Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair

[Lost4words]

As an apologist for the Catholic Church he is outstanding, but a theologian he is not.

He is a very well known theologian and apologist.

 

[bbbbbbb]

He is a very well known theologian and apologist.

I am certain that he is well-known in Catholic circles, but outside of the Catholic Church probably not so much. We call all list famous people who rank high on our lists of fame (maybe even including ourselves). Although he is a prolific writer, his works are primarily apologetic and specifically aimed at a Protestant audience. Even his commentary on the gospel of John is apologetic in nature. I have not been able to locate a biography of him online. Which seminaries did he attend and in which seminaries has he taught?

 

[Lost4words]

He used to be a massive anti Catholic. He preached against Catholicism.

He converted to Catholicism after a lot of study etc...

Check out his website..Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray | Author of "St. John's Gospel", "Upon This Rock", & "Crossing the Tiber"

 

[bbbbbbb]

He used to be a massive anti Catholic. He preached against Catholicism.

He converted to Catholicism after a lot of study etc...

Check out his website..Defenders of the Catholic Faith | Hosted by Stephen K. Ray | Author of "St. John's Gospel", "Upon This Rock", & "Crossing the Tiber"

I have, actually. The fact remains that he is a noted (and notable) Catholic apologist, but is not a recognized Catholic theologian, as far as I can tell. There is a great difference between apologetics and theology.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am certain that he is well-known in Catholic circles, but outside of the Catholic Church probably not so much. We call all list famous people who rank high on our lists of fame (maybe even including ourselves). Although he is a prolific writer, his works are primarily apologetic and specifically aimed at a Protestant audience. Even his commentary on the gospel of John is apologetic in nature. I have not been able to locate a biography of him online. Which seminaries did he attend and in which seminaries has he taught?

So he's not famous like Protestant theologians like Bultmann and Tillich and Sponge. So what's your concern? That he's merely an apologist and hasn't gone to a Protestant seminary? Big woop! I mean, I respect a consummate theologian like Joseph Ratzinger or Avery Dulles or Andy Weinandy. But Steve Ray has done a great job too. And I'm not going to knock him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So he's not famous like Protestant theologians like Bultmann and Tillich and Sponge. So what's your concern? That he's merely an apologist and hasn't gone to a Protestant seminary? Big woop! I mean, I respect a consummate theologian like Joseph Ratzinger or Avery Dulles or Andy Weinandy. But Steve Ray has done a great job too. And I'm not going to knock him.

Actually, as I am sure you know, there are many well-known Catholic theologians and my Catholic friends tell me that Catholic seminaries (of which my hometown once had four) are quite excellent. There are many contemporary Catholic theologians such as Karl Rahner. The Catholic Church is well-known for its development of Liberation Theology by such well-known Catholic theologians as Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff.

In actual fact, the vast majority of Popes are not remembered as theologians. In my personal world I have more interest in apologetics than theology. Just because a fellow has to settle for a lesser role (such as apologist or Pope) in your denomination than theologian hardly means that he is a complete failure.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Actually, as I am sure you know, there are many well-known Catholic theologians and my Catholic friends tell me that Catholic seminaries (of which my hometown once had four) are quite excellent. There are many contemporary Catholic theologians such as Karl Rahner. The Catholic Church is well-known for its development of Liberation Theology by such well-known Catholic theologians as Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff.

In actual fact, the vast majority of Popes are not remembered as theologians. In my personal world I have more interest in apologetics than theology. Just because a fellow has to settle for a lesser role (such as apologist or Pope) in your denomination than theologian hardly means that he is a complete failure.

Then what's your beef?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Then what's your beef?

Actually, i have never had a beef. Another poster boasted that he is a great theologian and I merely pointed out the obvious fact that his chosen field is Catholic apologetics (addressed to Protestants) and not Catholic theology (although they are related). My comment raised some Catholic hackles as if I consider theologians to be superior to apologists and, therefore, was belittling him.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Actually, i have never had a beef. Another poster boasted that he is a great theologian and I merely pointed out the obvious fact that his chosen field is Catholic apologetics (addressed to Protestants) and not Catholic theology (although they are related). My comment raised some Catholic hackles as if I consider theologians to be superior to apologists and, therefore, was belittling him.

It did appear that you intended to belittle Steve Ray. My apologies if that was not your intent.

Apologetics is a form of theology, and one of the great Catholic theologians of the last century, Avery Dulles, wrote what some consider to be THE book on apologetics. See https://www.amazon.com/History-Apologetics-Robert-Cardinal-Dulles/dp/0898709334

See also The Rebirth of Apologetics | Avery Cardinal Dulles

If you are not familiar with Avery Dulles or familiar with First Things, now is your chance.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It did appear that you intended to belittle Steve Ray. My apologies if that was not your intent.

Apologetics is a form of theology, and one of the great Catholic theologians of the last century, Avery Dulles, wrote what some consider to be THE book on apologetics. See https://www.amazon.com/History-Apologetics-Robert-Cardinal-Dulles/dp/0898709334

See also The Rebirth of Apologetics | Avery Cardinal Dulles

If you are not familiar with Avery Dulles or familiar with First Things, now is your chance.

Not to belabor my point, but apologetics is hardly a religious endeavor, as defined as follows:

Reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine: "free market apologetics"

The development of the Office of Propaganda in the Catholic Church was the Counter Reformation response to Protestant apologetics, as was the Council of Trent, so apologetics has a lengthy history. However, it lapsed into somnolence in the Catholic Church for a very lengthy period, but was revived in the very late twentieth century primarily in response to major inroads being made by Protestants, specifically in Central and South America into the Catholic Church. Until recently it has been very much in a defensive mode, but now is taking an offensive stand in an effort not merely to regain "lapsed" Catholics, but to also convert Protestants.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not to belabor my point, but apologetics is hardly a religious endeavor, as defined as follows:

Reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine: "free market apologetics"

You ARE belaboring whatever point you are trying to make.

In context everyone else knows we are talking about religious apologetics and not free market apologetics or any other sort of secular apologetics.

The development of the Office of Propaganda in the Catholic Church was the Counter Reformation response to Protestant apologetics, as was the Council of Trent, so apologetics has a lengthy history. However, it lapsed into somnolence in the Catholic Church for a very lengthy period, but was revived in the very late twentieth century primarily in response to major inroads being made by Protestants, specifically in Central and South America into the Catholic Church. Until recently it has been very much in a defensive mode, but now is taking an offensive stand in an effort not merely to regain "lapsed" Catholics, but to also convert Protestants.

You really could benefit by reading the Avery Dulles essay I linked to above. Of course if you don't want to ....

 

[bbbbbbb]

You ARE belaboring whatever point you are trying to make.

In context everyone else knows we are talking about religious apologetics and not free market apologetics or any other sort of secular apologetics.

You really could benefit by reading the Avery Dulles essay I linked to above. Of course if you don't want to ....

The essay actually is quite interesting on several levels. Apologetics is hardly limited to theologians and Avery Dulles seems to be addressing the use of apologetics within a theological context, that is, a context in which theologians discourse with each other. The purpose of such apologetics is to convince other theologians of the truth of one's own theology relative to the perceived errors of the other theologian.

What Messrs. Ray and Hahn, et. al. are engaging in is not that form of apologetics, but one which is intended to speak specifically to a popular audience - the man in the pew, as it were, especially the man in the Protestant pew. Despite Avery Dulles' claims to the contrary, popular Catholic apologetics never really disappeared from the scene, as witnessed by the very charismatic and effective efforts of Bishop Fulton Sheen. To associate popular apologetics (Catholic or otherwise) with the theological works of such eminent theologians as Thomas Aquinas, is really quite absurd.

 

[tz620q]

What Messrs. Ray and Hahn, et. al. are engaging in is not that form of apologetics, but one which is intended to speak specifically to a popular audience - the man in the pew, as it were, especially the man in the Protestant pew. Despite Avery Dulles' claims to the contrary, popular Catholic apologetics never really disappeared from the scene, as witnessed by the very charismatic and effective efforts of Bishop Fulton Sheen. To associate popular apologetics (Catholic or otherwise) with the theological works of such eminent theologians as Thomas Aquinas, is really quite absurd.

We can see your point here and all apologetics is in some sense a matter of reaching the common people; but when was the last time a Catholic stood outside a Protestant church handing out apologetic tracks that disagree with the Protestant theology. Now reverse that and ask yourself if Protestants don't practice this form of sheep stealing a lot more than Catholics. Your story above about Central and South America and Catholic Apologetics is a prime example. Protestant missionaries travel from the U.S., where less than half the people identify as Christian to Catholic countries where nearly everyone identifies as Christian and "evangelize" people out of the Catholic church. Apologetics should be a defense of one's beliefs, not an offensive act of changing someone's denomination. I find the Catholic apologists on here to be more about defense than offense. I am sure you can think of exceptions; but most threads here devolve into Catholic Bashers and Catholic Apologists bandying some Catholic distinctive. I think in another page or two someone will see that we are having a cordial discourse on apologetics and jump in and change this into the fifteen hundredth thread on Peter and the Keys.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We can see your point here and all apologetics is in some sense a matter of reaching the common people; but when was the last time a Catholic stood outside a Protestant church handing out apologetic tracks that disagree with the Protestant theology. Now reverse that and ask yourself if Protestants don't practice this form of sheep stealing a lot more than Catholics. Your story above about Central and South America and Catholic Apologetics is a prime example. Protestant missionaries travel from the U.S., where less than half the people identify as Christian to Catholic countries where nearly everyone identifies as Christian and "evangelize" people out of the Catholic church. Apologetics should be a defense of one's beliefs, not an offensive act of changing someone's denomination. I find the Catholic apologists on here to be more about defense than offense. I am sure you can think of exceptions; but most threads here devolve into Catholic Bashers and Catholic Apologists bandying some Catholic distinctive. I think in another page or two someone will see that we are having a cordial discourse on apologetics and jump in and change this into the fifteen hundredth thread on Peter and the Keys.

Actually, if you would kindly calm down, I have not bashed any Catholic apologist on this thread. I merely got things stirred up by saying that Mr. Ray is an excellent apologist, but not so much of a theologian.

One of the strangest experiences in my life was visiting a Catholic Church in Vincennes, Indiana. In the front vestibule there were two prominent racks of literature. One was filled with various Catholic topics - the mysteries of the Rosary, etc. The other, and I kid you not, was filled with tracts published by the infamous Jack Chick.

 

[tz620q]

Actually, if you would kindly calm down, I have not bashed any Catholic apologist on this thread. I merely got things stirred up by saying that Mr. Ray is an excellent apologist, but not so much of a theologian.

One of the strangest experiences in my life was visiting a Catholic Church in Vincennes, Indiana. In the front vestibule there were two prominent racks of literature. One was filled with various Catholic topics - the mysteries of the Rosary, etc. The other, and I kid you not, was filled with tracts published by the infamous Jack Chick.

I am sorry if I came across as being overwrought before. I did not think you were bashing Steve Ray. I was really trying to show what I have seen about the difference in Catholic Apologetics versus Protestant Apologetics. The Catholic tracts you saw were probably in defense of Catholic doctrine. Jack Chick is an extreme example; but does show that a lot of Protestant Apologetics are not so much about defending a set of beliefs but attacking someone elses. Maybe this goes back to the Wood Cuts of Luther and the original propaganda tactics of the Reformation. The Catholic Church of that time was on the defensive and maybe we are still in that mode. What are your thoughts?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am sorry if I came across as being overwrought before. I did not think you were bashing Steve Ray. I was really trying to show what I have seen about the difference in Catholic Apologetics versus Protestant Apologetics. The Catholic tracts you saw were probably in defense of Catholic doctrine. Jack Chick is an extreme example; but does show that a lot of Protestant Apologetics are not so much about defending a set of beliefs but attacking someone elses. Maybe this goes back to the Wood Cuts of Luther and the original propaganda tactics of the Reformation. The Catholic Church of that time was on the defensive and maybe we are still in that mode. What are your thoughts?

Actually, the Catholic tracts seemed to be primarily addressed to parishioners as a means of education. Most outsiders would be puzzled by something like "The Seven Mysteries of the Rosary".

I agree that apologetics frequently end up on the offensive side of things and thus results in uncalled-for and ignorant attacks.

The Catholic Church was definitely on the defensive during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, hence the developed of the Office of Propaganda, the Council of Trent, and the Counter Reformation. Protestant efforts ranged from wanton destruction to utter pacifism with everything in between. Unfortunately, we hear the most about the destructive folks and little to nothing about the passive folks such as the Moravians.

 

[Dan Perez]

Then there are loads of folks just like myself who know enough about Catholicism to understand that behind the public image lies some really nasty stuff.

A little of study of Matt 16:18 !!

It begins by the word PETER // PATROS , in the Nominative case and in the Singular

ROCK // PETRA and Peter and Rock are different Greek words .

And I WILL BUILD // OIKODOMEO , is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE , in the INDICATIVE MOOD , in the Singular

CHURCH // EKKLESIA , but EKKLESIA does not mean Church !!

EK , means , OUT OF

KLESIS , means a calling !!

EKKLESIS then means and ASSEMBLY

In 1 Peter 2:5 is about the 12 apostles being a priesthood

In verse 6 and 7 the STONE that was DISALLOWED ( CHRIST )

And by the way , there is no Greek word for PURGATORY or a Greek for a CONFESSIONAL .

dan p

 

[HarleyER]

There is a talk by Catholic convert Steve Ray that explains very well what Catholics believe about the Church, and why they believe it.

I was going to transcribe this talk and condense it into a small article, but the material Steve covers is just too much to squeeze into the limits of this forum's software and nothing I write down could bring the points across as well as Steve does. Besides, it is a lot easier to sit back and listen to someone talk than it is to read a long article.

I would like to know what Protestants have to say about the arguments Steve brings up.

I realise not everyone has the time, the interest or the honesty to listen to a Catholic. But those who do, please listen and post your comments below.

Those who do not have the time, or the interest of the honesty to listen to this talk, please do not reply, do not vent your anger and frustration and do not scoff at what you do not understand.

Here is the talk:

Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair

God bless,

Tradidi

Those who do not have the time, or the interest of the honesty to listen to this talk, please do not reply,

Too bad there is not a transcript of the message. Usually sites sometimes will post transcripts. But I understand that it would be a lot to have to transcribe.

I listened to about the first twenty minutes of it. So, I'll only give you half of a reply. I don't mean this to sound argumentative or anger venting. Instead, just some insights.

First of all, I'm not very impressed with someone who claims they were a Baptist and converted to Catholicism. There are MANY Protestants who simply don't understand their own doctrine. So I was not impressed by Steve's background and wished that he would have just gone into the message.

Secondly, up until the part that I listened to, Steve goes on to say that, according to Pope John Paul, God changed the name of Mary to “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (Luke 1:28) This then makes it so if Pope John Paul stated it. What Pope John Paul and Steve fails to mentions is that in the Luke 1:30 the angel then states "Do not be afraid Mary...". Well, if the angel had just changed Mary's name, one has to wonder why the angel would revert back to her old name.

Cephas was renamed to Peter because Peter was going to be the foundation of the Church. How Steve made this leap I cannot tell especially when the scriptures states that God is the Rock (Psalm 18). I will admit that I didn't catch everything in this argument and the transcript would have been nice to have had.

Regrettably I do not have time to listen to the whole discussion, as I would have liked to have heard his arguments. But I would suspect it's the same discussion I've heard many times before. Peter is the foundation and the first Pope of the Church. But without a transcript you can say that I'm misinterpreting his statements or am just plain wrong and then I would have to go an listen to the entire message again. Then, even if I copied down the reference point and the quotation, someone could say that I'm taking it out of context. So a transcript would be very beneficial and a timesaver.

As far as Peter being the foundation of the Church, I would have like to know if Steve talked about Acts 15 where James leading the Jerusalem Council, not Peter. I would have liked to hear an explanation of Paul chastising Peter in Galatians. And then there is always the verses of Paul putting himself on equal footing with Peter in 1 Corinthians 1 (“I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.”). Paul never looked at himself as subserviant to any of the apostles nor is there any indication that Peter elevated himself above any of the apostles. The first half of Acts is dedicated to Peter. That last half is dedicated to Paul. I suspect none of this is address but I might be wrong.

Well, I used up my half reply.

 

[tz620q]

A little of study of Matt 16:18 !!

It begins by the word PETER // PATROS , in the Nominative case and in the Singular

ROCK // PETRA and Peter and Rock are different Greek words .

And I WILL BUILD // OIKODOMEO , is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE , in the INDICATIVE MOOD , in the Singular

CHURCH // EKKLESIA , but EKKLESIA does not mean Church !!

EK , means , OUT OF

KLESIS , means a calling !!

EKKLESIS then means and ASSEMBLY

In 1 Peter 2:5 is about the 12 apostles being a priesthood

In verse 6 and 7 the STONE that was DISALLOWED ( CHRIST )

And by the way , there is no Greek word for PURGATORY or a Greek for a CONFESSIONAL .

dan p

Several questions. First how do you know that Christ was talking to a bunch of mainly Galileans in Greek? They would have been more familiar with Aramaic, where Cephas would have been used.

Second, Ekklesia does mean called out of; but what was Christ calling them out of and for what purpose?

Finally, Steve Ray has a very good talk about the area of Caesarea Philippi and how it relates to the dialogue. Perhaps we can disucss that if you would like.

 

[tz620q]

First of all, I'm not very impressed with someone who claims they were a Baptist and converted to Catholicism. There are MANY Protestants who simply don't understand their own doctrine. So I was not impressed by Steve's background and wished that he would have just gone into the message.

Secondly, up until the part that I listened to, Steve goes on to say that, according to Pope John Paul, God changed the name of Mary to “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (Luke 1:28) This then makes it so if Pope John Paul stated it. What Pope John Paul and Steve fails to mentions is that in the Luke 1:30 the angel then states "Do not be afraid Mary...". Well, if the angel had just changed Mary's name, one has to wonder why the angel would revert back to her old name.

On the first point, likewise there are a lot of Catholics that do not understand our distinctives and are pulled by emotional appeals out of our denomination. There is one thing though that converts possess often and that is an adult reasoning on why they choose the other denomination. This gives them a leg up on doing apologetics, since they often understand both sides of an argument and can explain why they think what they do.

On the second point, I am not familiar with the Steve Ray talk that you are referencing; but there are several things that should be cleared up in this paragraph. First, I have never heard anyone in Catholicism say that God changed Mary's name, so if Steve Ray said that as an emphatic, literal fact and not a metaphorical change in status, he is wrong. Second, Popes, even ones as great as Pope John Paul, make many sermons, talks, and letters during their lifetime. None of them are ex cathedra and therefore binding doctrine on the Catholic faithful unless the Pope explicitly states that intention and does it using a specific formula of stating that they are speaking from the chair of Peter. This is very rare and was never used by Pope John Paul. There was a point when he was asked to rule on women in the priesthood. Everyone thought that he would put out an ex cathedra statement; but instead he referred back to the Scriptures and stated that Jesus had chosen men as apostles and he could not change the definition of what God had done.