Do you think the Apostles are 12 stones?

Anonymous asked...

What should I make of Eph 2:20---" having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,.."?
If "Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built" why doesn't Eph 2:20 say this?

Because Eph 2:20 is using a different metaphor.

Scripture says that God is our Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Do you really believe that God is an actual rock? No. Its a metaphor.

Why does Eph 2:20 say that the apostles (not just Peter) but all apostles with the prophets are the foundation? 

Because they were the first people whom Christ selected to be in His Church.

You also have the problem with Peter who never claims to be sole foundation of the church and that no apostle attributes such a thing to him. 

All Apostles call him "Peter". His birth name is "Simon". Even you call him, Peter. In so doing, you and they acknowledge the great honor which Jesus Christ gave St. Peter when He named him after Himself. Because, you see, Jesus was the Rock before Simon. When Jesus named Simon, "Rock", He did it to show the world that Simon would become His Representative upon this earth.

Again, in calling him, Peter, they acknowledged everything which Jesus Christ promised to the man, because in that same instance, Christ changed his name from Simon to Peter.

If they wanted to deny this, they would also deny his name change. But just as God changed Abram's name to Abraham, Jesus' changed Simon's name to Peter to designate the mission to which he was now appointed. To become the Father of the Church. The Prince of the Apostles. The Vicar of Christ. As it also says in Scripture elsewhere:

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Not sure what Rev 214 has to do with this. Its not even about foundations.

It is a different metaphor. Or did you think the Apostles are 12 stones?

Sincerely,

De Maria

They are different metaphors

Anonymous said...
What should I make of Eph 2:20---" having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,.."?

If "Peter is the bedrock upon which the Church is built" why doesn't Eph 2:20 say this?

Because Eph 2:20 is using a different metaphor.

Scripture says that God is our Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Do you really believe that God is an actual rock? No. Its a metaphor.

Why does Eph 2:20 say that the apostles (not just Peter) but all apostles with the prophets are the foundation? 

Because they were the first people whom Christ selected to be in His Church.

You also have the problem with Peter who never claims to be sole foundation of the church and that no apostle attributes such a thing to him. 

All Apostles call him "Peter". His birth name is "Simon". Even you call him, Peter. In so doing, you and they acknowledge the great honor which Jesus Christ gave St. Peter when He named him after Himself. Because, you see, Jesus was the Rock before Simon. When Jesus named Simon, "Rock", He did it to show the world that Simon would become His Representative upon this earth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

There is a difference though, between what the Catholic Fathers understood on justification by faith alone and what Luther understood.

 Anonymous said...
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.” 

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him. 

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130). John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]). Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19 . Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28 : We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

 De Maria said...

Hi,

It is true that many Catholic Fathers have used the terminology faith alone in reference to justification. Specifically in reference to what St. Paul said in Rom 3:28.

There is a difference though, between what the Catholic Fathers understood on justification by faith alone and what Luther understood.

Here's the question I'll pose to you concerning those Church Fathers. Did they believe in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church? Did they believe in faith and works?

Everyone of them did. They were all priests and some were Bishops.

So was Luther, but here's the difference. Luther opposed faith and works. Whereas Catholic Doctrine does not oppose justification by faith. This is what happens in the Sacraments. Especially in Baptism. Where we appear before God without any works but believing that He will justify the ungodly.

Titus 3:5
King James Version (KJV)
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And the Church also teaches that we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, on the Last Day and there, our works will be examined and those who have done the will of the Father will be saved. Those who didn't, won't.

Revelation 22:12-15
King James Version (KJV)
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

sincerely,

De Maria

The New Testament is the first Catechism written by the Catholic Church

Originally Posted by Tim 

Officially interpreted? I have always been told it is 7.

What is the big deal about that? The New Testament is the interpretation of Catholic Tradition. Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament. Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter:


83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

In other words, Jesus did not write any Scripture. Not one word. He established the Catholic Church. Commanded her to pass down His Traditions. And the Church, by virtue of the authority vested in her by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; bind and loose) wrote down those Traditions in the New Testament.

The New Testament is the first official interpretation of God's Word written by the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria