Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church
OLRL ^ | Fr. William J. Cogan

Posted on 07/31/2007 4:19:37 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-172 last
To: stfassisi
The great city in Mesopotamia was no longer such in the first century.

Sure the great city of Babylon was long gone, but the Mesopotamian area was still called "Babylon" and known as that by the Jews especially. And Josephus tells us that there was a significant Jewish population in the area of Babylon that numbered probably 800,000, and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and went where the Jews were. And the area of Babylon was the center of learning for Jews during this time with schools at Pembeditha, etc where the Babylonian Talmud was composed. The city of Babylon may have been a camel stop, but it was a great place for a church with caravans going through the area constantly.

We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter’s] death...

Have you looked at the monastery at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem where the bones of a 6'2" 85 year old fisherman are buried in an ossuary with the name "Simon Bar Jona" etched on the side.???

Jerome writes as follows: “Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, IN THE 2ND YEAR OF CLAUDIUS GOES TO ROME TO OPPOSE SIMON MAGUS and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the LAST YEAR OF NERO, that is the 14th.”

Do you believe what Jerome writes here to be true and historically accurate????

You cite these other writers who are so sure Peter's Roman sojourn. Do they agree with Jerome's statement here???

Have you perused these men's writings to see if they "possess" any "precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn" that they could share with the Vatican??? Do they have copies of letters that Peter sent from Rome, names of people who saw him there, details of things that he said and did there, dates, eyewitnesses, testimonies, anything to back up their historically-challenged patronizing pontifications, or are they just sucking the same air and blowing the same smoke as the magisterium.

151 posted on 08/01/2007 8:31:13 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father Who is in Heaven. And I say to thee: Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:16-18)

He was referring to Word of God, The Spirit, not Peter.

It is idiocy to think that Christ would base his church upon a man. More especially a man that that denied him three times.

No Light, No Spirit, no keys, no authority. And no place to hide.

152 posted on 08/02/2007 2:55:16 AM PDT by freedom9 (Truth Judgement Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Frank Sheed

Don’t even consider lookng at my homepage!!


153 posted on 08/02/2007 4:52:36 AM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
The Church was founded by Jesus, and is guided by Him. Indeed, He identifies Himself with the Church (Acts 9:4-5).

Ok, but the church is directed by the Scripture and Holy Spirit.
It's not "Church" which directs.

154 posted on 08/02/2007 4:56:44 AM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Petronski
Have you looked at the monastery at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem where the bones of a 6'2" 85 year old fisherman are buried in an ossuary with the name "Simon Bar Jona" etched on the side.???

You piqued my interest, so I took a few minutes this morning to look up a couple things.

I found the website for the monastery. They mention Ossuaries (and have a few pictures), but don't assert that any belongs to any particular person. I would think that if they seriously entertained that the bones MIGHT be St. Peter's, they would say something on the website.

More importantly, I found a couple of very recent writings (June 2007) from the University of the Holy Land. They seem to think that the inscription on the Ossuary is not "Simon Bar Jona" but rather "Simon Bar Zilla" (or Simon Barzillai). Their conclusion was such:

This new reading does, of course, exclude “Simon Bar Jonah” as a reading for this ossuary inscription, and returns the discussion of the potential location of Simon Peter’s bones back to their traditional place, Rome.

The writings (one paper, one blog posting) can be found here:

http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/
http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=188

155 posted on 08/02/2007 5:07:03 AM PDT by GCC Catholic (Sour grapes make terrible whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Ping to 155.

Recent findings on Domunus Flevit ossuaries.


156 posted on 08/02/2007 5:09:25 AM PDT by GCC Catholic (Sour grapes make terrible whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: GlennD
I think you should have copied the rest of the statement which was “(Quoting the Bible to prove it’s own authenticity really proves nothing.)”

As with this and the rest of your comments you're not even close to the point I was making. The bible is provable not because the Catholic Church has an authority to declare it, it is true because you can look at history, you can investigate the text itself, and prove the authenticy of it's authority...and true author.

157 posted on 08/02/2007 5:11:10 AM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A non-Catholic who suspects that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God and does not investigate Her claims with a mind to join if Her claims prove to be true, cannot be saved, because outside of Christ's Mystical Body (the Catholic Church), there is no salvation.

What a sad lie.

158 posted on 08/02/2007 5:13:54 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Certainly, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. No argument there at all. But it is not directed by Scripture, in the sense that Scripture controls it. On the contrary, the Church predates by at least 10-15 years the first written word of the New Testament, and predates the official formulation of the canon of the New Testament by over 350 years. The Church is more the mother of the New Testament than its child. As such, the Church has responsibility for both “raising” Scripture (writing, vetting, compiling and canonizing it) and “educating” through it (officially interpreting what Scripture means - Scripture is not at all as “perspicuous” as non-Catholics want to make it out to be. Were it so, we need not be here arguing about it all the time!).


159 posted on 08/02/2007 5:49:26 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic
The initial problem in reading this ossuary inscription began when Bagatti assumed that the inscription was written in the Jewish script normally utilized by the local Jewish population.

Help me understand the fundamental argument being put forward here:

Is the author saying that if the inscription was written in Aramaic script, then it would be "Simon Bar zilla", but if the inscription was written in Hebrew/Jewish script, then it would be "Simon Bar Jona". Is that the crux of the author's argument????

160 posted on 08/02/2007 6:13:38 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Petronski; stfassisi
Is the author saying that if the inscription was written in Aramaic script, then it would be "Simon Bar zilla", but if the inscription was written in Hebrew/Jewish script, then it would be "Simon Bar Jona". Is that the crux of the author's argument????

No, it seems (and I'll go back and re-read this article at lunchtime), that the author is saying that interpreting it as "Simon Bar Jona" is a stretch at best, and is most likely incorrect. From a section several paragraphs before what you quoted:

Bellarmino Bagatti originally read this inscription from right to left, as one would normally approach reading a Semitic inscription. He assumed that the national script that he was reading was the normal Jewish Aramaic script (with cursive tendencies), that was the predominant script among the ossuary inscriptions he had read thus far. He could quickly read the first name shin - mem - ayin - waw - nun = SHM‘WN, “Shimon” or “Simon” (although mem and ayin were a little unusual). The next word that would naturally be anticipated was “the son of” normally the Aramaic word beth - resh = BR, “bar”, and so it was, (but, again, with an unusual resh).

Pushing on, he had to make sense of some unusual letter forms which, combined, and with a bit of imagination he took to be: yodh - waw - nun - heh, YWNH, “Yonah” or “Jonah” (in which case, as it turns out, not a single letter was read correctly).

The final editor J.T. Milik in 1958 was more cautious. And although he did not reject outright the earlier reading as possible, he did suggest some alternatives for the patronym (i.e., father’s name; the third word in the inscription).

161 posted on 08/02/2007 6:31:15 AM PDT by GCC Catholic (Sour grapes make terrible whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Small “c.”


162 posted on 08/02/2007 6:32:03 AM PDT by unspun (FREEP Bill O'Reilly about anything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

I must be careful or you’ll have me doing most of the dialog from the film. Frankly, I could barely get through the credits of the film before splitting my sides.

F


163 posted on 08/02/2007 8:41:11 AM PDT by Frank Sheed (Fr. V. R. Capodanno, Lt, USN, Catholic Chaplain. 3rd/5th, 1st Marine Div., FMF. MOH, posthumously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic
This link you provided http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/ was very informative. Perhaps you should post it as a new thread?

This conclusion was also very accurate

This new reading does, of course, exclude “Simon Bar Jonah” as a reading for this ossuary inscription, and returns the discussion of the potential location of Simon Peter’s bones back to their traditional place, Rome.

164 posted on 08/02/2007 3:11:04 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I found this at: http://www.carm.org/catholic/peter.htm not sure if I am allowed to post it but here goes: There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek, nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress": "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see how the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to? The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament: Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away." 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ." 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed." We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we? In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion. Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A Lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. Petros: "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα Petra: πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell. PETRA πέτρα , (4073)) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch: Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, 'Lord, save me!'" Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, 'Woman, I do not know Him.' 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, 'You are one of them too!' But Peter said, 'Man, I am not!'" Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, 'If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus, and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed when he said to Jesus, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with Scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man. Deut. 32:3, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice." 1 Sam. 22:2, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge." Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God?" Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed." It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself. The Aramaic Kepha In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'." The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas, which is not a name in Aramaic. "Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1 Jesus is the rock on which the church is built The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope in which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter. "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). _____________ 1. Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (835). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
165 posted on 08/02/2007 4:57:32 PM PDT by bayoung
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayoung
Dear Friend,Perhaps this will help you? from www,scripturecatholic.com

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon “Bar-Jona.” The use of “Bar-Jona” proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Bar” means son, and “Jonah” means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

166 posted on 08/02/2007 5:28:10 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

If Aramaic was the language of the Jewish people as you suggest, then why is the inscription on the cross not written in Aramaic???? It is written in Latin for the Romans, Hebrew for the Jews, and Greek for everyone else. No Aramaic inscription on the cross.

167 posted on 08/02/2007 7:12:24 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Thanks for the link to the Baltimore Catechism. I am much better at keeping my e-library organized than the ever increasing stacks that draws my wife's raised eyebrow.

I may have jumped and grabbed too quickly, but Lesson 11 with:

Q. 489. What is the Church? A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head.

seems to help quell the fire on this thread by making a distinction between the "visible" church (i.e. the Church Militant, the Church Expectant and the Church Triumphant) and the Reformist idea of the "invisible" church (i.e. the company of all believers).

Whether or not the two are one and the same is a topic that would require its own support separate from the text of the original post.

Recognizing that they are not, I believe, is shoehorned by Vatican II and makes the spit and fire of Pope Benedict's statement far less a fire bomb than it is taken.

168 posted on 08/02/2007 7:17:57 PM PDT by WhoHuhWhat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; GCC Catholic
This link you provided http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/ was very informative. Perhaps you should post it as a new thread?

I too think that you should post this as a new thread. Please ping me if or when you do ---------

169 posted on 08/03/2007 4:12:36 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Dear Brother,Aramaic is a form of Hebrew, and we know that Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic.

Here is a good explanation from a protestant source
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/inscription.htm

I wish you a Blessed day!


170 posted on 08/03/2007 5:59:20 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: NYer
He never commanded anyone to write down His words.

Think those who wrote down some of His words took it upon themselves to do it or do you think it possible that the Holy Spirit had a little bit to do with it?

Everyone must obey the Catholic Church because She alone has the authority of Jesus to rule and to teach.

Only Jesus has the authority of Jesus.

171 posted on 08/03/2007 5:53:05 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
“As with this and the rest of your comments you’re not even close to the point I was making. The bible is provable not because the Catholic Church has an authority to declare it, it is true because you can look at history, you can investigate the text itself, and prove the authenticy of it’s authority...and true author.”(sirchtruth)

I guess I wasn’t clear enough for you to get what I said. As you say, if you look at history... The history is what the Catholic Church did to put the Bible together. That IS the history. After almost 400 years, there were all sorts of writings, floating around, causing confusion and heresy. The pope called the bishops of the Church together to determine what was true and what was error. They put together the selection of books now known as the “Bible.” If the Church hadn’t done that, there would be no Bible now.

You are correct that it’s all true, but that was the job of those bishops. When they completed their work, they submitted it to the pope to approve, which he did.

Unfortunately, in the 16th century, some folks got together and changed various and sundry words and phrases and tossed out several books from the Old Testament, and several more from the New Testament, so as to try to make it agree with the new religion they made up. That is the protestant bible. The Bible IS the Bible because the Catholic Church declared it to be the inspired Word of God.

The Bible consists of 46 books of the OT & 27 books of the NT. Count the books in yours. If it doesn’t match, you don’t have the whole Bible. -Glenn

172 posted on 08/03/2007 9:25:00 PM PDT by GlennD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-172 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson