Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Dear Chestertonrules,
It would be useful if someone referenced Cephas and 'this is the rock' and explained why the two are NOT connected.
Had Our Lord said 'And by this Thunder I establish my Church' then one might reasonably claim that changing the names of James and John had a significance relating to the nature of the Church; but He didn't. He talked about a 'rock', having called Peter 'Rock'.
On the whole I would rather have the method the Apostles used at Jerusalem, which is God's servants listening to each other and coming to a solution guided by the Spirit; voting leads to splits. My own view, which is worth little, is that it would be better if the Pope in Rome retained the respect of all bishops who would defer to him when in doubt.
Reunion? If only. 1600 years of history are not, alas, overcome in a hundred, but if we are open to the Spirit, it will come. Our job, in our own huble way, is not to be obstacles to it.
peace,
Anglian
Chesterton, you talked about Augustine supporting your conclusion, yet you've not yet addressed the fact of Augustine's retraction.
Can you do so now please?
Dear Standing Up,
Interesting, but do recall that in Aramaic 'Kefas' means stone, and Our Lord spoke Aramaic, not Greek; the Aramaic means rock, not little stone or pebble.
Perhaps it was just coincidence that Our Lord called Peter 'Rock' and then said He would build His Church on that Rock - but it takes special pleading to explain away what seems pretty obvious to anyone who does not have a reason to deny the obvious.
At no point does Our Lord say that the fullness of His revelation is understood by His Apostles, and as for the canon being closed, it was not even acknowledged as a canon by the time the Blessed St. John died. The Faith was, indeed, once given, but our understanding of it has been developing ever since.
The question is who offers an authoritative understanding o of that? The Church Christ founded or each of us by him or herself; having little faith in my own abilities to overcome my sinful nature by myself, I prefer to lean on the understanding of the Church.
One can accept that 'Kefas' is the Rock without accepting the modern Catholic understanding; one can also accept that understanding.
I pray, every day, that we might be one as He wants.
peace,
Anglian
No more canon, no new revelation, no new prophecy, nothing missing.
If this is reference to Revelation then do remember that that book originally existed as a discrete text and therefore the references to adding and subtracting apply to that book. It appears at the end of the Bible only by custom. The Eastern Churches, whose notion of 'canon' is less fixed in scholastic reasoning than the West, have remained less accepting of Revelation, partly on the ground that it has been a seed-bed for almost every heresy there has ever been. Its interpretation is certainly better done within the context of the teaching of the Church.Canon closed, nothing missing, do not add or subtract from the book.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Christ founded a Church, He didn't drop off a book. That Church, inspired by the Spirit, recognised what is and is not divinely-inspired, so why should I prefer my own views to that of a two thousand year old Church founded by Christ?Your wisdom of yourself my friend would be aptly applied for the Church or is there a dual standard that you suggest? It was solely Paul who stood against Peter and Barnabas. But the wisdom of the group should surely have prevailed. Not.
Why did Jesus change Simon's name?
Why did Jesus give Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom?
Why did Jesus tell Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and to feed his sheep?
He's a great example of the larger thing Jesus was getting at. And of course He intends Peter to lead the Apostles of his day.Why did Jesus change Simon's name?
Well, Scripture doesn't record everything Jesus said, and Jesus didn't say He was restricting the keys to Peter.Why did Jesus give Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom?
Again, absence of mention isn't mention of absence.Why did Jesus tell Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and to feed his sheep?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?