Posted on 06/29/2011 5:46:53 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
After St. Peter died upside down on a cross in the Circus of Caligula and Nero, the surviving Christians obtained his body and buried him quickly nearby, on the steeply sloping Vatican Hill to the north of the Circus. That hill had become a makeshift graveyard four months earlier after the fire of Rome had killed so many residents of the metropolis that their loved ones began to use any open spot they could find on the roadsides radiating outside the city. . . .
When the tropaion of Peter was found underneath the high altar during archaeological escavations in 1941, there was great rejoicing, because it matched what Gaius had written at the end of the second century. Even more exciting was the fact that they found bones in what was clearly Peter’s tomb underneath the victory monument.
(Excerpt) Read more at integratedcatholiclife.org ...
Still denying the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit?
Do we or do we not agree that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kephas/Peter which means rock?
Why did He do so?
No one believes the pope to be a substitute for Christ.
I did not find anything in your link that disputes that Peter was the leader from the very beginning.
I do see where they are defending Christ as THE Rock, which is something all Catholics believe.
The rock is also Peter’s confession, Peter’s faith etc....
None of it contradicts that Peter was whom the Lord chose to lead His church and Scripture supports that truth, when one reads how Peter is the first and the foremost mentioned in nearly all of the NT.
Now that I have read what you posted, maybe you could, in your own words, answer the questions I put to you, without linking to the writings and words of someone else?
You can try all you want but God Himself made it pretty clear.
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
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."
I think Augustine explained it pretty well when he, in later life, realized that even he had been wrong thinking the rock meant Peter.
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.
You can post huge diatribes and even double post to try to get attention but any idea that contradicts verses like Isaiah 44:8 are in error and fit better with the prophecy that false teachers would arise.
Why did Jesus do it? I can come up with a handful of suggestions but they are just that, suggestions, guesses... I try to stick to discussing facts and one fact is that Jesus is the "rock of ages cleft for me".
You can try all you want but God Himself made it pretty clear.
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
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."
I think Augustine explained it pretty well when he, in later life, realized that even he had been wrong thinking the rock meant Peter.
“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.”
Augustine, in the above paragraph, pretty clearly states that Peter was NOT the Rock upon which the church is built but Christ is. He goes on to give a pretty exhaustive reasoning if you care to read it but I’ll leave that to you.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
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."
Wow!!
JUST AMAZING !!
So a verse that reads God is a Rock except Our God. Then it is taken of context to prop it up then to eliminate the real meaning of something in time later. The point is the rock can only mean what Psalm 18:31 reads only!
Jesus can not use the word in another context. A word can have several different meanings. So this verse explains everything! Just incredible
So no one not even Jesus can use the word Rock in any other context? really!
Then St Augustine is waxing a deep philosoliphical meaning that has nothing to do with william webster's view. He is taking things out of context . Augustine firmly believed in the Pope. What utter trash research. I own books on the early church fathers. This webster guy is totally out of context. I have a dictionary of early fathers qoutes. They firmly believed in a head of the church.
Jesus is the cornerstone, no Catholic disputes that.
Protestants dissent from the Church that it is in this passage Christ names Peter as the one to lead His church.
There is no question that Peter is called a rock by Christ, and there is no question that Christ then gives him the keys of the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose.
You said it yourself in your reply. Peter is the small rock that comes from the larger rock and because Christ is the larger rock, the bedrock or cornerstone, He has the authority to give to Peter the keys to the kingdom.
No one believes that Peter is anything other than Christ’s representative after His return to heaven. The Church does not teach anything other than that.
God does not change a name without a purpose. Debate over big rock and little rock only obscures the true debate over God’s purpose in changing Simon’s name to Peter(rock).
It makes no sense other than the fact that God’s intended purpose for Peter was that he, Peter(rock)would lead the Church.
Glad you agree that Peter is the small rock, because according to Matthew Jesus said He would found His church on the large rock (not on the little one). Even if Jesus had made Peter the leader of the church, you would still have to show me where in Scripture does it say that position was to be handed down through generations. But it doesn't matter, because Jesus founded His church on the petra, on the bedrock, on Himself!
This is a common response from protestants that even if Jesus made Peter the leader of the church where does Scripture say that position is to be handed down.
Scripture does not record the entire history of the church, but we do see in Acts that Peter calls for a replacement for Judas. That is the foundation of Apostolic Succession. Immediately we see Peter taking the lead and we see how men were to be chosen to continue the work of the Apostles.
Throughout the NT we see the Apostles appointing men to lead the churches in their own communities after the Apostles had founded those churches. It makes sense that the tradition would be carried on as each generation died and the next came up.
I disagree that it doesn’t matter. The lack of an authoritative voice in the church matters greatly. Without it myriad churches claim differing creeds results in a scattered and chaotic church, rudderless in the face of attacks by Satan.
This reminds me of the Atheist writer who thought Mother Theresa did not believe in God. If you read what she was talking about was the presense of God in Prayer at times. Or her presence of the Holy Spirit during deep prayerful travail or as a christian in moments of life. So presence becomes existence of God. Which totally derides the true meaning. I had to really read those quotes. As a christian you understand. But an athiest does not understand.
So goes this misunderstanding view of the early Church fathers. There are nuances and words that appear at first to read maybe like what is trying to be against the head(pope) of the church but is not against. Augustine is talking about priorities and succession of leadership. Not any leadership just go to God by yourself period. We are a a whole church from the beginning.
Christ physically left the world so since he left someone has been in charge in order of leadership for two thousands years which brought the bible plus a continual living witness to the world.
Why did Luke mention this in writing by the Holy Spirit:
ACTS 5:33" When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
LAST LINE AGAIN:
38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is From God, you will NOT be able to Stop these men; you will only find yourselves Fighting AGAINST God.”
We are still here. If not from God this Church would of died like Galamiel pointed out. Two thousand years while every powerful spiritual and natural power wanted to tear it down. Only God defends this Church.
Praise Jesus And Hail Mary!!! AMEN=SO BE IT!!!
I do not know the context under which Augustine wrote that paragraph as your link did not footnote the writings.
If one reads the entire passage, one will see that Augustine supports Peter as the leader of the Church, chosen by Jesus, and blessed by God.
It is a mistake by the protestant to think that the Church or the pope are considered a rock separate from THE Rock. That I believe is what Augustine is expounding upon in this sermon. It may have been a response to challenges to the authority of the pope, similar to the challenges protestants make today.
I again ask you to speak(in your own words) on your understanding of the significance of Jesus renaming Simon as Petros, and calling him blessed because of the singular revelation given to him by God, that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God.
Thanks for original post just so interesting!!
Praise Jesus indeed:)
I have often told my non Catholic husband that one must understand the Catholic heart and mind to understand the Catholic faith and practices.
Sadly, many are denied this understanding and have had their hearts hardened to it by others too prideful to admit that they are not whom God chose to lead His church.
His "always" name was Simon.
John 21:
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
What happened to his "Rockiness"?
now to a person who only knows English this may seem like two different meaning intentions, but that is because English does not have gender assigned to inanimate objects
In other Indo-european languages gender IS assigned to inanimate objects and the Koine greek term for rock is petra, this is not a dimunative
Now, the translator would not give Simeon a girl's name (since Petra is feminine) but would give him the masculine form of Petra which is Petros
And of course Jesus would have spoken this in Aramaic/hebrew. In Aramaic the term for Rock is Cephas which is very clear, Jesus saying "you are Rock and on Rock I will build my Church"
If you want, you can dispute on the precise meaning of this, but the words are clear and it's not Little rock arkansas
Should I assume from your answer that you do not disagree with my last sentence (which addresses the issue at hand: “Jesus founded His church on the petra, on the bedrock, on Himself!”? Next you’ll be showing me where in the NT Peter was treated like the pope is treated today, or where in the NT Peter wore the fancy vestments the pope wears when he celebrates Mass? Never mind, you can have it your way...at Burger King.
So, are you disputing that Jesus who we Christians (as opposed to unitarians) consider God, doesn't mean it when he renames someone?
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.