Peter as rock

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 05-30-18 | Msgr, Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Peter as rock

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.

[af_vet_1981]

1. Genuine churches of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church the Messiah built have angels and candlesticks.
2. They need to do repentance and works (works are specifically mentioned 12 times across all the churches), just as the Messiah told their angels.
3. The candlesticks (menorahs if you will) of these churches are in heaven and are a light to the world when obedient (disciplined).
4. As for the local fundamental independent Bible church gatherings found everywhere you look, more than 30,000 of them, all holding a common faith, do you mean the Baptist Bible Fellowship and/or the Bible Baptist Fellowship?

[Fantasywriter]

‘Heck, they don’t even think Scripture is God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired.’

This is the stunning, all but unbelievable truth. Seeing them trying to set aside the actual Word of God so as to replace it with man-made tradition makes a body wonder if they’ve ever read it. Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about substituting man-made tradition for the Word of God. His words should cause the hair of anyone guilty of a similar offense to stand on end.

But a reaction like that, of course, only happens to a person who fears (reverences) God. No one who is willing to substitute man-made traditions for the inspired Word of God can possibly fear Him. That is the problem.

[metmom]

As for the local fundamental independent Bible church gatherings found everywhere you look, more than 30,000 of them, all holding a common faith, do you mean the Baptist Bible Fellowship and/or the Bible Baptist Fellowship?

As for the local fundamental independent Bible church of them claim of being the One True Church gatherings found everywhere you look, more than 30,000 1.2 billion interpretations of Catholicism, (or at least 22 "rites" at odds with each other), all holding a common faith, do you mean the Baptist Bible Fellowship and/or the Bible Baptist Fellowship church at Laodocea, or Smyrna, etc? Because what I DON'T see listed in the letters to the churches in Revelation 2&3 is ANY mention in the least of Rome.

[Luircin]

You could just politely ask what we believe, you know.

[Luircin]

Finally got to read the whole response. VBS week is crazy! Will have to keep response short.

You make a good point about God’s providence. I’ll do some thinking about it myself.

[imardmd1]

My words: As for the local fundamental independent Bible church gatherings found everywhere you look, more than 30,000 of them, all holding a common faith, . . .

Your words: . . . do you mean the Baptist Bible Fellowship and/or the Bible Baptist Fellowship?

I took the "30,000" to be figurative of the number created in the imagination of one Romanist in this overall thread, who used it to describe the many non-Catholic flavors of Christendom. That would not be restricted to BBF, SBC, GARB, etc., Baptists. There are a lot of local Bible fellowships such as the Plymouth-type Darbyite brethren, Calvary Chapels, Harvest-generated, as well as just plain community churches.

Because what I DON'T see listed in the letters to the churches in Revelation 2&3 is ANY mention in the least of Rome.

As I previously indicated, each corrective letter mentioned in Rev. 1-3 were addressed, not to the churches, but to a particular ordained individual, a messenger of the church which he was influencing. However, each of those letters was made public to the constituents of the churches so that they could see how each of those "angels" was to be disciplined and/or commended by their common Head, The Christ.

As to the corrective epistles directed to the whole assembly, Rome had a whole corrective book of its own, as did Corinth (x2), Colossae, Thessalonika (x2), and Philippi. The local assemblies planted by Paul and his co-laborers in the Galatae region of Anatolia were grouped together, the ones who had been veering toward a works-based apostasy, but hopefully saved from plunging over the brink. Some of those church groups may possibly have survived the flood of Muslims that overran the area, but at least six of the seven churches apparently did not.

[Fantasywriter]

Thank you. Also, OT but thanks for that time you explained game theory. It was so succinct, lucid and enlightening. I really appreciated it.

[metmom]

Your words: . . . do you mean the Baptist Bible Fellowship and/or the Bible Baptist Fellowship?

*I* did not say that. Those are not my words, they were copied and pasted from the post to which I was responding.

[imardmd1]

As I said, you do not perceive what these terms mean or how they work out, even when the Bible tells you, so there is no point in responding to these assertions.

[imardmd1]

You are right . . . I responded to your note in my “New Posts” area without reading through the interim material. What I usually try to do is accredit the authours for their works. I slipped up because you did not split this out. No offense intended.

[rwa265]

or at least 22 “rites” at odds with each other

---

In what way are they at odds with each other?

[metmom]

These are some of the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split.

And this is just the EO.

Trust me, the Ukrainian Catholics do not have warm fuzzy feeling to the Roman rite either

The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:

The Holy Spirit (the filioque)

In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.

In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.

Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of

EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.

RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.

Pope - Authority of

EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.

RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).

Pope - Infallibility of

EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.

RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.

Purgatory

EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.

I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.

http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html

[metmom]

The EO do not recognize the supremacy of the pope and Roman Catholicism condemns anyone who doesn't.

Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church)
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." — St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian").http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html

[rwa265]

I am aware that there are differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The communion of 14 or 15 regional churches that is the Orthodox Church does not include the at least 22 “rites” that you mentioned. The 23 Eastern-rite Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Church of Rome, and as far as I know are not at odds with each other.

[metmom]

The EO do not submit to the authority of the pope, correct?

They each consider themselves to be the original Catholic church and the other to be in schism.

So who decided that the church at Rome is the One True Catholic church in the first place?

Cause they claim it and were able to muscle all the competition out of the picture?

Of course it sounds good to say that yes, they are different rites, but they are all in communion.

And yet the denomination to denominational differences that exist between various Protestant denominations are not as great as some of the ones that exist within Catholicism.

It’s ironic that when there are differences in Catholicism, it’s lauded and *We’re all in communion* see how great being one church is, and yet when it’s non-Catholic, the differences are used as a point of condemnation to prove the weakness of denominationalism and *every man his own pope*.

It’s a double standard and hypocritical.

[metmom]

So, I did some research about ex cathedra statements, and found that there is uncertainty about how many here are and I could not find the statements themselves anywhere.

Lots of Catholic sites talk about them, but do not provide the actual transcript.

The two that I was able to at least see acknowledged were the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.

Now, the questions I also could not find answers to were, are these on par with Scripture as God Breathed, Holy Spirit inspired revelation? Are they determined to be Truth, as in Truth as found in God’s word?

And what are the consequences of NOT believing them? IOW, if someone does not acknowledge them, does it affect their salvation?

[Luircin]

My pleasure! Glad to hear that it helped someone.

[rwa265]

The communion of 14 or 15 regional churches that is the Orthodox Church does not submit to the authority of the Pope.

The 23 Eastern-rite Catholic Churches that are in full communion with the Church of Rome do submit to the authority of the Pope.

[Elsie]

Using a poor text gives a poor translation(s).

I agree with you.

However; my point is, "How does one define a POOR text?"

Would this not entail have a PURE text to refer to?

What we have in this little disagreement is an ABUNDANCE of one text and a dearth of another.

ALL of them are copies of something else.

NEITHER side has a proof text with which to test the 'correctness' of their favorite.

[Elsie]

What the adherents of the critical text maintain is that God was not able to preserve His Written Word and make it available to His churches throughout this Age, and that they through scholarship have provided something better, and that translations from it are better.

I disbelieve that, and disagree with that position.

 

 

What the adherents of the recieved text maintain is that God WAS able to preserve His Written Word and make it available to His churches throughout all time, and that they; through scholarship; have PROVEN something worse, and that translations from them are suspect.

I disbelieve that, and disagree with that position.