Upon this rock

[Standing Up]

Well, there it is again in your post. Unsubstantiated claims and a highly biased (dare one say personal?) interpretation of Matthew 16:18. It makes one feel like saying "balderdash".

So I quote the bible that Christ is rock and show the first reinterpretation to Peter as rock is from Tertullian c200ad as regards Rome and your response is zip and dodah. Break out the blue suede shoes next.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This has just topped the record for self contradiction, unless you made a typo when you capitalized "orthodox".

I laughed all night over this...orthodox, whether capitalized or not, means the same thing, unless you're branding a group of people, sort of like what you do with Catholics. Catholic means universal. It's not a denominational name. Orthodox means adhering to the faith. So I'm an orthodox Catholic. Capitalization means little.

 

[Breaking Enigma]

Reading the Psalms alone is enough to show that Jesus is the Rock of Salvation. He knew (knows) the Psalms well, and as with many of his references to the OT and the use of play on words, this is no different.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So I quote the bible that Christ is rock and show the first reinterpretation to Peter as rock is from Tertullian c200ad as regards Rome and your response is zip and dodah. Break out the blue suede shoes next.

Different passage, different reference, and different rock. It really is rather pointless to appeal to any passage except the one we're discussing. It's an act of desperation.

 

[Breaking Enigma]

Different passage, different reference, and different rock. It really is rather pointless to appeal to any passage except the one we're discussing. It's an act of desperation.

No, it's not. That's like someone saying that we are desperately looking at Psalm 22 to explain why God had apparently forsaken Jesus. Or the parallel between John 8 and Exodus 3 regarding I AM. Or looking at the Creation Account and God creating man in OUR image as a reference to the Trinity.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

While I agree that Christ is the Rock, Jesus calls Peter Rock.

He also calls Peter satan. Yes, he does, and I'm not going to let you get away with your attempt at mental gymnastics to claim otherwise. Jesus addresses Peter both times. If Peter is "the Rock" upon which the Church is to be build, then he is also satan. You cannot apply one set of hermeneutics in one sentence, and another in the very next.

By the way, the Catholic 'spin' on the interpretation of Scripture has pride of place, because your Scripture comes from Catholics,

1: No error ever has "pride of place":
2: Non-sequitur.

who wrote it,

LOL, no.
Sure, the Roman church CLAIMS that it was RCs who wrote it. The Roman church also claims that it is impossible to be saved without being part of the Roman church - and, at the same time, that it IS possible as long as you're like kinda good or whatever.
The Roman church is indeed an old one. So old, perhaps, that senility has started to set in.


PS: Does anyone know how to get rid of that "Music chart"-unskippable ad that comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME you load up any page?
It's annoying as fiddlestick, and driving me out of my mind.

 

[Albion]

He also calls Peter satan. Yes, he does, and I'm not going to let you get away with your attempt at mental gymnastics to claim otherwise. Jesus addresses Peter both times. If Peter is "the Rock" upon which the Church is to be build, then he is also satan. You cannot apply one set of hermeneutics in one sentence, and another in the very next.

That would seem to be certainly so...but as I noted before, those who labor mightily to make something out of Matthew 16:18-19 and quote it over and over and over again on these forums...NEVER EVER acknowledge the verses which follow in that very same conversation between Jesus and Peter. Don't count on this time being any different.

Sure, the Roman church CLAIMS that it was RCs who wrote it. The Roman church also claims that it is impossible to be saved without being part of the Roman church - and, at the same time, that it IS possible as long as you're like kinda good or whatever.

True, true.

PS: Does anyone know how to get rid of that "Music chart"-unskippable ad that comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME you load up any page?
It's annoying as fiddlestick, and driving me out of my mind.

Unclick the audio key on your computer while you're on CF.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Unclick the audio key on your computer while you're on CF.

Yeah, but that means I'll have to go back and forward all the time if I want to also do other things than be on CF. I just thought there was some handy box to click or something.

 

[Breaking Enigma]

That would seem to be certainly so...but as I noted before, those who labor mightily to make something out of Matthew 16:18-19 and quote it over and over and over again on these forums...NEVER EVER acknowledge the verses which follow in that very same conversation between Jesus and Peter. Don't count on this time being any different.

As believers in the Real Presence, we have to be careful with this argument. I'm sure you've encountered the argument that if bread and wine is the true body and blood of Jesus, then he must also literally be a door, for he calls himself a door.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Different passage, different reference, and different rock. It really is rather pointless to appeal to any passage except the one we're discussing. It's an act of desperation.

No, it's not. That's like someone saying that we are desperately looking at Psalm 22 to explain why God had apparently forsaken Jesus. Or the parallel between John 8 and Exodus 3 regarding I AM. Or looking at the Creation Account and God creating man in OUR image as a reference to the Trinity.

Do you know which passages are in question? Do you believe that they speak of the same rock?

 

[Albion]

Yeah, but that means I'll have to go back and forward all the time if I want to also do other things than be on CF. I just thought there was some handy box to click or something.

Right. I thought it probably wasn't the perfect answer, but it's what I do most of the time and I don't miss the audio at all. Otherwise, you're probably stuck, just like with the ads.

 

[Albion]

As believers in the Real Presence, we have to be careful with this argument. I'm sure you've encountered the argument that if bread and wine is the true body and blood of Jesus, then he must also literally be a door, for he calls himself a door.

I suppose you mean that Jesus spoke in analogies, but I don't think Peter actually was Satan. The point there was that the preceding part of the conversation was about Peter as a disciple. The wording was not about a blanket endorsement of Peter, the creation of some new and irrevocable power, or the conferring of some "prime ministership" upon him as our friends have convinced themselves that Christ meant.

 

[Breaking Enigma]

Of course, but I don't quite see the connection.

If we can use this argument to say that Peter must also be Satan because Christ calls him Satan, to show that Peter wasn't the Rock, others could also use the same logic against us to say that Christ must also be a door because he called himself a door, to show that Christ wasn't being literal when he said that bread and wine is his flesh and we must eat his flesh.

 

[Albion]

If we can use this argument to say that Peter must also be Satan because Christ calls him Satan, to show that Peter wasn't the Rock, others could also use the same logic against us to say that Christ must also be a door because he called himself a door, to show that Christ wasn't being literal when he said that bread and wine is his flesh and we must eat his flesh.

Yes, I actually did see the connection and should have said instead that it was not a strong one. Anyway, I completely edited my remarks there and ask you to take another look now.

 

[Breaking Enigma]

Do you know which passages are in question? Do you believe that they speak of the same rock?

Yes and yes. Christ is the Rock and his Church is built on Him and faith in Him.

 

[Root of Jesse]

He also calls Peter satan. Yes, he does, and I'm not going to let you get away with your attempt at mental gymnastics to claim otherwise. Jesus addresses Peter both times. If Peter is "the Rock" upon which the Church is to be build, then he is also satan. You cannot apply one set of hermeneutics in one sentence, and another in the very next.

But he NAMES Simon bar Jonah "Peter"/"Kephas". He doesn't name him Satan. He rebukes Satan as he would call a demon out of a man. He speaks to the demon, not to the man. I don't care what you want to hold on to. It's not one set of hermeneutics. He names Simon Peter, and calls out Satan. Two different things.

1: No error ever has "pride of place":
2: Non-sequitur.

I agree with you. There is no error.

LOL, no.
Sure, the Roman church CLAIMS that it was RCs who wrote it. The Roman church also claims that it is impossible to be saved without being part of the Roman church - and, at the same time, that it IS possible as long as you're like kinda good or whatever.
The Roman church is indeed an old one. So old, perhaps, that senility has started to set in.

LOL yes. Your understanding of that teaching leaves a lot to be desired. We declare it's impossible to be saved without being part of the one Church Christ instituted. Which is the Catholic Church (I don't know of any "Roman" Church).
Regarding your last, why would Christ institute something that's going to fail? He, Himself, said that He would be with His Church until the end of time. So two requirements of that Church-it proceeded from His mouth, and it exists today.

PS: Does anyone know how to get rid of that "Music chart"-unskippable ad that comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME you load up any page?
It's annoying as fiddlestick, and driving me out of my mind.

Pay up, if you don't want ads.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

But he NAMES Simon bar Jonah "Peter"/"Kephas". He doesn't name him Satan. He rebukes Satan as he would call a demon out of a man. He speaks to the demon, not to the man. I don't care what you want to hold on to. It's not one set of hermeneutics. He names Simon Peter, and calls out Satan. Two different things.

Mental gymnastics.
No, it's not two different things. There is no indication in the text of a switch, nor of Jesus addressing someone different. That's your eisegesis.

I agree with you. There is no error.

There's plenty of error in the Roman church.

LOL yes. Your understanding of that teaching leaves a lot to be desired.

No, because the teaching is clear as the light of day. It has been declared.

We declare it's impossible to be saved without being part of the one Church Christ instituted. Which is the Catholic Church (I don't know of any "Roman" Church).
Regarding your last, why would Christ institute something that's going to fail?

According to your POV. Anyway - you admit here what you denied before.
It has traditionally been the idea in the Roman church that salvation is impossible outside of it, wherefore non-RCs have traditionally been considered damned by default - which is the logical conclusion based on the premise.
No longer. You can jump through all the hoops you want to, but you cannot deny that there has been a drastic change to this doctrine in Vaticanum II.

He, Himself, said that He would be with His Church until the end of time.

Indeed - but the error is identifying it with the Roman church, which is NOT = the Church Catholic. The Roman church is part of the Church Catholic, but not the thing itself.

So two requirements of that Church-it proceeded from His mouth,

The Roman church did no such thing.

and it exists today.

The "Church of Scientology" exists today. So do the JW, Mormons, etc.

Pay up, if you don't want ads.

Or I could just mute as advised

 

[Albion]

Mental gymnastics.
No, it's not two different things. There is no indication in the text of a switch, nor of Jesus addressing someone different. That's your eisegesis.



There's plenty of error in the Roman church.



No, because the teaching is clear as the light of day. It has been declared.

FWIW, I think that when he said "Christ is the Rock and his Church is built on Him and faith in Him" he was NOT paraphrasing the typical talking points used by the Catholics here (which you seem to have assumed to be the case).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Mental gymnastics.
No, it's not two different things. There is no indication in the text of a switch, nor of Jesus addressing someone different. That's your eisegesis.

Baloney. He names Simon Peter, and he tells Satan to get behind him. If you can't do the gymnastics, get out of the gym.

There's plenty of error in the Roman church.

Not in the teaching of the Church.

No, because the teaching is clear as the light of day. It has been declared.



According to your POV. Anyway - you admit here what you denied before.
It has traditionally been the idea in the Roman church that salvation is impossible outside of it, wherefore non-RCs have traditionally been considered damned by default - which is the logical conclusion based on the premise.
No longer. You can jump through all the hoops you want to, but you cannot deny that there has been a drastic change to this doctrine in Vaticanum II.

Wrong. It is true that some thought that way, but it wasn't, and is not the teaching of the Church.

Indeed - but the error is identifying it with the Roman church, which is NOT = the Church Catholic. The Roman church is part of the Church Catholic, but not the thing itself.

That's your opinion.

The Roman church did no such thing.

Actually, the Catholic Church did.

The "Church of Scientology" exists today. So do the JW, Mormons, etc.

But they don't meet the first requirement.

Or I could just mute as advised

Whatever.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Baloney. He names Simon Peter, and he tells Satan to get behind him. If you can't do the gymnastics, get out of the gym.

I'm not in your gym (the Roman church). I'm just pointing out that your reasoning is bovine manure, brought on by desperation to make the square block fit in the circular hole.

Not in the teaching of the Church.

Yes.

Wrong. It is true that some thought that way, but it wasn't, and is not the teaching of the Church.

False

That's your opinion.

Which happens to be true.

Actually, the Catholic Church did.

No.

But they don't meet the first requirement.

Neither does the Roman church.