebble" and "Jesus the Rock" or "God our Rock". "...Simon, you are Pebble, and upon this Boulder I will build my Church..."
Yeah - that just makes perfect sense - thanks for straightening me out on that...
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 11:02:23 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
I dunno, the wording of the verse is really weird for what you guys are trying to say it says.
quote:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
If Jesus were trying to make it clear that Peter is the foundation of everything, shouldn't He have said "You are Peter, and on you I will build my church"? Why say rock twice?
That's like having a kid hit a home run at a crucial point in the softball game and the coach saying "Billy, you are Home Run, and on this home run we will win the game." They're going to win on the kid, or the kid's new nickname? No, on the home run that he got the nickname for.
It's also very interesting to point out that just a few verses down in this very chapter, Peter is called "Satan" by Jesus. Does that mean that Peter is literally Satan, as you're claiming that Peter is literally the rock on which the church will be built? One would hope not, surely Jesus would know better than to build His church on Satan. Why is it that you would never dream to claim that Peter is literally Satan, but you claim that Peter is literally the foundation rock? Frankly the Satan verse is a lot clearer.
Let's see what Peter himself says about who the rock is, in 1 Peter 2:
4 As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,"
So, according to Peter, we're all rocks, being built on the Rock. Surely you don't believe that Peter is "the stone the builders rejected", the prophesied capstone of Isaiah. That's Christ. So, Peter is a rock, sure, but he's one of the little rocks built on the Rock, who is Jesus.
As Paul says, in 1 Cor 3:11, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which Is Jesus Christ". Christ, not Peter, is the foundation of the Church.
Paul also says, in Eph 2:19 "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. "
So, again, Christ is the cornerstone, the apostles and prophets are the "base row" of rocks, if you would, and we are rocks built on Jesus. No special consideration given to pointing out that "Oh, and Peter is also a cornerstone". No special mention of Peter being a foundation of the church in any sense other than the idea that all the apostles (and prophets) are to some extent part of the foundation.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 2:01:04 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
If Jesus were trying to make it clear that Peter is the foundation of everything, shouldn't He have said "You are Peter, and on you I will build my church"? Why say rock twice?....
If that wre the ONLY verse the pope's office was based on, it would be questionable. But when you combine everything Jesus said to Peter, about the "keys", the binding and loosing: Then when you throw into that mix that whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 )............
When you put it ALL together, His primacy and authority are undeniable.
And lest you think that this is Catholic wishful thinking, here are some protestant pastors who say the same thing:
ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)
"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).
HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 2:46:16 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
You have a few more scriptural innacuracies listed now, let's address those first.
For the THIRD time, there was NEVER an angel sent to Peter to announce the resurrection. The angel, who appeared to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, told Mary to go tell Peter (because he wasn't with the other disciples) and the other disciples. Please read your references.
The risen Christ did not appear to Peter first in ANY account of the resurrection story. In Mark, Jesus appears to the women, then appears to two other disciples walking down a road before He appears to all 11 during a meal (who didn't believe the two men he appeared to first, which Jesus rebukes them for). In Matthew, Jesus appears to the women, then all 11. In Luke, Peter went and saw the tomb after the women got back, but didn't see Jesus ("he went away, wondering to himself what had happened." Luke 24:12) Jesus then appears to the two men on the road (Cleopas and an unnamed person), then appears to Simon, then to the 11. In John, John and Peter run to the tomb and see the gravesclothes, but they do not see Jesus, who appears to Mary Magdalene while she's standing outside the tomb crying. Then He appears to all 11 disciples that evening.
Peter didn't speak to the crowds first in Acts 2. All of the Christians who had been touched at Pentecost were out preaching, then Peter stood up to address the Jews when they started accusing those who were preaching of being drunk.
Matthias was not elected. Matthias was chosen by lot from among the men available who fit the criteria required. Acts 1:23 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Peter is not the only one who got the "Binding and loosing" powers. The rest of the disciples were explicitly given those as well.
Peter was in a lot of dramatic scenes because frankly the guy created a lot of drama.
Peter didn't accept the first converts, Peter was among the first converts... Jesus made converts. Don't take away from His glory and efforts.
I'm pretty sure the first punishment involved Judas. Regardless, Peter did not punish Ananias, unless you think it was Peter that somehow caused Ananias to drop dead, and not God. Peter accused him, but God was the judge.
Regarding random quotes from random people: I can find plenty of people saying the exact opposite. Frankly, it doesn't matter, what DOES matter is what Scripture says.
So, sure, we have Peter doing plenty of things. We also have Peter being corrected by Paul for having wrong practices that he got from James in the first place. We have John, not Peter, receiving the care of Jesus's mother. We have Paul, not Peter, writing the most NT books. We have Peter being called Satan by Jesus. We have Peter denying Jesus after the confession of His Godhood that you keep repeating. We have Peter being too scared to show up to the Crucifixion, the only one who does show up, the only one who doesn't abandon Jesus, is John. James, not Peter, is the leader of the "base church" in Jerusalem. We have Peter himself saying that he is merely an elder, equal to the elders of the churches of Asia Minor that he is writing to, most of whom aren't even apostles. We have him listed as a "pillar", but as an equal pillar with James and John, in Galatians 2:9.
I could just as easily show how John should be the leader of the church, by showing that he was the disciple Jesus loved, he was the only one faithful to the end, he was the one who was given care of Jesus's mother, he was the one given the final revelation by God, etc... but that would be just as inaccurate as insisting that Peter was the leader, because Jesus Himself specifically told them to act as brothers, equals.
Jesus said "Feed my sheep", not "Lead my sheep". He said "Feed MY sheep", not "Feed YOUR sheep". Jesus is our Head Shepherd, not Peter, not the Pope.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 3:56:02 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
For the THIRD time, there was NEVER an angel sent to Peter to announce the resurrection......
Mark 16: 5-7:
....On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were utterly amazed. He said to them, "Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. But go and tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.'"
Sounds like an angel wanted to let Peter know about the resurrection to me. Or do you think that the "young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe" was the milkman?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 4:28:29 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
That's not an angel being sent to announce to Peter, that's an angel being sent to tell the women, and then telling them to tell Peter and the other disciples, like I keep telling you.
When an angel is sent to tell a specific someone something, he tells them. Not tells someone else to tell them.
Or do you think that the angel was somehow incapable of going to Peter and telling Peter, if the angel wanted Peter to know first?
The distinction is because Peter wasn't with the other disciples at the time.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 4:42:17 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Verse 1: Peter appeals as a fellow elder. Not as the boss, not from any position of primacy, but as a fellow elder. If Peter were the de facto leader of the church, he would not need to appeal, he could just say "do this" and the rest would have to do it. Even if Peter were using an "appeal" to be tactful, it would be unwise for someone speaking from a position of de facto authority to claim equality between himself and those being exhorted before making such an appeal.
Also very interesting that in Acts 8:14, it is the Twelve who send Peter and John to Samaria. If he was the "supreme leader", Peter would have done the sending instead we see him being sent.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Sounds to me that they wanted things to be done right, so they sent their two best men. :) I don't disagree at all, it may very well have been precisely that....who knows?
quote:
Or perhaps Peter led by going out there in person and feeding the Lord's sheep?
The verses seem relatively clear that Peter and John were sent by the concensus of the Twelve. This leaves little possibility of Peter being some type of supreme leader.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 4:45:11 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
It is "Peter the stone" or "Peter the pebble" and "Jesus the Rock" or "God our Rock".
"...Simon, you are Pebble, and upon this Boulder I will build my Church..."
Yeah - that just makes perfect sense - thanks for straightening me out on that...
Yep, it makes abosolute perfect sense considering the fact the church is built upon Peter's confession of faith and never ever upon the person of anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ - the ROCK.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 4:47:38 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
If Jesus were trying to make it clear that Peter is the foundation of everything, shouldn't He have said "You are Peter, and on you I will build my church"? Why say rock twice?.... If that wre the ONLY verse the pope's office was based on, it would be questionable. That verse IS the strongest and most often used verse for the office of pope. And, considering how devastatingly weak it actually is the rest of the "evidence" is less than negligible.
quote:
For the THIRD time, there was NEVER an angel sent to Peter to announce the resurrection......
quote:
Mark 16: 5-7:
....On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were utterly amazed. He said to them, "Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. But go and tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.'"
Sounds like an angel wanted to let Peter know about the resurrection to me. Or do you think that the "young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe" was the milkman? It is precisely as these verses clearly demonstrate and precisely what has been repeatedly pointed out, there is NO basis to the RC claim that an angel was sent to Peter.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/21/2008 7:52:10 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
quote:
It is "Peter the stone" or "Peter the pebble" and "Jesus the Rock" or "God our Rock".
"...Simon, you are Pebble, and upon this Boulder I will build my Church..."
Yeah - that just makes perfect sense - thanks for straightening me out on that...
Yep, it makes abosolute perfect sense considering the fact the church is built upon Peter's confession of faith and never ever upon the person of anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ - the ROCK.
A brief excerpt from "Peter and the Papacy":
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?
Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthe | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
