Posted on 03/21/2010 3:03:29 PM PDT by NYer
|
What Is Heresy?
Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).
To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.
Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope's infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.
With this in mind, let's look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.
The Circumcisers (1st Century)
The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"
Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God's covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.
But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ's imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two.aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God's relation to man, not in objective reality.
Arianism (4th Century)
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam's sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ's death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God's grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God's grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one's efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ's human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius's theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius's implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ's full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
Catharism (11th Century)
Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.
The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.
Protestantism (16th Century)
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"—the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
Jansenism (17th Century)
Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.
Heresies have been with us from the Church's beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ's promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul's words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Sorry, I see nothing irreconcilable about what the Bible says regarding mankind's God-given freedom to accept or reject the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.
I am neither a Calvinist nor Armianist. That's not what this thread is about anyway.
Just playing with the words again. Oh, that you really did teach and believe that to its fullest! How sad that the church in Rome, founded by Paul the Apostle, could veer so far away from what he stressed more than any of the other writers of scripture. God entrusted him with so much revelation about the gift of eternal life based not on man's works but purely by God's grace through faith.
That the church in Rome today not only denies this eternal truth, but condemns as heretical anyone who does not agree with them, must make him quite sad. I am grieved as well.
Is this acceptance or rejection something you do?
if you believe you are saved by faith plus something else you do - regardless of what that something else is - then you are NOT placing your trust in Jesus Christ as your savior
When someone who loves you gives you a gift, you can accept the gift or turn it down, either way "a gift" by virtue of the word implied is not something earned, not something for which you "do" anything. If you receive it, it is yours, if you reject it, you do not have it. I don't know any way to explain it in simpler terms.
If I have free will, I can choose to accept a gift or turn it down.
A choice is an act of free will.
Would you agree?
We already had a BIG long thread on this subject. Ain’t in the mood to discuss the whole free will/predestination, faith is/is not a gift subject, if you don’t mind.
Certainly.
You cannot separate the expression ("the opinion") from the labels ("heretics" & "false teachers").
It's like when the Dixie Checks played a concert overseas (I believe it was 2003) & took the opportunity to criticize our President on foreign soil. They, too, were simply "expressing an opinion"...and many conservatives elected, in response, to do one or more of the following...
...not purchase future Dixie Chicks' CDs
...not attend their concerts
...while some even dumped what they already owned produced by them...
Now I suppose you could have come along, wagged your finger @ that those folks who responded in that way, claiming, "you're way too thin skinned." But the reality is that words & actions can have economic consequences. And if consumers don't want their $ going to the Dixie Chicks, that was their economic free will & discretion, right?
Likewise, the author of this article should bear some consequences for dissing all Protestants as "heretics" & "false teachers." If this man's "advisory board" wants to stand by him, fine, that's their "free expression." But "free expression" is not a one-way street.
For years I've been wanting to buy another specific J. Budziszewski book. He's a great author. I have three Peter Kreeft books. A fine author. I will no longer recommend either; and will never cite them. Why? Because they have shown poor discernment. They want to peddle their books & products to us Protestant readers -- all the while their friends & formal associates attack us as "heretics" & "false teachers." I'm sorry, but there's a bit of a "disconnect" there.
I call upon all Protestant FReepers reading this thread to do the same. For all I know, some of the "advisory board" may also provide $ funding to the CERC Web site. If CERC has declared all Protestants as their enemies, we don't need to be funding those who posturing themselves this way, or those who are "advising" them to do this.
On the contrary. The expression "faith alone" only appears once in the Bible-in James 2:24-where it is rejected. James views intellectual assent as good thing ("you do well," v. 19a), but not as a thing that will save us by itself (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).
Note that you no longer are reading any scripture. You are not because the scripture does not support this false dichotomy. You are instead following a teaching of men -- a logic that is appealing to you, but not the message communicated in the Gospel, which never separates works from faith:
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2)
Protestantism is a heresy and protestant pastors are false teachers, -- they are "wolves that scatter" (Luke 11:23, John 10:12). If you'd rather buy books from people who let their readers' heads remain planted in the sand, it's a free country, or so it was, but for your own sake you should rather seek the truth.
To me, it sounds as if it is not:
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).”
Doesn’t the above exclude Islam? Or am I wrong?
You’re right.
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 1 Peter 2:4-8
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, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
“Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (”by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (”by faith alone”—the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.”
Matthew 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Well Spoken!
I'm not a Catholic, but I don't see 'all religion enslaves'. Your exhortation is a good example of 'sola fide'. The Catholic problems arises from this error pointed out in the article:
sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology)
Scripture is the only true source of doctrine as it is the only 'certified' Word of God extant. Certified by God Himself.
What I find odd is that you use a proof text that proves OUR point. It is NOT by works, it is by faith. And how do you get that faith? Through Jesus who calls you by name. You don’t do ANYTHING. It is NOT of yourselves, but God alone, through faith alone. It is NOT of works, so that man may say “See what I have done? I have approached God.” Even our “good works” demonstrate the faith that God puts in us, and does not demonstrate how much we have aspired to be with God. They are works GOD has prepared for us.
Again, thanks for OUR proof text :>)
May God be with you all. Irishtenor.
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
?? Where is that? Matthew, in verse 16, is referring to the person of Simon Peter, but this gospel was written after the ascension. So how does Jesus refer to Peter? You have placed that text in red to indicate it is a quotation: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
It is not until the next line that our Lord changes Simon's name to Peter.
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.
Now, Elsie, what language did Jesus and His apostles speak? Aramaic. The conversation that took place on that day was in Aramaic. We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ So when Jesus called Peter "rock", he was speaking in Aramaic. Rock in Aramaic is kepha.
Now, let's look at the scene. Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
Who is the rock? Let's take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
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."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.