Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
You might also find Pope Benedict's confession on the matter revealing as excerpted on post 43.
There appears to be no confusion about the identity of The ROck in the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church.
To whatever extent there is a confusion as to "Who is The Rock?" - it must be among the laity.
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
You can see there are different, very fine, distinctions between "rock" and "rock". It is very easy to see the confusion among the laity and the clergy for that matter.
A cynic might say "There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear that it cannot be denied or reinterpreted as necessary."
At any rate, I do believe according to Jewish tradition we humans can never fully "know" His name, by "know" I mean be able to write it down, pronounce it correctly, etc, so such discussions become largely academic, and not necessary for the Christian walk, per se. Just to put it in perspective.
I suppose that it may be an interesting point of historical curiousity that in Deut 32 the term "rock" was ommitted in earlier texts, but, it still remains that today the term is not ommitted, even from Catholic bibles. Also, worth noting, generally speaking, there are plenty of examples where certain words or phrases are clearly different from one translation/version to another; this is why KJV-onlyism, (or any Bible-onlyism) is a dangerous form of scholarship. Only by comparing translations/versions, and seeing which is the most common for any particular passage, can we, the casual reader get any idea at all which is the correct one, for any particular passage. And even this general rule of thumb isn't always right, as sometimes, the one unusual passage is the one that's translated correctly.
In this case the term "rock" does appear to have been ommitted incorrectly, but again, it's a mere point of curiousity, nothing more, IMHO, since even Catholic bibles have the term today.
quite so, Doc E.
= = = =
On the other hand, you have different fingers . . .
- - -
But, Dr E, who needs Holy Spirit? We have Papa Pope; and all the pontificating Cardinals and bishops . . . and we have all our lovely fantasies about Mother Mary; and all the beads and statues and all the Magesterical's encyclicals . . . and all the rituals and blather . . . all to keep us comfortable . . . or is it conformed . . . maybe I'm getting my beads mixed up . . .
/satire
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, but
Angel-Gal . . . you should know
[in the best Tevya imitation]
!!!TRADITION!!! TRUMPS TRUTH ANY DAY! Just ask em . . . though when put that way, they'll deny it . . . most other ways, too many demonstrate it.
We do well to try and speak the truth in love to such deadly error.
lol. Exactly.
But it is not just a metaphor, it is a Name of God.
When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM" it was very clear that is His Name, i.e. that He is God.
Indeed. And if it were not for the fact that The Rock is a Name of God, it would not bother me that the term was used as a metaphor.
But it is not just a metaphor, it is a Name of God.
When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM" it was very clear that is His Name, i.e. that He is God.
= = = =
I wholesale agree.
But, it is not, really against the folks who believe differently, that I so stridently pontificate about such things.
It is against the damage to their souls and spiritual lives that such errors foster. I trust they pontificate on their side for similar reasons--at least I hope so.
Again, we MUST be sensitive and obedient to the two witnesses:
THE WORD
and
HOLY SPIRIT.
Naught else is sufficiently reliable for our trust.
NOTHING else.
NO ONE else.
No structure, no tradition, no chain of command, no sequence of signed logbooks, . . . .
NOTHING.
NOT Papal pontificators; Not all the Cardinals from whenever to now; Not all the bishops and all the cardinals; not all the equal in the Protesty camps; not all the scholars . . . NOT ALL OF THEM COMBINED;
Not Mary; nor Jesus' brothers in the flesh; Not even the Apostles, per se.
NO ONE.
GOD ALONE
HIS WORD ALONE
Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deu 12:3-4
Who is The Lord?
Who is YHWH?
Who is HaShem?
Who is El Shaddai?
Who is Immanuel?
Who is Adonai?
Who is the Lily of the Valley?
Who is the Rose of Sharon?
Who is Alpha and Omega?
Who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords?
Who is The Word?
Who is the Holy Ghost?
Who is Jesus Christ?
Who is The Rock?
And truly, you and I, and a great many like us here on this forum lean only on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God for Truth and we are filled with joy and blessed assurance.
But there are some who are more comfortable, for whatever reason, at certain times of their lives - and perhaps their entire lives - leaning on their trusted spiritual leaders.
Let us rejoice that they have that - and pray for those spiritual leaders and for them, trusting God to work everything together for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
You have a valid point as God reveals Himself to mankind in a series of revelations, each one leading to the whole. To leave one out would leave the revelation incomplete.
TRUE, TRUE.
Your Spirit wisdom strikes home again.
Thx.
Nor does mine. Which is why I try to back up what I am saying with Scripture. Some Scripture portions are hard do deal with. But, you deal with them nevertheless because it is what Scripture says. The idea of a virgin birth, for example, is something some people have a hard time with. I don't. I accept it by faith with no difficulty in the least because the Scripture testifies of such and the evidence is that in spite of efforts to try no real credible evidence exists to suggest something else. In other areas, such as the one we are dealing with, we should draw our conclusion from Scripture. If there is a difference of interpretation, I differ to the on non-essentials liberty saying. I believe the primacy of Peter to be false, but I don't lose sleep over it and recognize that others believe differently.
Well, that's a refreshing and honest attitude, and God bless you for it.
I should make myself 100% clear. ANY kind of vainglorious, self-glorification connected with Church heirarchy is odious, disgusting, and completely foreign to the Church of God. The absolute WORST heirarchs are those who are concerned about the trappings of the office, and not the teaching of the faith and serving of the people.
So I agree with you there.
But you don't seem to have room in your interpretation for a righteous and Godly man who nevertheless occupies an office of authority. Am I wrong?
Indeed! That's a great way to put it: "cornerstone" rocks in the true "Rock" which is God.
I regret that your comments on the "specially-announced Name of God--the Rock" got kinda lost in the shuffle here. I'll go back and read your posts on that.
Possible, but there's no evidence of that in Scripture. But since you bring up the end of John, where Christ says to Peter "feed my lambs, tend my sheep", it's interesting there that Christ is delegating his "Good Shepherdness" to Peter. Not that Peter becomes the Good Shepherd *in place* of Christ--that would be abject heresy and nonsense. But Christ makes Peter a guardian and shepherd of His flock in his stead.
Which reflects exactly what we are talking about in Matt 16.
Quix, let me say categorically that you are arguing against a straw man. Here are three positions vis a vis the Pope:
1) Holy Spirit does not head the Church, just the Pope. (what you just said)
2) Holy Spirit heads the Church through the Pope. (Catholic position)
3) Holy Spirit heads the Church without the Pope. (your position)
Nobody believes #1, because it's totally idiotic. If anyone does believe that, they need to be smacked.
Don't misrepresent our position to score rhetorical points.
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.