Posted on 06/23/2018 7:48:28 AM PDT by Salvation
Bowing at the mention of Jesus’ name is an old practice that has since fallen into wide disuse
Msgr. Charles Pope June 10, 2018
Question: I was taught to nod my head when the name of Jesus was spoken. I see some priests and congregants do it, but not most. What is the current practice? — Diane Garrett, via email
Answer: Liturgically it is not required. This is a pious custom that, while less common today, is still observed by many. This is not only in the liturgy, but at any time the name of Jesus is uttered, and also, quite commonly, the name of Mary. In the traditional Latin Mass, where clergy wear birettas (a kind of square hat with a pom), there is the additional tipping (lifting off) of the biretta at the names of Jesus, Mary and the saint of the day. This external and very visible action also helped the faithful remember to bow their heads.
This laudable custom has sadly declined. Some clergy and others still observe it, and, while it is not required, it is worthy of being encouraged. Other customs too should not be forgotten, such as making the Sign of the Cross when passing a Catholic Church, praying the Angelus at noon and 6 p.m., and so forth. The generations raised in the 1960s and ’70s largely abandoned such practices. However, many of their children have rediscovered some of these lost customs like a precious heirloom brought down from the attic. Thus, while being careful not to harshly judge those who do not follow this non-required custom, many can joyfully take it up again and encourage others to do so.
He's not double minded about it, he's moved to undecided towards his later years. It's not strange at all. I suppose you have never changed your mind about anything over the years.
You walk right up to the TRUTH, then spit on it. Catholicism urges worship of Mary, adoration of Mary and making supernatural requests of the statuary images. That you are unable to see where you are uncomprehending is a sign you are not born again ... yet. But we’ll keep working at it.
All I did is post your words. If you want to call that spitting on the truth, well ok.
That you are unable to see where you are uncomprehending is a sign you are not born again
Yeah, right. You are reading your signs wrong again, and ended up in the ditch.
If the humans will merely do THEIR part.
Hmmmm Els. According to my precise calculations, that is false doctrine. There seems to be an over abundance of that on these threads. 😁🤣😊
At the risk of committing the catholic sin of presumption, I have ASSURANCE of salvation, and I revel in it, day and night. 😆 Sorry if that offends anyone. No, that’s not true. I should tell the truth here. Actually, I don’t really mind if that offends anyone. 😁🤣😆😇👍
No; I questioned nothing.
I showed that the scripture reference given did NOT match up with what was typed immediately before it.
I always assume you already know, but might want to create doubt in matters that keep OSASers and Arminianists from communicating fruitfully.
I like to post scripture that sheds light onto an otherwise darkened glass.
Doing so; I invite others to comment on my apparent misapplication of such.
Apparently the Catholic teaching was getting to him.
That's ok; for MANY of his fellow Catholics have said...
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
I wonder how many of THEM got 'undecided' later in life; too?
The posts of these ECFs shows the consistent inconsistency of the ECFs and illustrates why the believer should rely upon the inspired written word as their source of Truth.
Can you confirm you've read these works for context? Did any of these writers believe in the papacy?
I wonder how many of THEM got 'undecided' later in life; too?
If you've read their works you'd probably know.
Somehow taking God at His word does not seem like arrogance or presumption to me.
It seems like believing God and having faith in Him.
Me either. 👍😁😆😇😊
Though you didn't say this directly, I presumed that you were implying that Jesus did not place His Blood on the Mercy Seat of Heaven.
Is it correct that you were negating what I wrote?
I present quotes; and you vector off into other questions.
Interesting.
Perhaps I was implying that.
It is not at all clear from scripture that this has occurred.
So, you haven't checked for context. Interesting. Anybody can play a game of cut-and-paste and hope it sticks.
There are many non-Catholics who say Peter is the rock on which the Church is built. So, with your standard of not checking the actual source for context:
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.”
(W.F. Albright, Protestant and C.S. Mann); in The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”
(David Hill, Presbyterian); in The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972]“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.”
(R.T. France, Anglican); in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
(Donald A. Carson III, Baptist); in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .”
(D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. ed., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368}The meaning is, “You are Peter”, that is “Rock”, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church. Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church. Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
(William Hendriksen, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary, Reformed Christian Church); in New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
(Gerhard Maier, evangelical Lutheran); in The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: Thou art Rock, and upon this rock, etc.
(John Peter Lange, German Protestant scholar); in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petrawould have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petrosbeing lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed. But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier”.
(John A. Broadus, Baptist); two quotations from the same work: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
(J. Knox Chamblin, Presbyterian and New Testament Professor Reformed Theological Seminary); in Matthew, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following the Christ in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
(Craig L. Blomberg, Baptist and Professor of New Testament Denver Seminary); in The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. Simon, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
(Suzanne de Dietrich, Presbyterian); in The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
(Donald A. Hagner, Fuller Theological Seminary); in Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
No, I don't believe you did make that point so as to be clear and disambiguous, confronting the issue squarely and stating your point of view.
But now that you have made your approach a bit clearer, I believe you probably failed to see what is obvious to the student of the OT process of atonement with the blood of animal sacrifices (which could never take away sin, only be accepted in lieu of the human sinners' blood), which process was a foreshadowing of the one-time atonement of Christ offered after He arose out of the midst of the dead ones, also a substitutionary offering of His Blood in place of my/your/all of his faithful servants.
Reviewing the closely-related context of Hebrews 9:
Verse 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
The whole substance of the writings contained in the Book we call "The Old Testament" is this: it is about The God's promise to withhold the slaughter of a sinning human on the basis of allowing a slaughtered non-sinning animal to take his place, with the gathered substance of life--the blood of the victim--an evidence of the inability of the victim's body to sustain animation.
All the writing in that Book is merely a description of how this old first unilateral promise/will/covenant/testament played out. Going on:
Verse 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
In doing so, Moses, authorized by The God, instituted a more formal structure to this Covenant/Testament; with the sprinkled blood staining all the elements that henceforth would come under the coverage of this "insurance policy" so to speak, thus God's signature as to the validity of the unilaterally imposed agreement.
Verse 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
The blood of the slaughtered animals is symbolically the inked "fingerprint" of The God, ratifying the Covenant/Testament/Will/Statement-of-intention as applied by His chosen agent to the person of each of the humans falling under it.
Verse 21 Moreover heMoses sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
This makes the Tabernacle--the place of The God's Residence on earth--and all its furniture and utensils come under the agreement as well.
Verse 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
The only acceptable ink of the signature is supplied by the exsanguination of an otherwise undamaged, innocent, unwilling, but necessarily compliant victim.
Verse 23a It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; . . .
Under this First Testament, once all the precise instructions had been implemented, and everything was in place (including The God settling in and glorifying the Most Holy Inner Sanctum), all the sacrifices and blood-letting took place outside the Tabernacle, except for one matter: once a solar year, the God-Appointed High Priest was to bring in the blood of one of the substitutionary victims, right into the Holiest of All, to present it to The God, showing that the Covenant/documented Testimony, of which a copy of it was placed in a side pocket of the Ark of the Testimony, had not been forgotten.
And in the ark was also was the tablets bearing the symbol of the God-given moral law engraved permanently in stone, as well as the still-living and budding staff of the first High Priest Aaron, together with a noble pot containing uncorrupted manna. Over this closed Ark box was the Golden Mercy Seat, upon which this single priestly representative of all those sinners covered by the Covenant, was to re-sign his commitment, and that of the people as their agent, thus renewing and receiving another year's extension of the agreement.
But the signing could only be consummated in the shed blood of a perfect, innocent, compliant lamb. The killing of this lamb, and the distribution of its blood, also recalled the passing over of the death angel, many years before.
But all this precise temporarily renewed ritual of atonement was to illustrate how the final, not-ever-to-be-repeated maturity and final accounting of the Will and "life insurance policy" of the Testator, God-in-Man, was to be carried out.
Verse 23b . . . but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Looking back at what was a mystery to Moses and all of Israel for some fifteen hundred years, the writer of Hebrews reveals that indeed, in Heaven there were, are, and always will be a true Ark of the Covenant, whose deadly contents are covered and hidden by the covering of the symbol of The God's attribute of Mercy, which is the Kapporeth (Heb.), the Hilasterion (Gk.), the Mercy Seat (Eng.), heretofore unstained by Blood until the Messiah Jesus arose out of the dead ones. As the earthly pattern of it was yearly the recipient of the blood of the sacrificed lamb, so now at the Great and Final Accounting in Heaven, before the Mighty God, must the True Kapporeth there receive the burden of the perfect, ever-living, incorruptible Blood of the Lamb of God, the Son, as the vicarious Offering in the place of every son of Adam, that the Blood of the True Covenant be accepted, and the wrath of The God against humans be placated.
Verse 24a For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; . . .
In the earthly sphere, only a Hebrew, a Levite of the line of Aaron, and appointed as High Priest of all the nation, was permitted by God to enter the Holy of Holies, bearing the sin-covering lamb's blood, to place it first for his own sins, and after that for the sins of the people under the Covenant. Jesus, when He appeared on earth, counted as of the tribe of Judah, though a rabbi, could not under the law enter even into the narthex, let alone the innermost chamber; but the manmade earthly temple was only a symbol of, an antitype of the one in Heaven.
Verse 24b . . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
The Risen Messiah, a Man now ordained as the Highest and Last of the High Priests, ascended and appeared as the Perfect Son of Man to propose that The Mighty God accept the True Blood of Him as also the Lamb of God, to satisfy The God's Righteous Demands againt Humans for the Sin occasioned by The Fall, and the multitude of sins proceeding therefrom.
Verse 25-26a Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: . . .
The OT priests had to offer sacrifices every day, for a thousand years. The annual duty of the High Priest's Yom Kippur performance was not so often, but still, a thusand times or more. But this was not for Jesus, not ol was He the Perfect Sacrifice, but as the Perfect High Priest He only had to perform His Yom Kipur duty once, then when His work was approved, He sat down at the right hand of the Judge, His Father.
Verse 26b . . . but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared2X to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Actually, this counts as two appearances, one in the world for His Cross-death, and after that once in Heaven to deposit His collected Holy Blood upon the Heavenly Mercy Seat for the payment of the sin-debt of all humanity, thus demonstrating that He, The Perfect Sacrifice, had died and shed His Blood as the Sacrifice, and brought it into Heaven as The High Priest Intercessor on behalf of all mankind, to show that the Sacrifice had been effected.
Verse 27-28 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time withoutapart from the sin question sin unto salvationthe deliverance of the earth and its population from the control of Satan, and the institution of His Own Kingdom.
Jesus will appear on earth once more, the second time as The Son of Man and Son of God, as the Messiah and Lord, Prince of Peace, to install His Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace.
What you want to remember here is that the whole theme of the New, Second Testament is that, following the pattern of remission of sins as showed in the Old one, is that only Jesus' entry into Heaven as our High Priest with His Blood, and the application of it on Heaven's Mercy Seat, is indispensable to the forgiving of a person's sin, and for the reconciling transaction in which IF one commits the entire burden of one's sin to Jesus, THEN God will justify the person by imputing ALL of Jesus' righteousness to that person, judicially declaring the person NOT GUILTY, and beginning the process of narrowing the gap between our standing before God, and our state in compliancy with His imputed character.
That could happen only because of the application of Jesus' Blood as the payment for man's sin debt.
Thus the writer of Hebrews through plain-literal and figurative-literal reveals to the New Testament Hebrew that which was a mystery in the writings about the Old Testament, that prophesied the coming of the Messiah and the nature of His Work.
If you propose that the verses I quoted were not about the application of Jesus' Blood to the Mercy Seat of Heaven, you would be very greatly mistaken.
I like to post scripture that sheds light onto an otherwise darkened glass.
I don't always like to, but sometimes I feel I have to, and it can be a burden. especially when the person critiquing come in from the side, doesn't just lay his/her position plainly and clearly, then comes back afterward and makes a big issue hyperinflating the differences.
Doing so; I invite others to comment on my apparent misapplication of such.
Yeah. That's what often turns out to be so burdensome.
Were you or weren't you. Make up your mind. Don't waste time, eh?
It is not at all clear from scripture that this has occurred.
For some, that might be true. For the student of why the decalogue is important for the Christian to understand soteriology, it wouldn't be. Perhaps I was too brief. but I made up for it in Post #696.
If that does not make sense to you, then we will remain at odds on this matter.
Nice attempt to get NON-Catholics to agree with PRESENT Catholic teaching that PETER was the rock on which Christ supposedly built His church; while IGNORING the FACT that SO many Catholic scholars have said otherwise.
It would NOT be so burdensome if Scripture actually said; in one place; what takes SO many bits and pieces; from various places; to try to come up with.
Rather, you should accuse me of simply posting their own words. I didn’t get them to say them.
Trying to define what 'rock' REALLY means is a tangential rabbit hole chase on steroids.
A “rabbit hole chase” you for some reason felt compelled to randomly insert into a discussion on the commandments. When you can’t prevail, you attempt to distract.
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.