GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Peter the Rock  (Read 101228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #770 on: Sat Jul 02, 2011 - 21:51:44 »
Quote
If they wanted to say "symbolic," they would say it, but they did not; therefore, it was not symbolic.  Nowhere in official Catholic teaching does it say that the bread and wine is a symbol.  The Pope never said it and neither do any of the Early Church Fathers. 

Selene,

Of course they did. There are many examples. Here is one:

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out
by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #770 on: Sat Jul 02, 2011 - 21:51:44 »

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #771 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 06:30:14 »
Quote
If they wanted to say "symbolic," they would say it, but they did not; therefore, it was not symbolic.  Nowhere in official Catholic teaching does it say that the bread and wine is a symbol.  The Pope never said it and neither do any of the Early Church Fathers. 

Selene,

Of course they did. There are many examples. Here is one:

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out
by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #771 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 06:30:14 »

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #772 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 11:04:22 »
Quote
You are misapropreating (1 Cor 11: 29) You left out verse 27, 28 that says let a man examin himself.

McClees,

They always leave that out when discussing the eucharist. It never fails. They always stress the judgmental aspect. I wonder why?
Could it be they really do not want others to know the real teachings of Paul on that subject? I think so.
Peace. JohnR

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #773 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 11:14:19 »
Quote
Could you cite the letter that St. Clement of Alexandria stated this? 


Probably not a letter but some kind of document. Here is the description of the source I see in the  A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot.

Clement of Alexandria (c.195,E), 2.219. I am not sure what this means but it should probably guide you to the exact quote.

You can look it up but this is the tip of the iceburg. I can provide many more just as plain that the ECFs used the terms "symbolize" and "figure of" and "methaphor" when describing the eucharist. This of course does not mean they perceive the eucharist as a MERE symbol but use those terms because they perceive it as the SPIRITUAL BODY of Christ as the Pope explains in his book. Those ECFs were much more protestant-like than RCC-like in their doctrines and practice of Christianity. Peace. John

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #773 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 11:14:19 »

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #774 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 11:24:13 »
Quote
The literal sense of John 6 describes the Eucharist as Catholics know it.  Clement is going for a different sense, the allegorical sense, and finding other meanings in John 6.  If you read the document, this is quite clear; Clement is finding allegory again and again throughout the entire document.   This particular passage is not intended to describe the Eucharist, but rather is finding allegory in John 6:34.

Naturally, this way of interpreting John 6:34 is more like the Protestant way, because they need to interpret the passage allegorically only to avoid the obvious hammered-home truth that Jesus was teaching.  It is clear that the disciples that turned away from Jesus did not immediately interpret what Jesus was saying allegorically, as many of them turned away that day, and it is clear that the allegorical interpretation was not the literal interpretation, because Jesus did not try to stop them.

Catholica,

Of course we look at it that way. Reading John 6:63 it makes the meaning clear when Jesus says, "The Spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail"

You are welcome to your interpretation but I would dispute it is THE Catholic interpretation. The pope explains that John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:42-51 are EUCHARISTIC VERSES. I provided his statment from his book earlier but I will provide it again. He clearly sees the eucharist as Christs Spritual Body and not a physical or literal body based on those eucharistic verses.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 156-158 c. The question of the resurrected body

{Let us start from verse 50 (1 Cor 15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:"I tell you this, bretheren:flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable." It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel...

But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realm....

In Pauls language "body" and "spirit" are not the opposites; the
opposites are called "physical body" and "spiritual body"...

One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the "resurrection
of the flesh", the "resurrection of the body", is not a "resurrection
of physical bodies."...

To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
"fleshly body", that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible ("the perishable cannot become
imperishable"), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

You may believe as you wish but your opinion is not always THE Catholic opinion. What about the pope?
Peace, JohnR

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #774 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 11:24:13 »



Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #775 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 14:46:39 »
Quote
If they wanted to say "symbolic," they would say it, but they did not; therefore, it was not symbolic.  Nowhere in official Catholic teaching does it say that the bread and wine is a symbol.  The Pope never said it and neither do any of the Early Church Fathers. 

Selene,

Of course they did. There are many examples. Here is one:

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out
by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #776 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 14:52:39 »
Quote
The literal sense of John 6 describes the Eucharist as Catholics know it.  Clement is going for a different sense, the allegorical sense, and finding other meanings in John 6.  If you read the document, this is quite clear; Clement is finding allegory again and again throughout the entire document.   This particular passage is not intended to describe the Eucharist, but rather is finding allegory in John 6:34.

Naturally, this way of interpreting John 6:34 is more like the Protestant way, because they need to interpret the passage allegorically only to avoid the obvious hammered-home truth that Jesus was teaching.  It is clear that the disciples that turned away from Jesus did not immediately interpret what Jesus was saying allegorically, as many of them turned away that day, and it is clear that the allegorical interpretation was not the literal interpretation, because Jesus did not try to stop them.

Catholica,

Of course we look at it that way. Reading John 6:63 it makes the meaning clear when Jesus says, "The Spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail"

You are welcome to your interpretation but I would dispute it is THE Catholic interpretation. The pope explains that John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:42-51 are EUCHARISTIC VERSES. I provided his statment from his book earlier but I will provide it again. He clearly sees the eucharist as Christs Spritual Body and not a physical or literal body based on those eucharistic verses.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 156-158 c. The question of the resurrected body

{Let us start from verse 50 (1 Cor 15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:"I tell you this, bretheren:flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable." It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel...

But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realm....

In Pauls language "body" and "spirit" are not the opposites; the
opposites are called "physical body" and "spiritual body"...

One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the "resurrection
of the flesh", the "resurrection of the body", is not a "resurrection
of physical bodies."...

To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
"fleshly body", that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible ("the perishable cannot become
imperishable"), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

You may believe as you wish but your opinion is not always THE Catholic opinion. What about the pope?
Peace, JohnR
 

No, it is not the Catholic position.  We are Catholics....not you.  We know our Catholic faith more than you.  What arrogance to come in here and twist and misinterprets the quotes without revealing the true nature of those quotes.  What arrogance to come in here and tell us that "this" is what we are supposed to believe.

You even misinterpret what the Pope says.  The spiritual body is not symbolic and never was.   
« Last Edit: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 14:59:43 by Selene »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #777 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 15:47:37 »
Quote
The literal sense of John 6 describes the Eucharist as Catholics know it.  Clement is going for a different sense, the allegorical sense, and finding other meanings in John 6.  If you read the document, this is quite clear; Clement is finding allegory again and again throughout the entire document.   This particular passage is not intended to describe the Eucharist, but rather is finding allegory in John 6:34.

Naturally, this way of interpreting John 6:34 is more like the Protestant way, because they need to interpret the passage allegorically only to avoid the obvious hammered-home truth that Jesus was teaching.  It is clear that the disciples that turned away from Jesus did not immediately interpret what Jesus was saying allegorically, as many of them turned away that day, and it is clear that the allegorical interpretation was not the literal interpretation, because Jesus did not try to stop them.

Catholica,

Of course we look at it that way. Reading John 6:63 it makes the meaning clear when Jesus says, "The Spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail"

You are welcome to your interpretation but I would dispute it is THE Catholic interpretation. The pope explains that John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:42-51 are EUCHARISTIC VERSES. I provided his statment from his book earlier but I will provide it again. He clearly sees the eucharist as Christs Spritual Body and not a physical or literal body based on those eucharistic verses.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 156-158 c. The question of the resurrected body

{Let us start from verse 50 (1 Cor 15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:"I tell you this, bretheren:flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable." It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel...

But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realm....

In Pauls language "body" and "spirit" are not the opposites; the
opposites are called "physical body" and "spiritual body"...

One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the "resurrection
of the flesh", the "resurrection of the body", is not a "resurrection
of physical bodies."...

To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
"fleshly body", that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible ("the perishable cannot become
imperishable"), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

You may believe as you wish but your opinion is not always THE Catholic opinion. What about the pope?
Peace, JohnR
 

No, it is not the Catholic position.  We are Catholics....not you.  We know our Catholic faith more than you.  What arrogance to come in here and twist and misinterprets the quotes without revealing the true nature of those quotes.  What arrogance to come in here and tell us that "this" is what we are supposed to believe.

You even misinterpret what the Pope says.  The spiritual body is not symbolic and never was.   

Exactly.

Its not merely symbolic. If I physically shake someone's hand, I am not physically greeting someone with an act that manifest the symbol of a greeting?


Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #778 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 16:05:49 »
Quote
No, it is not the Catholic position.  We are Catholics....not you.  We know our Catholic faith more than you.  What arrogance to come in here and twist and misinterprets the quotes without revealing the true nature of those quotes.  What arrogance to come in here and tell us that "this" is what we are supposed to believe.

You even misinterpret what the Pope says.  The spiritual body is not symbolic and never was.   

Selene,

I can read as well as anyone. I did not say that you are supposed to believe what the pope said. I only said that YOUR opinion was not the only way to interpret Catholic teaching. I gave the popes statement as an example of another interpretation different from yours.

I never said the pope used the word "symbolic" You are changing the subject. I said he described the eucharist as Christs SPIRITUAL body and not as physical or literal.

I only showed that the ECFs used the term "symbolic" for the eucharist because you claimed it NEVER happened.

I am finding that many Catholics like to say whatever they think is Catholic teaching but when I check it I find what they say is wrong from the CCC and from history and from teaching of prominent Catholics like the pope. And when I bring it up they change the subject just as you have. Many do not even bother to read the CCC or think about it. I dont know where they get their ideas. Then they claim protestants do not know the ECFs when they have no idea what the ECFs are saying, never realizing the ECFs talk like protestants.

Bottom line - The pope says the eucharist is a spiritual body and not a physical body. He is in line with the eucharistic verses of John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:50. I agree with him but it seems you do not.

A pope praised Raymond Brown as sticking to Catholic teachings. Brown says Peter was never a bishop of Rome.
You are in denial about that too. Catholica says it does not matter. Of course that is always what they say when it is proven untrue. Peace. Truth is My Agenda JohnR

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #779 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 16:22:06 »
Quote
No, it is not the Catholic position.  We are Catholics....not you.  We know our Catholic faith more than you.  What arrogance to come in here and twist and misinterprets the quotes without revealing the true nature of those quotes.  What arrogance to come in here and tell us that "this" is what we are supposed to believe.

You even misinterpret what the Pope says.  The spiritual body is not symbolic and never was.  

Selene,

I can read as well as anyone. I did not say that you are supposed to believe what the pope said. I only said that YOUR opinion was not the only way to interpret Catholic teaching. I gave the popes statement as an example of another interpretation different from yours.

I never said the pope used the word "symbolic" You are changing the subject. I said he described the eucharist as Christs SPIRITUAL body and not as physical or literal.

I only showed that the ECFs used the term "symbolic" for the eucharist because you claimed it NEVER happened.

I am finding that many Catholics like to say whatever they think is Catholic teaching but when I check it I find what they say is wrong from the CCC and from history and from teaching of prominent Catholics like the pope. And when I bring it up they change the subject just as you have. Many do not even bother to read the CCC or think about it. I dont know where they get their ideas. Then they claim protestants do not know the ECFs when they have no idea what the ECFs are saying, never realizing the ECFs talk like protestants.

Bottom line - The pope says the eucharist is a spiritual body and not a physical body. He is in line with the eucharistic verses of John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:50. I agree with him but it seems you do not.

A pope praised Raymond Brown as sticking to Catholic teachings. Brown says Peter was never a bishop of Rome.
You are in denial about that too. Catholica says it does not matter. Of course that is always what they say when it is proven untrue. Peace. Truth is My Agenda JohnR

Christ's spiritual body is real and there is nothing symbolic about it.  The physical body of man is considered the sinful part of him that must die because it cannot enter Heaven.  The Spiritual body is the body that has no sin and is a body that can still eat and drink just like any physical body.  The difference between the two is that the spiritual body doesn't have any sin.  The word "symbolic" is not used for the Eucharist because it is not what Catholics believe.  

ALL Catholics including the Popes believe that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome.  If even one Catholic (regardless of how prominent he is) says that St. Peter is NOT the Bishop of Rome....then he is going against Catholic teachings.  The Catholic doctrines are in the Catechisms.  Anyone who go against it is already going against Catholic teaching.  Raymond Brown does not constitute the entire Catholic teaching.  Our Catholic teaching already existed before Raymond Brown was born.  

How is truth your agenda....by telling us that you know more about Catholicism than we do? 
« Last Edit: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 18:47:20 by Selene »

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #780 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 21:49:09 »
Quote
ALL Catholics including the Popes believe that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome.  If even one Catholic (regardless of how prominent he is) says that St. Peter is NOT the Bishop of Rome....then he is going against Catholic teachings.  The Catholic doctrines are in the Catechisms.  Anyone who go against it is already going against Catholic teaching.  Raymond Brown does not constitute the entire Catholic teaching.  Our Catholic teaching already existed before Raymond Brown was born.  

Yes, Catholic doctrines are in the CCC which does not claim that Peter was a bishop of Rome.

You say the popes all believe that Peter was a bishop of Rome? Then why did a pope (this is from the cover of a book by Brown} praise Brown for his faithfulness to Catholic teachings? You can bet the pope knew Browns conclusion from his research that Peter was not a bishop of the Roman church. The present pope praised the Catholic scholors recently as a group. You can bet your savings the popes of our time all know that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.
They do not trumpet it but they know it. This is why the CCC does not mention that anymore.

The popes are smart men. The present one is a theology and christian history expert. He knows those Catholic scholors are telling the truth. They are not dissidents or heretics. They just tell the historic truth.

In fact I have typed out the Introduction to Catholic Paul Johnsons, History of Christianity. He of course draws the same conclusions as the others. He explains the job of a historian when explaining church history:

 Taken from Prologue
History of Christianity
Paul Johnson

"It is then a work of history. You may ask; is it possible to write of
Christianity with the requisite degree of historical detachment?
In 1913 Ernst troeltsch argued perusasively that sceptical and
critical methods of historical research were incompatible with
Christian belief; many historians and most religous sociologists
would agree with him. There is, to be sure, an apparent conflict.
Christianity is essetially a historical religion. It bases its
claims on the historical facts it asserts. If these are demolished
it is nothing. Can a Christian, then, examine the truth of these facts
with the same objectivity he would display towards any other phenomenon?
Can he be expected to dig the grave of his own faith if that is the way
his investigations seem to point? In the past, very few Christian
scholars have had the courage or the confidence to place the unhampered
pursuit of truth before any other consideration. Almost all have drawn
the line somewhere. Yet how futile their defensive efforts have proved!

For Chrisianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach - and
properly understood, does teach - that any interference with the truth
is immoral. A christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts;
a christian historian who draws the line limiting the field of enquiry
at any point whatsoever, is admitting the liimits of his faith. And  
he is also destroying the nature of his religion, which is a progressive
revelation of the truth. So the Christian, according to my understanding,
should not be inhibited in the smallest degree from following the line of
truth; indeed he is positively bound to follow it. He should be in fact,
freer than the non-Christian, who is precommitted by his own rejection.
At all events, I have sought to present the facts of Christian history
as truthfully and nakedly as I am able, and to leave the rest to the
reader."

A historian tells history from his research regardless of religious beliefs. That is the point. Peace. JohnR




Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #781 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 22:14:05 »
ALL Catholics including the Popes believe that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome.  If even one Catholic (regardless of how prominent he is) says that St. Peter is NOT the Bishop of Rome....then he is going against Catholic teachings.  

Frankly, I have no problem with admitting that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. In his letters he called himself a bishop, and no  historical account I've seen denies that he ministered in Rome. But I don't think that was the issue in this thread.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #782 on: Sun Jul 03, 2011 - 22:17:04 »
ALL Catholics including the Popes believe that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome.  If even one Catholic (regardless of how prominent he is) says that St. Peter is NOT the Bishop of Rome....then he is going against Catholic teachings.  

Frankly, I have no problem with admitting that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. In his letters he called himself a bishop, and no  historical account I've seen denies that he ministered in Rome. But I don't think that was the issue in this thread.

Wait for it......

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #783 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 00:28:56 »
Quote
ALL Catholics including the Popes believe that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome.  If even one Catholic (regardless of how prominent he is) says that St. Peter is NOT the Bishop of Rome....then he is going against Catholic teachings.  The Catholic doctrines are in the Catechisms.  Anyone who go against it is already going against Catholic teaching.  Raymond Brown does not constitute the entire Catholic teaching.  Our Catholic teaching already existed before Raymond Brown was born.  

Yes, Catholic doctrines are in the CCC which does not claim that Peter was a bishop of Rome.

You say the popes all believe that Peter was a bishop of Rome? Then why did a pope (this is from the cover of a book by Brown} praise Brown for his faithfulness to Catholic teachings? You can bet the pope knew Browns conclusion from his research that Peter was not a bishop of the Roman church. The present pope praised the Catholic scholors recently as a group. You can bet your savings the popes of our time all know that Peter was never a bishop of Rome.
They do not trumpet it but they know it. This is why the CCC does not mention that anymore.

The popes are smart men. The present one is a theology and christian history expert. He knows those Catholic scholors are telling the truth. They are not dissidents or heretics. They just tell the historic truth.

In fact I have typed out the Introduction to Catholic Paul Johnsons, History of Christianity. He of course draws the same conclusions as the others. He explains the job of a historian when explaining church history:

 Taken from Prologue
History of Christianity
Paul Johnson

"It is then a work of history. You may ask; is it possible to write of
Christianity with the requisite degree of historical detachment?
In 1913 Ernst troeltsch argued perusasively that sceptical and
critical methods of historical research were incompatible with
Christian belief; many historians and most religous sociologists
would agree with him. There is, to be sure, an apparent conflict.
Christianity is essetially a historical religion. It bases its
claims on the historical facts it asserts. If these are demolished
it is nothing. Can a Christian, then, examine the truth of these facts
with the same objectivity he would display towards any other phenomenon?
Can he be expected to dig the grave of his own faith if that is the way
his investigations seem to point? In the past, very few Christian
scholars have had the courage or the confidence to place the unhampered
pursuit of truth before any other consideration. Almost all have drawn
the line somewhere. Yet how futile their defensive efforts have proved!

For Chrisianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach - and
properly understood, does teach - that any interference with the truth
is immoral. A christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts;
a christian historian who draws the line limiting the field of enquiry
at any point whatsoever, is admitting the liimits of his faith. And  
he is also destroying the nature of his religion, which is a progressive
revelation of the truth. So the Christian, according to my understanding,
should not be inhibited in the smallest degree from following the line of
truth; indeed he is positively bound to follow it. He should be in fact,
freer than the non-Christian, who is precommitted by his own rejection.
At all events, I have sought to present the facts of Christian history
as truthfully and nakedly as I am able, and to leave the rest to the
reader."

A historian tells history from his research regardless of religious beliefs. That is the point. Peace. JohnR

As I said, Catholic doctrine is much older than Raymond Brown.  If a Pope praised Raymond Brown for his faithfulness to Catholic teaching, then either the Pope is ignorant of Raymond Brown's stand or the Pope was actually praising him for something that Raymond Brown said that was actually in line with Catholic teaching. 

A historian always tells history based on his own perspective.  I suggest that you do a research on the author Raymond Brown. 

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #784 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 07:21:33 »
Catholica,

Of course we look at it that way. Reading John 6:63 it makes the meaning clear when Jesus says, "The Spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail"

You are welcome to your interpretation but I would dispute it is THE Catholic interpretation. The pope explains that John 6:63 and 1 Cor 15:42-51 are EUCHARISTIC VERSES.

These verses are about the resurrection, hence, "The question of the resurrected body".  The body that Jesus has in the Eucharist is the same body that he had when he resurrected.  The Catholic Church holds that this is a "spiritual body", but what does that mean?

CCC 643 Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact. It is clear from the facts that the disciples' faith was drastically put to the test by their master's Passion and death on the cross, which he had foretold. (Cf. Lk 22:31-32.) The shock provoked by the Passion was so great that at least some of the disciples did not at once believe in the news of the Resurrection. Far from showing us a community seized by a mystical exaltation, the Gospels present us with disciples demoralized ("looking sad"(Lk 24:17; cf. Jn 20:19.)) and frightened. For they had not believed the holy women returning from the tomb and had regarded their words as an "idle tale".(Lk 24:11; cf. Mk 16:11,13.) When Jesus reveals himself to the Eleven on Easter evening, "he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen." (Mk 16:14)

So Christ, after he was resurrected, has a body that is not "something outside the physical order".  He had a physical body.  But what about that physical body?

CCC 645 By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his Passion. (Cf. Lk 24:30,39-40,41-43; Jn 20:20,27; 21:9,13-15.) Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills; for Christ's humanity can no longer be confined to earth, and belongs henceforth only to the Father's divine realm. (Cf. Mt 28:9, 16-17; Lk 24:15,36; Jn 20:14,17,19,26; 21:4.) For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith. (Cf. Mk 16:12; Jn 20:14-16; 21:4,7.)

So the body is the same body, yet now it "has the properties of a glorious body".  This glorious body has a physical component, per CCC 643, 645.  Now let's look at the pope's statement in his book.

I provided his statment from his book earlier but I will provide it again. He clearly sees the eucharist as Christs Spritual Body and not a physical or literal body based on those eucharistic verses.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 156-158 c. The question of the resurrected body

{Let us start from verse 50 (1 Cor 15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:"I tell you this, bretheren:flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable." It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel...

But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realm....

In Pauls language "body" and "spirit" are not the opposites; the
opposites are called "physical body" and "spiritual body"...

One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the "resurrection
of the flesh", the "resurrection of the body", is not a "resurrection
of physical bodies."...

To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
"fleshly body", that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible ("the perishable cannot become
imperishable"), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

Here is a good analysis of what the pope actually means here.  The words are someone else's, the emphases are mine.

Quote
When one turns to what Fr. Ratzinger states one finds that the question at hand in this section of Introduction is the nature of the resurrected body. To understand this nature Ratzinger turns to Scripture and philology, not Teilhard de Chardin. He points out the difference between the Greek and Hebrew understanding of man. For the former there is a dichotomy between man's material self and spiritual self, a dichotomy out of which gnosticism grew. The Jewish understanding of man differed in that there were three fundamental aspects of man, not two. These are the flesh, the body, and the spirit, and these aspects are reflected in the thought of St. Paul.

The flesh is the very physicality of man, his purely material self. There are a number of different kinds of flesh (1 Cor. 15:39). In St. Paul's thought there are two sorts of bodies (somata). The first is the natural body. The second is the spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44). Then of course there is the spirit which corresponds to the soul, the animating principle. Now, the spiritual body is the resurrected body. It is "incorruptible." The fleshy body is the natural body. It is "corruptible." At the resurrection, then, the natural body ceases to be natural and becomes more like the spirit. St. Paul states that it is impossible for the physical/fleshy body to be resurrected: "This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption (1 Cor. 15:50). So when Fr. Ratzinger wrote that St. Paul does not speak of the resurrection of physical bodies, he is absolutely right so long as we understand that "physical body" refers to "flesh and blood."

Now, this use of "spiritual body" by St. Paul leads Ratzinger to use the theologically pregnant term "person." This term can be understood in the way that Boethius and St. Thomas Aquinas understood it: an individual substance of a singular rational nature.10 Ratzinger uses the term "person" here, because it better communicates the singular human substance at the end of time, the resurrected body. For at the resurrection, he speculates, we will have a spirit-body. The spirit and body will make up one singular substance with a rational nature, a person. This spirit-body is different from our own right now, which one might call our soul-body, in that it cannot be split. Our soul can be separated from its body at death. Death has no more power over the resurrected body, because the spirit and the body have become as one, they have become a spirit-body, a spiritual body, and cannot be corrupted. This is what Ratzinger is saying. He is not denying the resurrection of bodies, only fleshy bodies, which is what St. Paul does himself.

Now if the physical, material body can be transformed by grace into a spiritual, resurrected body, this spirit-body suggests that the dichotomy or tension between matter and spirit, which was so central to Greek thought, is not accurate. That is, we need not think of the resurrected body as being a "neutral combination" of matter and spirit where matter and spirit are sort of welded together like pieces of steel. Rather the two are made into one singular substance with a rational nature, a person, and can therefore be referred to as a real "unity." Ratzinger states, "In that case there is a final connection between matter and spirit in which the destiny of man and of the world is consummated even if it is impossible for us today to define the nature of this connection."

The pope in his book says that there is a final connection between matter and spirit.  The spiritual body has matter, which is "physical stuff".  It is spiritual matter, but it is still matter.

You may believe as you wish but your opinion is not always THE Catholic opinion. What about the pope?
Peace, JohnR

What I believe about the nature of Christ's body is not my opinion, but the teaching of the Catholic Church.  But yes, what about the pope?  In his latest book, "Jesus of Nazareth" on page. 266 Pope Benedict XVI is talking about Jesus' resurrected body again.  Here's what he writes:

Quote
This dialectic of recognition and non-recognition corresponds to the manner of the apparitions.  Jesus comes through closed doors; he suddenly stands in their midst. And in the same way he suddenly withdraws again, as at the end of the Emmaus encounter.  His presence is entirely physical, yet he is not bound by physical laws, by the laws of space and time.  In this remarkable dialectic of identity and otherness, of real physicality and freedom from the constraints of the body, we see the special mysterious nature of the risen Lord's new existence.  Both elements apply here: he is the same embodied man, and he is the new man, having entered upon a different manner of existence.

Now please, cease and desist from trying to tell us what we believe about Jesus' body and the Eucharist.  Jesus has a glorified body is both matter and spirit, which is a presence that is "entirely physical" but not bound by physical laws, an incorruptible fusing of matter and spirit, a glorified body.  The connection between the Eucharistic chapter v.6 and Jesus' actual resurrected body means that Jesus is present in his glorified body, a physical spirit-body, whole and entire.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #785 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 09:51:47 »
Quote
Frankly, I have no problem with admitting that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. In his letters he called himself a bishop, and no  historical account I've seen denies that he ministered in Rome. But I don't think that was the issue in this thread.

Steve,

None of the Peter letters refer to him as a bishop, even if you accept those letters as authentic by Peter. Most scholors do not. Almost all including church fathers reject all but 1 Peter. Top scholars say that letter may have been written by a disciple of Peter. Regardless it never says Peter was a bishop of Rome. All evidence says he was not.
Peace, JohnR

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #786 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 09:58:33 »
Quote
If a Pope praised Raymond Brown for his faithfulness to Catholic teaching, then either the Pope is ignorant of Raymond Brown's stand or the Pope was actually praising him for something that Raymond Brown said that was actually in line with Catholic teaching. 

Selene,

So you think the pope would praise Raymond Brown, president of the Catholic bible assn. and  one of the most famous Catholic scholars without actually reading his books? They are not long and easy reading. I doubt it.

Your presumption is that the pope did not know what he taught? Or that he saw one comment or two and liked them? He had no advisors to say "Wait a minute, has anyone read his book? Why don't we do that before we publicly praise his conclusions?"

The most obvious conclusion is that the pope knew full well what was in his books and praised him for his truthfulness. Some cannot get out of denial. Peace. JohnR

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #787 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 11:00:22 »
Highrigger,

Its funny that you claim that all the evidence says St. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome but you have yet to produce any of it. You quoted the opinions of historians without the research and facts they base their opinions off of. You hearken to Nihil Obstat, although it literally has nothing to do with any validity. Perhaps its simply because I'm a history buff, that it gets under my skin more than my fellow Catholics when people perpetrate like they're advocating true history without anything but the opinions of historians. I guess that's just how it is however. Propagate whatever you like without presenting any concrete facts. You can't base an entire argument by appealing to authority alone. If that's all you have than your position becomes here say, not being rooted in any facts. 

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #788 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 13:44:02 »
Quote
If a Pope praised Raymond Brown for his faithfulness to Catholic teaching, then either the Pope is ignorant of Raymond Brown's stand or the Pope was actually praising him for something that Raymond Brown said that was actually in line with Catholic teaching. 

Selene,

So you think the pope would praise Raymond Brown, president of the Catholic bible assn. and  one of the most famous Catholic scholars without actually reading his books? They are not long and easy reading. I doubt it.

Your presumption is that the pope did not know what he taught? Or that he saw one comment or two and liked them? He had no advisors to say "Wait a minute, has anyone read his book? Why don't we do that before we publicly praise his conclusions?"

The most obvious conclusion is that the pope knew full well what was in his books and praised him for his truthfulness. Some cannot get out of denial. Peace. JohnR

Highrigger, we have the list of popes going back to the Apostle Peter.  We have ancient documents going back to the first century showing apostolic succession.  These documents are "primary sources."  What you have are opinions.  All you have is one person saying that St. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome....and what did this historian based this conclusion on?  He based it on his opinion that the Early Church Fathers were 100-500 years removed.  Where is the evidence showing that the "primary sources" are unreliable?  So what if a pope praised him.  You can't even show exactly what it was that the pope was praising him for?  As I said, you need to do your own research on Raymond Brown yourself.  Afterall, you're the one who believed that St. John never wrote Revelations.....and where did you get that idea from?

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #789 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 14:01:03 »
Quote
Frankly, I have no problem with admitting that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. In his letters he called himself a bishop, and no  historical account I've seen denies that he ministered in Rome. But I don't think that was the issue in this thread.

Steve,

None of the Peter letters refer to him as a bishop, even if you accept those letters as authentic by Peter. Most scholors do not. Almost all including church fathers reject all but 1 Peter. Top scholars say that letter may have been written by a disciple of Peter. Regardless it never says Peter was a bishop of Rome. All evidence says he was not.
Peace, JohnR

It was the Holy Bible that referred to St. Peter as a Bishop.  

1 Peter 5:1   The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

According to Strong's biblical translation, an "elder" is also a "bishop."   The question is....what place was St. Peter a bishop of?  Well, we have archaeological evidence showing that St. Peter was in Rome and was buried in Rome.  
« Last Edit: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 14:08:02 by Selene »

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #790 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 14:05:59 »
1- None of the Peter letters refer to him as a bishop

2- even if you accept those letters as authentic by Peter. Most scholors do not.

3- Almost all including church fathers reject all but 1 Peter.

4- Regardless it never says Peter was a bishop of Rome. All evidence says he was not.


1- Try 1 P 5.  Peter calls himself an elder. In the NT, an presbyteros is synonymous with episkopos.

2- Therefore the Bible isn't trustworthy?

3- Then it's a good thing that's the one I cited.   ::noworries::

4- Look closer at my comment, rigger. That wasn't my point.

Wednesday

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #791 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 14:09:57 »
Kewl, going into page 54.....Peter the Rock is gonna be a record breaker for length of a thread at this site.  Anybody winning yet?


 ::eatingpopcorn:

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #792 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 14:11:56 »
Kewl, going into page 54.....Peter the Rock is gonna be a record breaker for length of a thread at this site.  Anybody winning yet?


 ::eatingpopcorn:


Pretty soon, this is going to be a book!  LOL!!!   ::crackup::

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #793 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 15:28:21 »
Quote
Now please, cease and desist from trying to tell us what we believe about Jesus' body and the Eucharist.  Jesus has a glorified body is both matter and spirit, which is a presence that is "entirely physical" but not bound by physical laws, an incorruptible fusing of matter and spirit, a glorified body.  The connection between the Eucharistic chapter v.6 and Jesus' actual resurrected body means that Jesus is present in his glorified body, a physical spirit-body, whole and entire.

Selene,

I did not tell you what Catholics believe about anything. They believe all kinds of things. I told you what the pope wrote in his book. In those eucharistic verses he says the body of Christ is spiritual and NOT physical.

As far as your "physical order" I do not know what that means so I have no idea if it contradicts his earlier statement or not.  However your CCC does not say it is a physical body. It says real, true and substantial which is consistent with a spiritual body as the pope explains.

If you want to go ahead and believe that Jesus is physically in the eucharist you may go ahead but it is not what the pope teaches. You may believe anything you want. Peace. JohnR

Offline Selene

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #794 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 16:46:55 »
Quote
Now please, cease and desist from trying to tell us what we believe about Jesus' body and the Eucharist.  Jesus has a glorified body is both matter and spirit, which is a presence that is "entirely physical" but not bound by physical laws, an incorruptible fusing of matter and spirit, a glorified body.  The connection between the Eucharistic chapter v.6 and Jesus' actual resurrected body means that Jesus is present in his glorified body, a physical spirit-body, whole and entire.

Selene,

I did not tell you what Catholics believe about anything. They believe all kinds of things. I told you what the pope wrote in his book. In those eucharistic verses he says the body of Christ is spiritual and NOT physical.

As far as your "physical order" I do not know what that means so I have no idea if it contradicts his earlier statement or not.  However your CCC does not say it is a physical body. It says real, true and substantial which is consistent with a spiritual body as the pope explains.

If you want to go ahead and believe that Jesus is physically in the eucharist you may go ahead but it is not what the pope teaches. You may believe anything you want. Peace. JohnR

Huh???  I wasn't the one who posted that.   ::headscratch::

A spiritual body is a body that can eat and drink just like any physical body, but it's also a body that can walk through doors.   


Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6258
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #795 on: Mon Jul 04, 2011 - 19:15:55 »
Quote
Now please, cease and desist from trying to tell us what we believe about Jesus' body and the Eucharist.  Jesus has a glorified body is both matter and spirit, which is a presence that is "entirely physical" but not bound by physical laws, an incorruptible fusing of matter and spirit, a glorified body.  The connection between the Eucharistic chapter v.6 and Jesus' actual resurrected body means that Jesus is present in his glorified body, a physical spirit-body, whole and entire.

Selene,

I did not tell you what Catholics believe about anything. They believe all kinds of things. I told you what the pope wrote in his book. In those eucharistic verses he says the body of Christ is spiritual and NOT physical.

As far as your "physical order" I do not know what that means so I have no idea if it contradicts his earlier statement or not.  However your CCC does not say it is a physical body. It says real, true and substantial which is consistent with a spiritual body as the pope explains.

If you want to go ahead and believe that Jesus is physically in the eucharist you may go ahead but it is not what the pope teaches. You may believe anything you want. Peace. JohnR

facepalm!

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #796 on: Mon Jul 18, 2011 - 12:46:39 »
Quote
[Frankly, I have no problem with admitting that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. In his letters he called himself a bishop, and no  historical account I've seen denies that he ministered in Rome. But I don't think that was the issue in this thread./quote]

Steve,

The letters attributed to Peter do NOT identify him as a bishop. An elder is not a bishop unless you bring in the definition of "overseer" which could apply as to multiple overseers.  But elder never means a monarchical (single rule) Bishop. Scripture knows the difference. When it says elder it means elder.

Brown also concludes in his books that Peter did not actually write those letters. Even Eusebius questioned all the Peter letters except 1 Peter. Brown says it was written probably by a later disciple of Peter. It was common back then to write in the name of a disciple. There are more gospels and writiings attributed to apostles than there are books in the NT. The ancients knew many were not written by an apostle. You can see that in Eusebius' writings.
Peace, JohnR


Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #797 on: Tue Jul 19, 2011 - 17:46:52 »

Offline stevehut

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
  • Manna: 70
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #798 on: Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 22:35:10 »

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #799 on: Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 07:51:19 »
Let me say this again:  

It was not Rome that gave St. Peter the keys.  It was God Himself.  Are you denying that God did not give Peter the keys?  We are not establishing anything from the Old Testament because it was in the New Testament that God gave the keys to Peter.

Lighthammer is correct.  So far, I have not seen one Protestant say anything about Jesus giving the keys to the Apostle Peter.  And Christ gave this key (which means "authority) to only one man.  

Keys are used to open and close.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, AND whatever you loose on earth will be loosed on heaven." MT. 16:19

You referenced
"I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he open no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."  Is. 22:22

In Mt.18:18 Jesus is speaking to his discipleS and says "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The Mt 18 Scripture shows that the disciples were given the *same* authority.  It seems that the RCC interprets the Mt 16 reference as giving only Peter this authority.  But the passage does not make that a clear cut interpretation.  Jesus was gathered with his disciples and asked them who people said He was and Peter inspired by the Father answered "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus then blesses Peter.

The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom. 

In fact, the later Scripture in Mt 18:18 when Jesus is clearly speaking to *all* the disciples would indicate that that authority *was* given to all the disciples, because Jesus repeats that " whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" clearly indicating that this authority was not given to Peter alone.

Regards,
AsAChild

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #800 on: Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 12:02:07 »
Quote
The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom.

asachild,

Bishop Ambrose of Milan asserts this viewpoint. From Paul Johnsosns book A History of Christianity.

page 103 regarding Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 373-97

"'What is said to Peter.' he wrote, 'is said to the Apostles' - thus brushing
aside any special pleading for Rome. And again: 'All we bishops have in the blessed
Apostle Peter received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,''Christ gave to his
Apostles the power of remitting sins, which has been transmitted by the Apostles
to the sacerdotal office.''We are not usurping a power but obeying a command.'"

Clearly at one time it was the tradition that ALL the apostles got those keys and not just Peter. Peace, JohnR

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #801 on: Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 12:39:47 »
Quote
The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom.

asachild,

Bishop Ambrose of Milan asserts this viewpoint. From Paul Johnsosns book A History of Christianity.

page 103 regarding Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 373-97

"'What is said to Peter.' he wrote, 'is said to the Apostles' - thus brushing aside any special pleading for Rome. And again: 'All we bishops have in the blessed Apostle Peter received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,''Christ gave to his
Apostles the power of remitting sins, which has been transmitted by the Apostles to the sacerdotal office.''We are not usurping a power but obeying a command.'"

Clearly at one time it was the tradition that ALL the apostles got those keys and not just Peter. Peace, JohnR

Who is saying that the rest of the Apostles DIDN'T have the power of the keys?  The point is that Jesus gave Peter PREEMINENCE among the Apostles. 

At NO time did Jesus EVER single out another Apostle to give him this power.  Jesus repeated the words - almost verbatim - from the prophecy of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22.
"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open."

He singles out Peter as the head in other places in the Gospel:
John 21:15-19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #802 on: Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 15:13:29 »
Quote
The RCC asserts that the keys to the kingdom were given to Peter alone, but the passage does not make that clear.  Jesus may have been speaking to *all* the disciples in regards to the keys to the kingdom.

asachild,

Bishop Ambrose of Milan asserts this viewpoint. From Paul Johnsosns book A History of Christianity.

page 103 regarding Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 373-97

"'What is said to Peter.' he wrote, 'is said to the Apostles' - thus brushing aside any special pleading for Rome. And again: 'All we bishops have in the blessed Apostle Peter received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,''Christ gave to his
Apostles the power of remitting sins, which has been transmitted by the Apostles to the sacerdotal office.''We are not usurping a power but obeying a command.'"

Clearly at one time it was the tradition that ALL the apostles got those keys and not just Peter. Peace, JohnR

Who is saying that the rest of the Apostles DIDN'T have the power of the keys?  The point is that Jesus gave Peter PREEMINENCE among the Apostles. 

The concept of preeminence seems so antithetical to the very words of Jesus. 

"Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'" But *not* so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves."
Lk 22: 24

""...He asked them, 'What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?' But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. And He sat down, called the twelve and said to them, 'If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.'" Mk 9:34-

And of Jesus:
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God and thing to be grasped." Philip. 2

"...the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you..." Mt. 20:25-

Quote
At NO time did Jesus EVER single out another Apostle to give him this power.  Jesus repeated the words - almost verbatim - from the prophecy of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22.
"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open."

He singles out Peter as the head in other places in the Gospel:
John 21:15-19
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #803 on: Sun Dec 25, 2011 - 14:29:28 »

I posted what gotquestions.org said. There isn't any contradiction. Peter was sent to the House of Israel, while Paul was sent to the Gentile. Keys to the kingdom are had by all.

My dear, there is NOTHING in that weblink that you posted that even mentions Israel or Gentiles.  I see the word "Pharisees" in there, but nothing about Peter being sent to the House of Israel and Paul to the Gentiles. 

The following is written about Paul:

But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
Acts 9:15

And he said to me, “Go, for I am sending you far away to preach to the Gentiles.

Offline asachild

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the Rock
« Reply #804 on: Sun Dec 25, 2011 - 14:41:23 »

Quote
Jesus died to free us from the tyranny of works.

quote=Catholica]

Being obedient to authorities is not a work.

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be under the control of magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise.

It is right to pursue peace and obedience, however, we are not given the option of absolute submissive obedience at all times to all authorities -

"Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this  name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us! But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than man."
Acts 5:29

Regards,
AsAChild