Posted on 03/29/2014 7:53:18 AM PDT by STJPII
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked.....
There was a time, not long ago, when Catholicism was synonymous with clear, unequivocal teaching. Like her or hate her, people knew where the Church stood on every important issue. The Baltimore Catechism, the precepts of the Church, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, the Code of Canon Law, the various papal teachings that upheld truth and condemned error in no uncertain terms…people who had never darkened the doorstep of a Catholic Church were not ignorant of her most basic teachings. Catholic schoolchildren, on the other hand, could recite many of these core beliefs from memory.
Over the course of the 20th century, however, that began to change."
Be not afraid!!
Agreed. Not afraid. Just trying to reconcile all the incoherence. But for the mystics none of this would make sense to me.
Actually, the Catechism says that Christ would build His church on Peter's confession. Not Peter.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9 (683, 552)
It is very clear that Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope and the Apostles as the first bishops. But the main point of my comment is the Jesus has told us not to fear the threats, but rather to persevere because in the end His church will triumph.
But how can Catholics say this when the official teaching of the church as based on the catechism, and the plain reading of the Biblical text, says Christ will build His church upon Peter’s confession?
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”284 Christ, the “living stone,”285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286 (880, 153, 442, 424)
553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.”288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (881, 1445, 641, 881)
,”285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church.
contradict this?
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9 (683, 552)
It was not upon Peter which the Lord said He would build His church, but upon the truth Peter uttered when Jesus asked “but who do you say that I am” to which Peter responded, “ you are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.
Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
Mat 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
As we can see, binding and loosing was given to all the disciples...Not just Peter...I am a disciple of Jesus just as every born again Christian is a disciple...
We all have the power to bind and loose...
If your religion was based on what Jesus taught, your religion wouldn't and couldn't exist...
You should argue this with Martin Luther.
“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” – Martin Luther
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/trueman-and-prolegomena-to-how-would.html
The facts are overwhelming. Peter’s name is changed to Rock (Name changes in scripture are momentus Abram etc.). Matthew 18 fails to mention the “Keys” which is a clear reference to Isaiah 22, where Eliakim was given real, absolute authority to govern.
Only if it’s either or, which is a modern notion not held by Martin Luther.
“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” – Martin Luther
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/trueman-and-prolegomena-to-how-would.html
However, he is not.
The passage in Matthew is clear that Jesus is building His church upon Peter's confession. Not Peter.
It seems the Catholic doctrine is to have it both ways which is in contradiction of Scripture.
The church is either built upon Peter or his confession. It can't be both.
Does He give Peter the keys to the kingdom? Yes. But these keys were the authority to open the doors of Christendom to the people.
We see Peter doing this at Pentecost and then later to the Gentiles in the House of Cornelius.
The notion of apostolic tradition is not supported by Scripture unless you take passages out of context which some have done to support their position.
We are reminded that we are all a "royal priesthood" in this passage from 1 Peter.
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
This sure sounds like we are all commanded to spread the Gospel.
We are also told in Acts 8:4 that after the church was scattered they went about preaching the word. These were everyday believers of Christ.
This supports the idea of a priesthood of believers.
It is very clear that Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope and the Apostles as the first bishops.
Like all reformation Christians, you are trying to build a comprehensive legal case from document not suited to such application. That exercise requires certain inferences that while useful to the “prosecution,” are not comprehensively demonstrable from the source documentation.
Case in point: 2 Tim 3:16 tells us a man of God can not be complete without Scriptures. It does NOT tell us the man of God is complete BY Scriptures.
A somewhat subtle point, but it is the crux of the argument between Reformed and Catholics over the authority of Scripture.
In effect, the dilemma you pose gets no traction with Catholics because it assumes a reformation orientation regarding the authority of Church documents.
A rough explanation, I know. And probably not without faults.
Perhaps the analogy of a “King James Cultist” would work better.
Said cultists have elevated their preference for a particular translation of the Bible to such an extent they perceive a Satanic plot in all other translations. So much so, discrepancies between the King James and all other translations are regarded as prima facie evidence of said plot. (I have even witnessed serious men trying to make the case the Sanhedrin were so incensed by the testimony of Stephen they physically assaulted him by biting)
You see Scripture as a contract, and use inference from other Scripture to fill in the “legal” holes. Catholics see Scripture as a “Constitution” with holes filled in by adjudication by the Church.
Thus, to a Catholic, there is no inherent contradiction between the irrefutably plain statement of our Lord about Peter in Matthew 16:18, and a more metaphoric understanding in the Catechism.
That's not what the Scripture says.
Where does it say that?
Like all reformation Christians, you are trying to build a comprehensive legal case from document not suited to such application. That exercise requires certain inferences that while useful to the “prosecution,” are not comprehensively demonstrable from the source documentation.
I am not a reformation Christian...I am a Christian...a follower of Christ. I believe He died on the cross for all of my sins and has separated them as far as the east is from the west.
Case in point: 2 Tim 3:16 tells us a man of God can not be complete without Scriptures. It does NOT tell us the man of God is complete BY Scriptures.
The verse you cite does tells we are made complete by the Scriptures.
The verse you cite comes at the end of 2 Timothy 3 in which many warnings are given by Paul about apostasy, false teaching, etc.
Indeed in v 15 it tells us "and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ." I note Paul doesn't refer to anything other than the sacred writings which have to be the Old Testament at this point in time.
v16 then clarifies that all Scripture is inspired by God... v17 notes that with the Scriptures the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
the greek word for adequate/complete, depending on English translation, in verse 17 is ἄρτιος and means perfect, complete, ready, fitted.
So right here in the very passage you are sighting we do have a clear teaching that the Scripture (Bible) is able to teach us everything we need to know about teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.
We have Paul telling us in v15 about the sacred writings learned from childhood.
With the inspired Word of God why would you need any man made teachings?
A somewhat subtle point, but it is the crux of the argument between Reformed and Catholics over the authority of Scripture.
If Scripture isn't supreme, especially based on the verse we've been discussing in 2 Timothy, then what is? and why?
In effect, the dilemma you pose gets no traction with Catholics because it assumes a reformation orientation regarding the authority of Church documents.
A rough explanation, I know. And probably not without faults.
Perhaps the analogy of a “King James Cultist” would work better.
Said cultists have elevated their preference for a particular translation of the Bible to such an extent they perceive a Satanic plot in all other translations. So much so, discrepancies between the King James and all other translations are regarded as prima facie evidence of said plot. (I have even witnessed serious men trying to make the case the Sanhedrin were so incensed by the testimony of Stephen they physically assaulted him by biting)
You see Scripture as a contract, and use inference from other Scripture to fill in the “legal” holes. Catholics see Scripture as a “Constitution” with holes filled in by adjudication by the Church.
I guess part of the disagreement is that I don't see any legal holes the Bible has to fill. We have all we need to know about how to come to know Christ in the Bible. It teaches us how to pray. It teaches us how to have forgiveness. It teaches us every aspect of being a Christian we need to know as noted in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
It seems you are saying the Bible is insufficient...which would contradict 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Thus, to a Catholic, there is no inherent contradiction between the irrefutably plain statement of our Lord about Peter in Matthew 16:18, and a more metaphoric understanding in the Catechism.
So which is it then regarding Peter? I don't understand how it can be both as you are claiming. The catechism, which as I understand it, is the official position of the Catholic Church. And it clearly says, and correctly I might add, that Christ is building His church on Peter's confession....not Peter. This understanding about Peter's confession is supported as we read the passage in its context.
We don't know if Martin said that at all...There was no reference to the source material...
The facts are overwhelming. Peter’s name is changed to Rock
The real facts are that Peter's name was changed to little rock, or stone to show to be a rock but in contrast to the Rock, Jesus Christ...And even if Martin said that sometime during his lifetime, so what...Martin was a Catholic...
Matthew 18 fails to mention the “Keys” which is a clear reference to Isaiah 22, where Eliakim was given real, absolute authority to govern.
Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isa 22:23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
Isa 22:24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.
Sorry but any one can see this is a reference to Jesus Christ, not Peter...A type of Jesus Christ...None of your theories pans out...
I just posted it...Many of the disciples came to Jesus with a question...And when they ask Jesus who was the greatest he said Peter, right??? WRONG...Then as part of his discourse to ALL he said what I posted...
AND THEN, after the discourse, Peter came up and asked a question...
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.