Skip to comments.Oh, we are in deep, deep trouble
Posted on 03/16/2013 7:33:00 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The consecration of the Host happens at 51:47. The consecration of the Chalice happens at 52:32.
I cannot believe I am about to type these words.
The Pope DID NOT GENUFLECT after either consecration. He did a weird bow thing, but didn't feel the need to bend his knee to God Almighty, physically present in his hands upon the altar.
HE. DID. NOT. GENUFLECT.
This is absolutely stunning. And unprecedented.
Oh yeah, we're in deep, deep trouble.
But hey, all of you guys who are sending me emails whining about how I'm not nice, or something, go ahead and explain this one. He is perfectly physically sound. He FREELY CHOOSES to not reverence Our Lord in the Eucharist upon the altar.
Oh, and he also didn't genuflect to Our Lord in the Tabernacle when he went to Santa Maria Maggiore on Thursday morning, either. Um, how can a man truly love Our Lady if he doesn't first show even the slightest respect to her Son? Someone please explain that one to me.
Hey! I have an idea! Let's do a Pope watch. First one to see the Pope genuflect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, and not to a Superfun Rockband church pastor, wins! In the mean time, everyone should pray for Pope Francis and that he learns to show Our Lord the tiniest bit of respect and GENUFLECT to Him after He comes down onto the altar, and whenever he approaches or crosses the plane of a Tabernacle in which Our Lord is physically present. I think that would be a great prayer intention for one and all.
I never occurred to me that my desire to do penance in reparation to Our Lord for the sacrileges of the world would include the consecration rubrics of THE POPE.
Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.
“It is tradition. Here is scripture discussing tradition.”
I honor Paul’s tradition, which he delivered to us in his epistles. Where does it say it is the Roman tradition, that teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace, and that we needed the Roman Church, 400 to 500 years after the fact, to set us straight?
Learn what the Greek word translated as “RATHER”” means. I explained it. It can have a contrast meaning (which you think is the plain meaning) or a ÿes but even more than that.
It’s used both ways.
I am the one doing careful word study here. In this case the word can be used in two ways,so you interpret Scripture with Scripture and that makes clear that he’s endorsing honor of his mother. Which is what the Ten Commandments tell him to do.
But see you blindly depend on your translation, which chose one of the two possible meanings of the word. Translators are traitors. In choosing to translate it as “rather” the translator took sides on this issue. Had he been honest, he’d have pointed out in a footnote that it could also mean “Yeah, sure, venerate my beloved mother but even more than that remember that all who hear and keep the word of God, like my mother does, are blessed.
There, I fixed it for you.
“Thats ALL veneration means.”
I’ll need to go grab a Rosary so I can start saying Hail Rosies (her name is Rosy) to my mother.
You wrote: “”Jesus connects the blessedness to every believer, BUT Jesus said, yea, RATHER, blessed are they...
You are reading that into the words. You are free to read that in. But the words themselves do not state that unambiguously. If you were to actually pore over the Scriptures and read Luke 1-2, you would read into those words in Luke 11:28: Hey, folks. My Mother is the prime example of all those who hear the word of God and keep it. She’s blessed, all of those who do what she does are blessed and so yes, venerate my mother as the Biggest Old Hearer and Keeper of the Word ever.”
Which is eggzackly what what Catholics and Orthodox and Martin Luther and John Calvin and John Wesley did.
Your quarrel is with John Wesley’s exegesis, Martin Luther’s, not with mine.
Have you ever looked into what Luther and Wesley believed about Mary?
I wrote not a word about your heart. Not one single word.
I wrote about your lack of knowledge while you claim to KNOW what this passage says.
After you’ve studied the history of the interpretation of this passage you can make a fair judgment. I have studied both sides and reached a conclusion. You reached a conclusion without studying all the information because from the beginning you assumed that the plain and obvious interpretation was the one you hold.
that the Greek words and the structure of Luke and other factors make a different interpretation not only possible but by far the most plausible.
And you then accuse me of reading your heart.
I read your words and concluded you haven’t acquainted yourself with the way this passage has been interpreted.
You sound grouchy FRiend. Where does it say that? Do you believe tradition somehow ended at the council of Nicea?
We Catholics believe in salvation by grace through faith alone.
The quarrel is over whether faith can be naked apart from works or whether faith always only takes place in a life of love. Whether faith without works is dead or not.
The old canard that we believe in salvation by works is false. Salvation is by faith alone but what constitutes faith, that’s the quarrel of the 16th century.
“Learn what the Greek word translated as RATHER means.”
I have a Greek Lexicon at arm’s distance. It makes absolutely no difference no matter how much you repeat it. I quite frankly don’t even understand the point of your argument.
“RATHER” does not translate to “Therefore, Mary was more blessed than the Christians who would hear the word of God and obey it, and you should honor her to honor me.” That’s a lot to make one word mean.
And I did not say that Jesus refused to say His mother was blessed for giving birth to Him. RATHER, I said, that Christians are blessed, or more blessed, who hear the word of God and obey it.
“But see you blindly depend on your translation, which chose one of the two possible meanings of the word. “
Okay, let’s examine other translations:
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.
Amplified Bible (AMP)
28 But He said, Blessed (happy and [a]to be envied) rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey and practice it!
It got worse for you.
Common English Bible (CEB)
28 But he said, Happy rather are those who hear Gods word and put it into practice.
Still not seeing your goofy claims.
Darby Translation (DARBY)
28 But *he* said, Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep [it].
English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
28 But he said, Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!
Even the Anglicans can’t make it sound different!
New International Version (NIV)
28 He replied, Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
28 And he said, `Yea, rather, happy those hearing the word of God, and keeping [it]!’
“Where does it say that? “
That is basically a simplified version of what I just got done asking you.
“You are reading that into the words. You are free to read that in.”
Am I going to have to do a sentence diagram and even define each word?
BLESSED, ARE, THEY.
So where’s your Roman exegesis that changes the meaning of those three words?
YOu know, that’s a cheap shot.
Scripture is where we got the “Hail Mary.” The Angel said it to Mary. We merely repeat the Angel’s words combined with Elizabeth’s words to her, then we ask Mary to join us in prayer and to pray for us.
She is a Christian. Mary is the first to believe in Christ. She is my sister in Christ. I ask my brother and sister Christians to pray for my needs.
That’s all we do.
I shake the dust off my feet.
Look at the meaning of veneration from the first few centuries and what it means in Greek or Latin and you'll at least have a clue about what you're talking about. Until then, it's no different than calling the “Gay Nineties” a time when Victorian style homes were popular and queers were all the rage. IOW, it just shows how ignorant and foolish the person making the accusation is.
I gave it to you in detail. When you read and consider what I wrote, we can talk.
Until then, enjoy your self-referential world.
As a southern baptist i have a hard time understanding what this has to do with salvation
Or robe colors
He seems like a far right Jesuit
Somebody willing to purge this body of apostate queerdom
I pray so...a strong diligent Catholic church that enforces scripture on it’s Faithful helps all of us
Regardless, He is short one lung and is 76 years old. My Father-in-law emphatically states that every day after 75 is a bonus. So, I have a feeling that a one lunged, 76 year old who has spent his life in dedicated Corporal Works of Mercy MAY, just MAY have a little difficulty on the recovery from a genuflect.
I am half his age and sometimes have trouble!
Much Obliged for your edification, and bienvenidos a FreeRepublic.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.
8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.
9 For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names:
10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
11 And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
And you can research it on Wiki: handy!
Genuflection to the Blessed Sacrament, especially when arriving or leaving its presence, is a practice in the Anglican Communion, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church.It is a comparatively modern replacement for the profound bow of head and body that remains the supreme act of liturgical reverence in the East.
Only during the later Middle Ages, centuries after it had become customary to genuflect to persons in authority such as bishops, was genuflection to the Blessed Sacrament introduced. The practice gradually spread and became viewed as obligatory only from the end of the fifteenth century, receiving formal recognition in 1502. The raising of the consecrated Host and Chalice after the Consecration in order to show them to the people was for long unaccompanied by obligatory genuflections.
The requirement that genuflection take place on both knees before the Blessed Sacrament when it is unveiled as at Expositions (but not when it is lying on the corporal during Mass)was altered in 1973 with introduction of the following rule: “Genuflection in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee.”
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal lays down the following rules for genuflections during Mass:
Three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place.
If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from the sanctuary, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.
Otherwise all who pass before the Most Blessed Sacrament genuflect, unless they are moving in procession.
Ministers carrying the processional cross or candles bow their heads instead of genuflecting.
“YOu know, thats a cheap shot.”
How’s it cheap? You said that the Roman veneration of Mary is the same one due to our own mothers and fathers.
“Thats all we do.”
CCC par. 2675, “Beginning with Mary’s unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries...”
She cooperates with the Holy Spirit uniquely?
CCC 969, “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”
She’s the mediatrix!? I thought we only had ONE Mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ.
1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
CCC 721, “Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time....Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the “Seat of Wisdom.”
The seat of wisdom!?
CCC 966, “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.”
She is the queen of all things and even delivers our souls from death?
CCC, 2030, “It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation...From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary...”
Mary the model of holiness??
So, doesn’t look like y’all are just praying to her, as you would anybody else. (Umm, why are you praying to PEOPLE again instead of God directly? And where is any of this justified in the scripture?)
I also wonder how Mary, who is but a human being, is able to hear and process the prayers of billions of Catholics without receiving the attributes of God? That is, omnipresence or omniscience?
“I gave it to you in detail.”
You gave me a confused and nonsensical argument.
My heart was never the subject, by my post. Your assumption is misguided. As far as Luther, Wesley, you and countless others- keep guessing for the blessing. God ain’t gonna let ya down... not ever
You might really benefit from attending RCIA. Here is more useful info..
So, how does the contemporary reader learn from Isaiah? Two simple lessons come to mind. First, God fulfills his word. In Isaiah, the LORD foretells many events and they come to pass. Through Isaiah, the LORD speaks of destruction and judgment, but also of salvation and redemption. On all counts, he delivers. Therefore, we can trust in his word for he is always faithful. Second, God’s plan incorporates all mankind. Many times in the book of Isaiah, the prophet speaks of a jubilant day when all nations will come to worship the LORD at Jerusalem, on Mt. Zion (cf. 25, 66). This awesome day of feasting and celebration is the goal toward which all history tends. In the end, God wins and we share in his victory. From a Christian perspective, this goal is won by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the true son of David and root of Jesse (11:1).
Isaiah’s prophecies are so important for the NT that some of the church fathers referred to him as the first evangelist. The key passages regarding Jesus are about the virgin birth (7:14), the coming of Immanuel (9:1-7), the sprouting of the root of Jesse (11), the suffering servant (53-55) and the mission of the Messiah (61).
“You might really benefit from attending RCIA. Here is more useful info..”
If they don’t teach the Bible there, I probably won’t have a good time. But I’m not sure how Isaiah plays into anything I’ve been debating on here.
She gives believers a bad name with her inanity.
Show me in the Bible where God commands specific genuflection from a 76 year old human. or anybody else.
What the heck lady. What’s wrong with you?
Having said that, I think the Pope has mobility issues and Ann's hysteria is way out of line.
“Where does it say it is the Roman tradition, that teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace, and that we needed the Roman Church, 400 to 500 years after the fact, to set us straight?”
Let me correct you since it would be wrong to allow you to continue in such errors:
1) The Catholic Church has always taught salvation by grace alone - just as St. Paul did.
2) The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. The Roman Church is merely the leading Church in it. There are 22 churches in the Catholic Church.
3) The Catholic Church was founded by Christ not 400 or 500 years after His ascension but when He was on earth with the Apostles.
Jesus set people free from religion but there will always be people that do not get it and do not want to be free, any one who is free has to take the blame for their own short comings but a slave can always blame some one else.
By what is happening in America and in the Churches it appears that most people are definitely in favor of slavery.
I was wondering about a physical reason... but to be clear, it does not affect my loyalty for Pope Francis whatsoever. His words and reverence are filled with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
Could you please post the source for the information about the pins in his knees?
Thank you. Meantime let us pray for Ann.
I am 52 and could not get up from one knee without something to push off.
Here’s to hope...that one of you wiser-than-me’s can explain what the angel meant when he told Mary she was blessed among women. Or for that matter, what Jesus meant when he said “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.”
I’ll be praying the rosary. :)
People like "Ann Barnhardt" do strain that effort. Close to the breaking point.....
I’m not sure I can “properly genuflect” and I am 54 y.o. with a bunch of arthritis and a bad back, let alone being 76 y.o.
But then again, I’m not Catholic. Just Christian.
Mary's righteousness and faith are without question. But she is not the path to Jesus or The Father according to Jesus own words.Try telling that to the millions who have been led by Mary's hand (and heart and tears) straight to her Son, Jesus.
See post #51 "This thread is posted in the Religion Forum. It is an "open" thread so posters may argue for or against dieties, religious authorities, etc. The main guideline on the RF is to "discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal."
And Matthew 5:22 "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I don't try to talk people out of what they want to believe. I stick with quoting scriptures in context (e.g. John 14:6) and let The Word and Holy Spirit do the work I could never accomplish - water and grow the seed of God's truth.
"Where in the Bible does it say that anyone should venerate "Our Lady" in order to respect her son?".
Then I got a response that completely ignored the question. Why? The answer is that the Bible does not require some outward sign of "veneration" of Mary in order to respect Jesus. I found it quite unscriptual to accuse the the Pope of disrespecting Mary AND THEREFORE Jesus because he didnt genuflect after consecration.
Marys righteousness and faith are without question. But she is not the path to Jesus or The Father according to Jesus own words.
"So we restrict our honor of Mary to veneration"
Where in the Bible does it command, or even allow for veneration of a dead person as if they are still alive? That leads to praying to another other than The Father. That got king Saul into a lot of trouble trying to communicate with the prophet Samuel.
II Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Mary and all others are in the Bible for "training in righteousness" - some very positive like Mary, others negative like Cain.
I stick with quoting scriptures...Can you imagine a Bible that covered "everything" important to the Christian faith? It would be ten miles high and then some. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition
“1) The Catholic Church has always taught salvation by grace alone - just as St. Paul did.”
“...the Second Vatican Council confirms: ‘The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments,’” (CCC 2068).
The specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation, (CCC, par. 2010).
If any one saith, that the justice [righteousness] received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 24).
What saith the scripture?
Eph_2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
“The Catholic Church was founded by Christ not 400 or 500 years after His ascension but when He was on earth with the Apostles.”
The Rock upon which the church is built is the confession of Jesus Christ. All Christians are stones, and priests and saints of the true church, which is Christs body, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.
1Pe 2:5-6 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Peter never, in any of his epistles, calls himself the Rock upon which the church is built, or refers to himself as anything more than an Apostle of Jesus Christ, just as Paul and the others called themselves. In fact, Paul even rebuked Peter when he was in error. Not as an inferior having respect for a Pope, but as an equal.
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
This doctrine of Papal primacy, universal Bishop as the head of the church, is one that came later.
Ignatius, writing sometime before his death between 97 and 115AD, listed the highest tier of the church as the Bishop. He never mentions any higher tiers.
Pope Gregory the first, more than 400 years later, who asserted Peter was the First of the Apostles, nevertheless denied the title of the Universal Bishop (though the one who came right after him petitioned the Emperor that he should take the title), and asserted that the See of Peter was made up of three locations.
But I confidently say, that whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires to be called so, in his pride is the forerunner of antichrist, because in his pride he prefers himself to the rest. And he is conducted to error with a similar pride; for as that wicked one wishes to appear a God above all men, so whosoever he is who alone desires to be called a bishop, extols himself above all other bishops. To Mauritius Augustus.
St. Peters Primacy descended to three Bishopricks, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome.
Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. In the Eulogy to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the throne of Peter under the Bishop of Antioch:
Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles. Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
“Heres to hope...that one of you wiser-than-mes can explain what the angel meant when he told Mary she was blessed among women. Or for that matter, what Jesus meant when he said Why do you call me good? Only God is good.”
Ummm... it means... blessed... art thou... among women?
It does not say “MORE BLESSED” so, therefore, “start praying to her, because she works with the Holy Spirit for your SALVATION.”
Christians who have never seen Christ are blessed:
Joh_20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Blessed are forgiven sinners:
Rom_4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Those who have faith are blessed with Abraham:
Gal_3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Blessed are they who hear the word of God and obey it:
Luk_11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Blessed are we when men hate and revile us:
Luk_6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
I could go on...
“Or for that matter, what Jesus meant when he said Why do you call me good? Only God is good.”
He meant that only God is good, and therefore, Mary cannot be holy, immaculate, and so on and so forth, because she isn’t God. Jesus IS God, of course.
You claim the Pope is perfectly sound; just how do you know that? You ARE aware that, as one poster has already mentioned, that the Pope tripped on the altar in one of his earlier Masses. If he doesn't genuflect, maybe it's because he's concerned about falling, again. And though you may claim that a bow before the altar, instead of a genuflection, is somehow displeasing to the Lord, how do you know that? The Lord may be just fine with it.
Frankly, from the posts you made since Pope Francis was announced, you've been almost happy to portray every thing his does in a negative light, and encouraging others to join you in not accepting him. Looks like calumny to me, and you might want to give that some thought, during this time of penance, preparing for the Great Feast of our Lord's Resurrection.
Of course, my comments about the article were directed to the author, not to you, personally. I should have put the quote in quotation marks.
How do you figure that? Jesus was an observant Jew, and said He didn't come to REFUTE the law, but to FULFILL it. Doesn't sound anti-religious to me.
I read your post. Here are the problems with it:
1) You originally wrote this, “Where does it say it is the Roman tradition, that teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace...”
I corrected you with this comment: “1) The Catholic Church has always taught salvation by grace alone - just as St. Paul did.”
Now, you’re posting this: “What saith the scripture? Eph_2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
First you said the Catholic Church “teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace...” Now you just completely avoid the “salvation by grace” issue and are now focusing on faith. Why? Either your original comment was right or wrong. Which is it? Clearly you were wrong. Trying to change to another issue doesn’t change that.
2) You also wrote:
“The Rock upon which the church is built is the confession of Jesus Christ.”
Nope. Jesus said it was Peter. Even many Protestant scripture scholars admit this:
D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) —
“Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (’you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” (Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)
“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)
R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) —
“The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)
Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel’s Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament —
“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)
Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) —
“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (’Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant ‘stone.’ Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)
Craig Blomberg (Protestant Evangelical) —
“Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname ‘Peter’ (Petros=rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42 [wherein he is called Cephas]), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, ‘You are Peter,’ parallels Peter’s confession, ‘You are the Christ,’ as if to say, ‘Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.’ The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” (Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32)
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from The Anchor Bible series) —
“Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff).” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)
Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) —
“’You are Peter,’ Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter’s ‘You are the Christ’ (16:16). He then plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter’s name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus’ day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply ‘rock.’ Further, Jesus does not say, ‘You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church’....the copulative kai almost always means ‘and’.... Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the ‘rock’ because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)....” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) —
“The play on words — ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ — requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical — Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world...” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)
Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) —
“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)
Ivor H. Jones (Methodist) —
“...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase ‘on this rock’ : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter’s confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God’s people, the church...as the church they represent God’s sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)
M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ) —
“16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros).... There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church....On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)
Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed) —
“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean ‘rock,’ it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: ‘Your name is “Rock,” and on this “rock” I will build my church.’ Jesus’ meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the ‘rock,’ corresponding to Abraham of old, who was ‘the rock from which you were hewn’ (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)
Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite) —
“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter’s faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view....” (Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)
3) You also wrote:
“Ignatius, writing sometime before his death between 97 and 115AD, listed the highest tier of the church as the Bishop. He never mentions any higher tiers.”
He didn’t have to. The pope is the bishop of Rome.
4) you also wrote:
“Pope Gregory the first, more than 400 years later, who asserted Peter was the First of the Apostles, nevertheless denied the title of the Universal Bishop (though the one who came right after him petitioned the Emperor that he should take the title), and asserted that the See of Peter was made up of three locations.”
What Pope St. Gregory I wrote was this:
“Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21. Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you, I declare to you that I exult with great joy from knowing that you labour assiduously against the barkings of heretics; and I implore Almighty God that He would aid your Blessedness with His protection, so as through your tongue to uproot every root of bitterness from the bosom of holy Church, lest it should germinate again to the hindrance of many, and through it many should be defiled. For having received your talent you think on the injunction, Trade till I come Luke 19:13. I therefore, though unable to trade at all nevertheless rejoice with you in the gains of your trade, inasmuch as I know this, that if operation does not make me partaker, yet charity does make me a partaker in your labour. For I reckon that the good of a neighbour is common to one that stands idle, if he knows how to rejoice in common in the doings of the other.”
5) And about Theodoret and his views on the papacy, I’ll quote him as cited by Dolan in The See of Peter and the voice of Antiquity:
It will be much to our purpose to quote
here a few lines from a letter written by the
historian Theodoret to Leo I, witnessing his
appreciation of the special honor and juris-
diction attaching to the Chair of Peter.
Theodoret was bishop of Cyrus and his letter
begs the annulment by Leo, of certain decrees
of the Latrocinium. The letter has all the
more force, proceeding as it does from an
oriental source. “If Paul . . . hastened
to the great Peter in order that he might
carry from him the solution of difficulties to
those at Antioch . . . much more do we
men of little account, hasten to your Apos-
tolic See, in order to obtain from you a rem-
edy for the wounds of the churches. For
every reason is it fitting for you to hold the
first place, since your see is endowed with so
many special privileges. ... In these days
God has adorned the throne of the Apostles,
by placing on it your holiness, emitting as
you do the rays of orthodoxy.” He then pro-
ceeds with the narrative of his grievances,
namely the imputation of heresy and the loss
of his see, and ends by a fervid appeal to Leo for help. “I await the sentence of your
Apostolic See. I beseech and implore your
holiness to help me in my appeal to your fair
and righteous tribunal. Command me to
come to you, to prove that my teaching fol-
lows the footprints of the apostles. . . .
Do not spurn my prayer, I beg of you. Be-
fore all I implore you to tell me whether I
must bear this unrighteous decision or not.
I await your decision.” This testimony is
too eloquent to stand in need of either note
So, apparently you still have quite a bit of studying to do. Just remember, interpretations aside, you were objectively wrong when you said, that the Catholic Church or Roman tradition “teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace...”. You were wrong and will continue to be so. Changing the subject will not change the fact that you were wrong.
Ummm...."among" implies comparison. As to the why-call-him-good, it's a fine example of a statement we... ought... not... to take... at... face... value.
I don't think you can chalk it up to mobility issues.
MISA DE NIÑOS 2011 (Consecrations at 5:30 and 6:16)
Not a single knee bends in the presence of the Lord's flesh and blood. Not one.
That's saying nothing of the rest of the circus "mass" in the video.
“First you said the Catholic Church teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace... Now you just completely avoid the salvation by grace issue and are now focusing on faith. “
I didn’t at all. I quoted from the catechism saying that salvation is “achieved” not by grace, but through baptism, obedience and works.
It’s interesting you dodged it completely and accused me of doing the same thing.
“Nope. Jesus said it was Peter. Even many Protestant scripture scholars admit this:”
Suppose the rock is Peter, and not Jesus Christ who is called the Rock or the cornerstone of the Church, most prominently taught in Peter’s own works no less. Who is to say that the rock in reference here is not to Peter’s work as being the first to preach (after Pentecost) to the Jews and Gentiles? Thus, he is a rock, or a foundation of the church. But certainly not the only foundation, as Peter himself teaches quite clearly that all Christians are “rocks” of the church, building up a Holy House.
Certainly the other Apostles established their churches across the world, and there is no evidence in the Bible that the Apostles never considered themselves as all equal ministers of the Gospel. In fact, on more than one occasion the “authority” and “infallibility” of Peter is challenged, at least in the sense if he were actually the Pope at that time.
I already gave the example of Paul. Another example is in Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, is followed.
The Roman abuses, therefore, have no basis of scripture, aside from a tortured interpretation from Matthew. It’s more reading into the scripture what the Catholics want, and less what is in the scripture itself.
“He didnt have to. The pope is the bishop of Rome.”
Ignatius wrote to every Bishop in the letters he sent, except in his letter to the Romans, where he wrote to no Bishop at all. Probably because there wasn’t one.
Ignatius says that the head of Bishop is God, and does not reference anything still yet between them.
“Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, or rather, who has as his own bishop God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.” ~ Epistle to Polycarp
Not once in any of his epistles does Ignatius reference any one higher than a Bishop, aside from God Himself.
“What Pope St. Gregory I wrote was this:”
So your big argument is just to quote, but with more text, the same argument wherein Gregory declares: :”..See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside.”
That doesn’t help the Papal cause, which says the seat of Peter is in Rome only, and only has one who possesses the authority of Peter.
“And about Theodoret and his views on the papacy, Ill quote him as cited by Dolan in The See of Peter and the voice of Antiquity:”
lol, again, you ignore the argument, which is that Theodoret placed the “See of Peter” in three places also, placing the “Throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch.
“So, apparently you still have quite a bit of studying to do.”
Says the guy who argues against mist and shadows.
“Ummm....”among” implies comparison. As to the why-call-him-good, it’s a fine example of a statement we... ought... not... to take... at... face... value.
Again, you make the most absurd and irrelevant arguments.
Your post begs the question "what is important to the Christian faith?"
It would be ten miles high and then some.
That's a mighty big list! It reminds me of the amount of luggage the Howells brought with them for a three hour tour around the islands of Hawaii. Do you really "need" all of that stuff? Is it all that important? Can you imagine a list of "everything important" to the faith, that's still concise enough to fit into a single Bible?
No, you just miss the point. Get checked for planks!
With all due ummm. ;)