Posted on 06/02/2018 6:34:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: A Protestant told me recently that Peter can’t be the rock since Jesus is described as the rock and cornerstone of the Church, and he showed me a couple of places where Jesus is described as the cornerstone and even a stumbling block to unbelievers. Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C.
Answer: Of course Jesus, Peter and others who are called “rock” or stone are not literally chunks of stone. What we have in such attestations is the application of a metaphor. Scripture, like any lengthy document uses many metaphors, similes and analogies. Such things can be true in different ways.
In the Scriptures we see that Peter is called “the rock” by Jesus (Mt 16:18). Jesus is also called a stone (1 Pt 2:6). And the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones and Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The Book of Revelation describes the Twelve Apostles as foundation stones (Rev 21:14). So there are a number of “stone” references that need not be mutually exclusive.
Jesus is the deepest and surest foundation of the Church. That the Apostles, prophets and, in a special way, Peter are rock is understood in a subordinate sense. That is, they are rock and foundation for the Church on account of the grace and support of Jesus.
|
|
The Protestant to whom you refer fails to see the context and metaphorical sense of the texts and terms. He also fails to see that Jesus, while not abandoning his Church as her true head and foundation, does assign Peter a unique status to be the visible and identifiable rock on which the Church will be built. Peter (and his successors) is the rock, but he does not stand in midair. He is supported by Christ and his grace and affirmed by him as the visible rock and head of the Church. The Protestant approach is to see the Church as invisible. But Jesus did not establish an invisible Church. It is visible and with a visible rock and head: Peter and his successors.
‘It’s not either-or, it’s both-and.’
True...SO true.
+1
‘I’m shaking my head in disbelief a lot when on FR. Just about all of us agree that the Constitution should be adhered to, as written. It’s not a “living document”. It shouldn’t be added to or diminished in any way.
A minute later there’s a thread where some are playing fast and loose with Scripture. Making up “stuff” and people. Ignoring other things. It seems the Bible should be given at least as much respect as the Constitution.’
Very, VERY true—with this one crucial difference. The Constitution is the work of men. They were very fine, well educated, wise and singularly remarkable men...but they were just men.
Scripture is God-breathed/Holy Spirit inspired. It is God’s Word for us. As such it should be studied with the greatest care and attention and diligently applied as our rule of faith and practice.
One of the things we must never, ever do is to elevate the traditions of men to the level of Scripture. Man-made traditions are not God-breathed. They are not Holy Spirit inspired. They are anything but inerrant. To Scripture alone these attributes apply. The traditions of men must be judged by Scripture but never, EVER should Scripture be altered or augmented by fallible traditions instituted by the selfsame sinful humanity that Jesus died on the cross to cleanse and save.
Oops; I went and assumed too much there, didn’t I. In fact, I knew of a very similar situation. The guy went to Bible college and appeared to love and cherish the Lord. After a few years in a secular environment he was living for the devil. Hence our role as fruit inspectors only, since only God knows the heart.
In the article, “In Defense of Fatima: Defending Marian Theology”, we demonstrate that it is an obligation of Christians to have devotion to the Mother of God. Marian devotion has long been practiced amongst the Angels, as was evidenced by the Archangel Gabriel’s homage to Her who was “full of grace” (Lk. 1:28)
The depths of eisegesis the Roman Catholic has to reach in order to justify their worship of the apparition they call Mary.
There is nothing, repeat nothing, in the passage cited that indicates Gabriel is devoted to Mary.
Luke makes clear what Gabriel's message was: 29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.
The Roman Catholic has to really twist the Scriptures to support their worship of the apparition.
Here’s the passage where Jesus does away with the Old Covenant model of physically-centered worship. In the New Covenant it’s not the place—be it Rome or wherever—it’s the state of the heart.
John 4:
19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
The tone of your comment is ridiculous, you came here to argue, or you wouldn’t have ever posted anything to an article written by a priest. I can get on any protestant themed FR post I want if my idea was to be a pain. I never do, but the same five or six people jump on every Catholic post on FR.
For one thing, it’s hard to argue with protestants, since we have no idea which one of the 30,000 varieties a poster belongs to, or whether he goes to the non denominational, “started my own church to make my Escalade payment” Church of Me.
One church has authority, posted Catechism and Magisterium, and records for hundreds of years. Protestantism has churches with Lesbian ministers, homo marriages, some who do. infant baptism, some who don’t. In other words, it’s chaos.
I can go to any Catholic church in the USA and know what the readings will be, and normally the related homily. It is an organization, not chaos. I can read the Catechism and know what they teach, I don’t change denominations or ministers to find one that suits me.
You really feel qualified to attack people on the basis of ‘tone,’? Your reply is one long, aggressive litany of accusations—including false accusations. It speaks very poorly of your denomination.
I’m not EO because I reject your conceit that the ekklesia has to be a visible organization. I follow the teachings of Jesus, not men.
I use the word organization because the majority of the Rome leadership doesn’t deserve the word ‘church.’
Even if I were to concede the idea that Peter has special status, and I don’t, it doesn’t mean
And in Galatians we see that Paul calls out Peter for improper teaching and action, so if we were to concede your point there, then that means it’s our responsibility to call out Rome when they get it wrong.
Not our fault that Rome decided to condemn us for preaching the truth.
Oh, and your strawman that non Catholics don’t teach that we should do good works is a: untrue and b: obviously untrue. Do some research.
Well, if they are willing to ignore the clear concise command of Jesus in Scripture to not call any man in religious positions *father* as a religious title, it’s no surprise they will ignore their own papal bull and something that is supposed to be infallibly spoken.
You are the one that brought up ‘tone’! I’m as qualified as you are. Anyway I’m done talking with anti Catholic trolls. Have a great day, I’m going to Mass.
Have a great day.
A correction, if I may .......
All wrapped up in ancient error's warm blanket of SELF-rightness.
‘I’m done talking with anti Catholic trolls.’
A twofer: abusive ad hominem AND a false accusation. This speaks very poorly of your denomination.
Preach it.........
No Catholic is in any position to criticize any other church for having lesbian or homosexual pastors.
Why? It is accepted by some protestants, is against Catholic teaching. So, yes I can and did. End of conversation.
By which you condemn the many Catholics even here on FRwho reject the current pope and direction the church is going in, and who drive to another town to go find traditional Latin services.
Last time I checked the Latin Mass is approved by the church. It isn’t the sae thing and you know exactly what I’m talking about. I enjoy the Latin Mass occasionally.
Have a great day
You and demand all you want but nobody has to listen to you.
It’s only accepted by SOME prot churches. Yet the Catholic church is filled with homosexual priests from the top down.
And their *official* teaching doesn’t amount to a hill of beans when they do not adhere to it.
It’s an excuse used by every Catholic but doesn’t fool or impress or convince anyone because we all can see that it’s what you DO that shows what you really believe, not just what you say.
I have seen Catholics and Catholicism to be so hypocritical for condemning in others what it allows in itself.
When y’all clean house and purge your clergy of homosexuals and start living what you claim to believe, y’all might have some ground on which to condemn others. But as long as your church continues to allow in itself what it comdemns in others, the only label left for it is not *one true church* but *hypocrites.*
And your point is what, exactly?
Your finger pointing is hypocrisy. When you condemn your own church for its inaction on its own pedo priest and homosexual priest issues, then you might be in a position to take the moral high ground and condemn others as well.
Clean up your own house first and stop deflecting. Deflection does not justify you.
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.