Simon, tu eres Pedron

MT says:
In other words, why use "petra" at all, unless something or someone other than Peter is in view?

Hello MT. Since you claim to understand Spanish, I wonder why you are having trouble with this subject.

The same situation occurs in Spanish. There are masculine ways of signifying rock. For instance:

Significado de la palabra pedrón
pedrón.
1. m. aum. de piedra.

But the more common usage is "piedra".

Therefore, because of the gender issue, it is more polite and exact to say:

Simon, tu eres Pedron, y en esta piedra edificare mi iglesia.

That is why St. Matthew did the same thing. For the gender to be correct. Otherwise, he would be calling Simon by a name more fitting for a girl.

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

St. Peter's confession

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Hello again,

Well.. it does not matter whether Peter, Nathaniel or Thomas made confessions.. the mere fact is St.Peter denied Jesus..

And the other Apostles abandoned him, except St. John. But Jesus forgave them all.

St Paul also rebuked St Peter for preaching wrong doctrine.

True. And in so doing revealed his human failings. St. Peter honorably and humbly never even mentions this episode in which St. Paul rebukes St. Peter for doing something which St. Paul no only recommends doing:
1 Corinthians 9:22
King James Version (KJV)
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And preaches against causing our brothers to sin by eating certain foods:
1 Corinthians 8:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

And neglects to mention that he circumcised St. Timothy because of pressure from the self same group:
Acts 16:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

So, what we have here is a St. Paul hypocritically rebuking St. Peter for actions which he commits on a regular basis and which he advises others to do as though they were virtuous.

Certainly no one will be in position to rebuke the popes’ when they dispense their heretic teachings, since they claim infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra.

1. The Popes have never dispensed heretical teachings.
2. Even so, there are many Saints which through the years have rebuked and advised Popes and Bishops.
3. It is the Protestants who will not listen to rebuke or advise concerning the errors which they have added to the Scriptures.

We also see criminals in court case proceeding make a confession on oath to speaking the truth before the judge, but eventually tell lies to get themselves bailed out. I do believe we have to go out into the world and proclaim the gospel and it is the duty of everyone. Many times it is recorded that Roman Catholics have denied Jesus as the only way (Mother Theresa for example), so it is insincere to make a case for Roman Catholicism by make making imaginary claims.

It is Protestants who deny Christ everytime they reject the Eucharist, the Mass and the Catholic Church. Mother Theresa is one of Christ’s shining stars. Catholics do not deny Christ but live in accordance with His Commandments and submit to His Church and His Sacraments.

Sincerely,

De Maria

St. Peter, the first Apostle to the Gentiles

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Hello,

you said:

In light of scripture in Ephesians 3:2-4, there is no “exclusivity” in the Kingdom of God.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I see nothing there which addresses “exclusivity”.
Ephesians 3:2-4
King James Version (KJV)
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Scripture clearly says that St.Peter was the apostle to the “Jews” while St.Paul was to the Gentiles.

Are you saying that Scripture exclusively appoints St. Peter to the Jews and St. Paul to the Gentiles? If so, then you are contradicting yourself.

And you are also wrong. Who said?

Acts 15:7
And when there had been much disputing,… rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

That’s why the Epistle of St.Paul to the Ephesians church is the”queen” of the New Testament epistles,

Really? Who made that decision? It sounds to me like a decision of men.

because it exhorts what God has wrought for all believers in Christ Jesus.

We find that exhortation in many Epistles:

Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Colossians 2:10-12
King James Version (KJV)
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So, I disagree in your evaluation of Ephesians as the “queen” of the Epistles. My favorite, is Romans 8:
Romans 8:1-5
King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

We are saved by “faith”

But not by faith alone.

and sealed by the Holy Spirit the moment we trusted completely in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13 – In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise).

That is a reference to the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. After one believes, he requests Baptism. After he receives Baptism, he is confirmed and is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.

St.Paul clearly teaches in Ephesians 2:14 that Christ is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us (Jews and Gentiles).

True. And notice that he does not shun the Jews but also teaches them as well as the Gentiles.

Jesus/God chose to reveal the revelation on the Grace of God thru his servant and apostle St.Paul and not St.Peter.

Through both. But mainly by St. Peter. True, St. Paul wrote more books. But St. Peter had been the Prince of the Apostles and leader of the Church for many years before St. Paul came on the scene.

Is St.Peter is the rock, than the revelation would have been given to him (St.Peter) instead, which is not. I trust what the scriptures says. I’m skeptical of what church fathers taught.

You don’t understand what Scripture teaches. Here is what St. Peter says:
2 Peter 1
King James Version (KJV)
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You pit one Apostle against another as though they were from two different Churches. But there is only one Body of Christ. One Church. And He appointed St. Peter its leader and St. Paul one of his followers.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Peter and the Church Fathers

De Maria December 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM

December 2, 2012 at 10:57 PM
If we, being readers far away from the original readers in the 1st century, are so sure thatMatthew 16:16-19 teaches, by the very terminology itself, that Peter’s successors continue the “rock” function for the church, that “keys” denote succession (1 to 1) of a single person to take the office of Peter, and a Petrine Succession is clearly and unmistakably delineated from the text itself, then we are throwing many interpretations of Matthew 16 in the early fathers as if they had no clue what they are talking about.

Nope. I believe we’ve spoken before and if I remember correctly, you are Protestant. And the problem which Protestants have is what we call an “either/or” mentality.

The office of Peter and Petrine succession is not incompatible with anything else the Early Fathers have said. If you have one with which you are having a problem, post it and we can discuss it.

Having said that, the Church Fathers are not infallible. The Catholic Church is. Therefore, if it comes to a decision between what a Church Father may have said or what the Church says, we always follow the teaching of the Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Sincerely,

De Maria

If you still disagree with my interpretation, please explain why your interpretation should carry more weight than mine.

 Godismyjudge said...
Hi De Maria,
Well, this is moreso my just going over what the Fathers had to say in favor of the Pope. But they never did teach Papal infalability. So I guess my point in this post was this statement:
"I didn’t find anything in the Fathers that explicitly taught Papal infallibly or got into ex cathedra vs. non-ex cathedra statements by Popes. So right off the bat I would say the Fathers were not Roman Catholic. "
At least, one Roman Catholic apologist wasn't able to produce such evidence from the Fathers.
God be with you,
Dan

September 16, 2012 7:20 AM

 De Maria said...

Well, let's start with Scripture, if you don't mind.

Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

To me, that sounds as though Christ has just assured St. Peter, that when the Church begins its ministry, Christ will give him the charism of infallibility.

1. Tell me why you think this is a wrong interpretation.
2. If you still disagree with my interpretation, please explain why your interpretation should carry more weight than mine.

Sincerely,

De Maria