Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
That may seem a wise stance in Moscow, but not in Scripture in separation from such salvifc errors as Rome propagates is called for.
"what communion hath light with darkness..Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," (2 Corinthians 6:17)
Rome both officially and effectually preaches a different gospel, which begins with being made good enough to be with God by forgiveness and his own interior holiness effected thru the act of sprinkling (usually) a morally incognizant infant in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ends with becoming good enough to be with God thru purgatorial suffering, if he/she did not sufficiently co-operate enough with the grace dispensed by Rome thru her Treasury of Merit. In practice, both serve to effectually foster confidence in one's own merit and the power of the church for salvation.
In Scripture, it is personal repentant faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save damned+destitute sinners by His sinless shed blood, with baptism, which is by immersion, requiring repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
And while born again Prots (which not all are either) enjoy "fellowship of the Spirit" (Phil. 2:1) with each which is greater than their differences, unless there us grievous error, this is rarely realized in interaction with RCs. who, as seen here, incessantly promote their church and attack evangelicals, and minimize commonalities.
Christianity itself began in dissent from those who were the stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of the promises, and who had historical descent. And as Biblical unity requires separation, thus you had the evangelical movement which began because of unity in core truths and in opposition to liberal revisionism in Protestantism, which is also seen even in Catholic Bibles.
To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. Because it regards the Roman Catholic Church as barely Christian, Protestantism leaves Roman Catholicism to its own devices.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)
What is blindingly obvious is that RCs have a different gospel and different Spirit, with unScriptural "devices," and the proposal of being a Reformational Catholic is not more tenable to RCs than being a Protestant Catholic.
A Reformational Catholic cheerfully acknowledges that he shares creeds with Roman Catholics, and he welcomes reforms and reformulations as hopeful signs that we might at last stake out common ground beyond the barricades. (Protestants also exaggerate differences from one another, but that’s a story for another day.)
We do share at least the apostle creed, as i have often pointed out to RCs who attacks us as being unified only in rejection of Rome, but what Rome means by those Creeds is not the same. In Catholicism, the act of baptism, not the faith behind it, is how even infants become born again, while Mary is almost made a 4th person of the Godhead. Etc.
I live in a heavily RC area, and the amount of Catholic bookstores is minimal, which is telling. But why would you want to buy the NAB, seeing as it promotes liberal scholarship ? But which censure applies to many Prot sources also.
These are typical RC canarda, as Reformers clearly taught that faith comes from grace and necessarily accompanies works. That while faith appropriates justification for the unGodly, if effects obedience as a result.
Nor do Catholics also really judge all tradition against scripture, rather Rome is held as the supreme infallible judge of what both consist of and mean, and thus tradition neither needs actual proof from Scripture, but it sees no contradiction btwn traditions such as the sinlessness of Mary and her purgatory, which even the Orthodox reject as being not of tradition.
Nor do evangelicals interpret scripture in the light of tradition, but vice versa.
“The Catholic Church spent hundreds of years hiding the Word of God and suppressing vernacular translations meant for commoners.”
Nope.
Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.
With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194).
The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen B?cher, i, Bonn, 1883, 44).
In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984). But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505). In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused.III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation:
Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser’s of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.
1. Action by the Council of Trent.
At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, which enacted the following: “This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary.”
When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that “not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany.” As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision.
2. Rules of Various Popes.
The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264).
In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.”
Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.” Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV.
Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.”
This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).
3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.
In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain.
In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated.
In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151).
The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel’s New Testament with moral reflections under each verse (Le Nouveau Testament en francois avec des reflexions moroles sur chaque vers, Paris, 1699), which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel’s work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity (cf. H. J. D. Denzinger, Enchiridion, Wurzburg, 1854, 287).
In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible. In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised. Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, “In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction.”
In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies.
In the syllabus of 1864 “socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies” are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practise often ignores it.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm
Think about that: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed...Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious...”
What made it dangerous is what I’ve pointed out to you - the more you follow the Word of God, the less you will follow Catholic teachings.
“Sure there is an all the ancient Churches agreed that there were priests, purgatory (final theosis) and a pope in the Bible. Only the Johnny-come-lately Protestants believe otherwise.”
You won’t mind, then, showing the passage where Peter was named Vicar of Christ, where Jesus told the other Apostles that Peter was His Vicar, and that the Vicar of Christ would lead men to the truth.
“Feed my sheep” applies to ANY elder - the term that was later twisted into Bishop. When God gave a promise to Abraham or David, He did not hide His intent behind generic statements.
But if anyone disagrees, let them open up their Bible and read the Word of God. Those with ears to hear, WILL hear. Don’t trust what I say or 998 says...just read for yourself, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you what it says.
And please remember - the Jews of Jesus’ day, such as the unlearned Apostles, DID read and memorize the scripture, which they DID know the canon of...and many believed. Not all, but enough that Peter was ‘The Apostle to the Jews’. (”For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. - Gal 2.8)
Amen Brother!
I think this line of thought originates with the Roman Catholics to reassure themselves.
I do believe we are seeing Protestant churches in decline, but what isn't being discussed is the dramatic growth in Evangelical churches. Evangelical churches are growing dramatically throughout central and south America replacing the institutional churches that have turned away from Scripture. The same is happening in the USA. As the Protestant churches turn away from Scripture they are declining, but Evangelical churches are growing.
Believers find one another. The name of the assembly may change but they find each other because of their core faith.
“I testify that in any Protestant church I have attended Catholics are never mentioned.”
That was never my point. It’s a shame so many Protestants have problems reading and thinking.
It is a shame some did not read the ARTICLE that started this thread:
“Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.”
The reality is, as I explained in my first post on this thread, and others have attested to, is that most Protestant churches never mention the Catholic Church. Ever. We are focusing on a positive: trying to live and believe in accordance with the will of God, revealed in His Word. That keeps us pretty busy, and will reveal us to be new creatures...
“For if a man is in Christ he becomes a new person altogether—the past is finished and gone, everything has become fresh and new. All this is God’s doing, for he has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ; and he has made us agents of the reconciliation. God was in Christ personally reconciling the world to himself—not counting their sins against them—and has commissioned us with the message of reconciliation. We are now Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were appealing direct to you through us. As his personal representatives we say, “Make your peace with God.” For God caused Christ, who himself knew nothing of sin, actually to be sin for our sakes, so that in Christ we might be made good with the goodness of God.” - 2 Corinth 5
As I posted, I would be thrilled beyond measure if all the Catholics in this nation fully practiced their faith. I would be especially ecstatic if all of the Catholic clergy ceased worshiping at the altar of Marxist Liberation Theology and returned to their Catholic roots.
Have you noticed? When a plane is about to take off the flight attendant says, “Put your **own** oxygen mask on first, then help those next to you with their mask.” This is good advice, not only for a plane that is about to crash but for a nation that is in a spiritual nosedive.
My suggestion:
Put your own spiritual mask on first, then help the people closest to you ( your family and fellow Catholics.) There are plenty of Catholic lost sheep wandering out there in the spiritual wilderness to keep you very busy without criticizing Protestants. I am trying to do this within my Protestant circle without criticizing my fine Catholic neighbors.
It's a beam in the eye thing and first being able to see clearly before being about to help others.
HaHaHa...When asked a question, they post a link-which no one clicks on...That's their bible; they study an index of canned answers...
So you can post from 'jesus-is-savior.com but we can't because you guys claim it is a catholic hate site...I don't whine to the moderators but just wanted to point it out...
Billy Graham is a preacher, certainly not a bible scholar...B.G. has led thousands upon thousands, maybe millions of people to Jesus Christ...The Protestant version...So say what you will, Graham had led countless numbers of Catholics out of that heathen religion and into the arms of Jesus...
Amen...
Looks like non-Catholics are free to define Catholicism as they see fit, since this author did it for Protestantism.
Some of the information you posted is simply incorrect:
For example: “Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there.”
Lack of culture would have nothing to do with it one way or another.
Another example: “Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity.”
There was no “German”. There were Germanic languages and they were many. And the first translation of scripture into a Germanic language was done in the 4th CENTURY not the 8th.
Then there are the errors rooted in simply bigotry:
“With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God.”
So, the suggestion is that the Church was waiting around for over a thousand years for a good excuse “for shutting up the Word of God.” Only a bigot can think that way.
The examples then given are also errors rooted in Protestant bigotry. Example: “In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford.” Wycliffe finished his translation before he died in the 1380s. If the translation itself was viewed as a problem why did it take more than 20 years for the English bishops to act? The answer is that the translation itself was not a problem.
Another example: “In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language.” So a secular emperor ordered churchmen to do something about religious groups using vernacular translations. So the Church wasn’t even involved? That makes no sense.
Here’s another error by way of Protestant bigotry: “Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church.” What does that mean? There were numerous translations of the Bible IN GERMAN before Luther.
“...but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church.”
Felt? What is the evidence for that “feeling”? This is fantasy rooted in Protestant bigotry.
“Such editions were Emser’s of 1527,”
Again, how does that explain all those German translations BEFORE Luther’s?
“and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.”
And the Church of Rome “silently tolerated” the many previous translations as well. This is well known to historians (including Germans) who aren’t bigots - even those in the 19th century: the Catholic bishop Jean Baptiste Malou, Wilhelm Krafft (a nineteenth century Lutheran), Friedrich Kropatschek (another Lutheran), and Franz Falk, Erich Zimmermann, and Hans Rost in the 20th century. But why let documented history get in the way of good old fashioned American anti-Catholic Protestant bigotry, right?
As the Protestant scholar Alister McGrath, wrote in 1987: there was “no universal or absolute prohibition of the translation of scriptures into the vernacular was ever issued by a medieval pope or council, nor was any similar prohibition directed against the use of such translations by the clergy or laity.” (Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, page 124).
You wrote:
“What made it dangerous is what I’ve pointed out to you - the more you follow the Word of God, the less you will follow Catholic teachings.”
No, the exact opposite - as I have seen in the lives of many Protestant converts who love the Bible more than ever as Catholics as well as in the lives of cradle Catholics who have developed a deeper love of Christ and the Catholic Church through their Bible study and lectio divina.
“You won’t mind, then, showing the passage where Peter was named Vicar of Christ,”
Matthew 16:18.
“where Jesus told the other Apostles that Peter was His Vicar,”
Matthew 16:18 - the other Apostles were there.
“and that the Vicar of Christ would lead men to the truth.”
No. Peter would guide the Church in unity. The Holy Spirit guides men to truth and He principally does so through the Church.
“And please remember - the Jews of Jesus’ day, such as the unlearned Apostles, DID read and memorize the scripture,”
If they were so unlearned then they would have been illiterate. What they lacked was formal education not learning.
“which they DID know the canon of...and many believed. Not all, but enough that Peter was ‘The Apostle to the Jews’. (”For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. - Gal 2.8)”
And in Acts 10:28-29 we clearly see Peter bringing the gospel to Gentiles. Read your Bible.
When a Catholic is asked if they are Christian and they respond with *No, I'm a Catholic*, they've already made the distinction.
The true church is the body of Christ in the world, comprised of true believers, regardless of denominational affiliation.
No one denomination can lay claim to being the one true church.
*No replies*.
Isn't that interesting.
“There are plenty of Catholic lost sheep wandering out there in the spiritual wilderness to keep you very busy without criticizing Protestants.”
I deal with that every day.
“I am trying to do this within my Protestant circle without criticizing my fine Catholic neighbors.”
That’s fine. I will continue to criticize the Protestant heresies and liberal beliefs which now affect my fellow Catholics. If that means attacking Protestantism itself - which is a heresy - that’s okay with me.
“It’s a beam in the eye thing and first being able to see clearly before being about to help others.”
I see clearly. I see no reason why I can’t help Catholics by showing the errors of Protestantism since that is the problem for Catholics in the first place. When a Catholic “backslides” he is acting like a Protestant in spirit if not in practice.
They don't show up in the bible...And of course the ancient churches did believe in those things...That's why your fake religion which had charge over governments and militaries called them heretics and killed as many as they could and burned as many of the bibles as they could get their hands on...
Sure there is an all the ancient Churches agreed that there were priests, purgatory (final theosis) and a pope in the Bible. Only the Johnny-come-lately Protestants believe otherwise.
The Johnny-come-lately Protestants were the first mass groups who were privileged to get the words of God into their possession and in their own language...People have believed as we do all thru church history but the bible being mass produced was the key...We could now see how your fake Church perverted the scriptures...And respond accordingly...
It's amazing the comments of yours that I have been reading that have gotten no response from the RC's on board.
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
“I would be thrilled and delighted if every Catholic in this nation fully practiced their faith”
Likewise, I would be thrilled if every protestant practiced their faith. I especially am bothered by protestants that claim to be pro-life and pro-marriage, but still cast their vote for the baby killing, marriage destroying, Christ-hating Obama. The 96% of all blacks, the vast majority being protestants, come to mind. But also protestant that goes to church and claims to be believe in God, but goes straight to the polling booth and pulls the level for their savior Obama.
I am bothered any one that professes to be a Christian supporting Obama and his anti-Christian stooges.
I read what Scripture says about Peter and believe that, not what some so-called *church fathers* have to say.
Opinion pieces do not carry the weight of Scripture.
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.