His4ever, that may have been a good idea, if you wanted all of the might of the Catholic Church to come down upon you with the sting of a thousand Killer Bees…
How exactly did my post get hijacked into a “Catholicism: Lets debate this AGAIN…” post???
What a hideous translation. People who use the King Jimbo Bibble should not be allowed in public. But a real Bible.
By the very passage you quoted, he is. Peter means “rock.” Jesus said “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Funny how literalists do anti-literal contortions to avoid being friendly towards a Catholic position.
Fairly well, apparently.
Your opinion. Which is worthless compared to that of the Church itself. God promised his Church that it would never be overcome by evil, that he would guide it to all truth. He never made such a promise to you.
Not according to Jesus. He named Peter Rock for a reason: because he was to be the first leader of the Christian Church, later called the Orthodox Catholic Church (before the split).
Jesus is the cornerstone, but he is not the Rock. In no way can you use normal grammatical rules to interpret the quote above in such a manner.
Kirk
Sorry, Kirkland, I can’t agree with you. Your belief makes no sense to me just as mine apparently make no sense to you. Every single born again believer in Christ on this planet is part of the church of Christ and His bride. Whether or not they’re members of the Catholic church. It’s not the only true church. The true church is invisible, made up of all saved people
I don’t consider the King James to be a “hideous” translation nor have I twisted anything to get a meaning out of it. I simply believe Jesus was talking about what Peter said, not Peter himself. I don’t accept that the rock of the church is a man. I will always believe that Jesus is the Rock on which the church is built. Of course, you’re entitled to believe your interpetations, as am I entitled to beleive mine.
By the way, I don’t consider my opinion to be worthless just because it disagrees with what the Catholic church says. I don’t worship the Catholic church (do you?)or any other church. I worship the Lord and believe what He says over what men say, including the Pope and priests of the Catholic church. No disrespect intended.
I don’t know how it got hijacked; but I was just responding to some of Kirkland’s statements.
You just don’t understand Christianity, then.
Nope. You can be Christian and not in the Church, but to be in the Church you have to be Catholic (or Orthodox, with the status of Anglicans debatable, though I tend towards acceptance).
Nonsense. A concocted doctrine that spilled out of the mind of Marty Luther and his pals, who were attempting to rationalize the violence their insurrections did to the Christian faith.
It is. Not only is it based on what today are inferior MSSs, it is also written in archaic English and so suffers greatly. Words used in the KJV DO NOT always mean today what they meant then.
Sure you have. You don’t like the plain meaning of the statement, so you do violence to the text to try to make it mean something else.
Except, using the plain laws of grammar (“this” references back to the nearest available known, which in the case of the quote in question is the word Peter which means “rock”, thus making sense of the statement – “You are rock, and on this rock I will build my church”), you come to the Catholic position. You have to do a handstand and count backwards from 15 in esperanto to make your mutliation of the text make sense.
More’s the pity. You refuse to obey God. You poor, poor thing. If I were a fundie, this’d be the point where I’d say you’re going to burn in Hell for it. But I’m not a fundie.
And some people will always believe in Santa Clause.
Kirk
Cite?
Dominus Iesus
I’m afraid that simply posting “Lord Jesus” in Latin does not actually answer the question of how you distinguish Christians from the Church. I find the references to the Body of Christ echoed and repeated frequently in the Catechism along with the equation of the Body of Christ to the Church. While the Catechism uses the shorthand “the Church” throughout in reference to the specific Catholic Church, it also notes:
Emphasis mine.
I have no problem with the use of the phrase “the Church” to refer collectively to the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican communions, but I think one goes too far when one claims that that is the only possible understanding of the phrase.
Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universiality of Jesus Christ and the Church. Document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published in 2000.
And as to the statement from the Catechism, yes, that’s the position in Dominus, as well: The Church is connected to those who are Christian, but not in the Church, in a very real way, but they have placed themselves outside the Church by breaking away from the corporeal body of the Christian faith, the Catholic Church.
Kirk
Ahh. Dominus Jesus (I’ve always called it by its subtitle, long as that is.)
However, there are two aspects of that document to wrangle over. When it says
the phrase “exist fully only in the Catholic Church” should (IMNSHO) be read to indicate that the fullness of the Church is only present in the Catholic Church, not that the Church exists exclusively within the Catholic Church.
If the Body of Christ is the Church, then all those who are baptized are members of the Church. Note that it goes on to say of the separated brethren
The second point to wrangle over is the very nature of the document. It is a teaching guide to lay out boundaries for the belief of Catholics, warning against a feel-good pluralism that places church teaching on a smorgasbord from which we may pick and choose what we like. As such (worthy a goal as that is) it is not a Divinely inspired publication of the Magisterium in which every proposed nuance has the backing of an Ecumenical Council.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
If degree of membership in “the Church” were viewed on a map composed of concentric circles, with Catholicism/Orthodoxy representing pure Christianity in the center, and the farther you go out from there the less Christian an organization is, at what point do these schismatic sects fall off the radar?
Fundamentalist Protestantism is so diametrically opposed to all the true, historic Christainity stands for that it’s not even really in the same religion, much less a part of the Church.
Since the Church has not stated formally where the line between “connected to the Church, though imperfectly” and “Good Lord, what are these people?” exists, Catholics can disagree as to who is or is not in the Church.
Not necessarily. You are reading that into the documents. All the Church says is that those who are baptized are in “imperfect communion” with the Church. Think of it as an American who is born to American parents abroad (and thus a citizen), but who lives on another Continent, and has no real knowledge of what America is, they display few common traits of Americanism. Are they American? Yes. Are they in America? No. Likewise a fundie may be a Christian, but they were born outside the Church, are only tangentally connected to it, do not understand it, and cetainly do not reside within it.
From what I can tell it is simply a fairly stern restatement of the positions taken by the Church infallibly at the Second Council at the Vatican in regards to the relationship between Christ’s Catholic Church and the other bodies out there claiming the name Christian.
Kirk
Kirkland1244, can we take it as a given that the Catholic church leadership would probably never forward an arguement that indicated that some other sect was closer to the true christian faith than any other church?
What exactly would make a person who was trying to choose a church believe the Catholic church was more credible than the next church?
You realize that the next church has people who have studied theology their whole lives as well, and have just as valid a claim to authority?
Damn… end of first line should read… "closer to the true christian faith that the catholic church.
Well you could say evil has survived to this day. I don’t see a valid point here.
Well building on a rock and a cornerstone of a building inspires completely separate imagery to me. You don’t build on a cornerstone, you build with a cornerstone. In fact, one could argue that Peter as a rock fixes a location that can’t be moved, say Rome? Jesus being the chief cornerstone defined in these very verses in Matthew where the the building is to be constructed. Isn’t the cornerstone the first stone to define the location of two walls. Could that chief cornerstone define the church ?
I provided the Young’s Literal Translation as an aid in this case to clear up an possible ambiguity as to what Jesus was refering to as the Rock. " that thou art a rock" definitely does not indicate that the Rock is Jesus. Furthermore, the name Peter (Cephas) was given to Simon earlier on (John 1) and guess what? “Peter” means rock in Greek, and “Cephas” means rock in Aramaic.
One could argue that historically the Vatican has screwed up many times but so did Peter, even after Jesus declared him the rock of the church. Remember the crowing cock? But I daresay that it could be argued that the Vatican has been the rock of Christendom for the last 2000 years.
Comments His4ever ?
Study theology all you want, you cannot argue with the weight of history. Clement, Polycarp, XXXXXX and others, first and second generation leaders of the Church, many of whom learned at the feet of the Apostles, all clearly Catholic in their theology and ecclesiology. The Didache, the earliest of Christian catechisms. Imminently Catholic.
The Catholic Church can trace its doctrines and beleifs backwards through time to the First Century. Read The Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman, written as an Anglican bishop who after finishing his treatise converted to Catholicism. As he states in his introduction, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
The history of Christianity is the history of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church’s doctrines and positions carry with them the weight of history and the judgement of time. Christ promised that his Church would never fall into error. He said that the Holy Spirit would guide it to all truth. He never said “but it’ll take 1500 years for this to happen, so wait for this guy named Martin Luther to show up and change the Bible and redefine Christian theology to fit his individual point of view.”
But of course, even Luther’s initial positions weren’t all that drastically removed from the historical position of Catholicism, as evidenced by the recent declaration on justification co-signed by the (I believe) ELCA and the Catholic Church showing the high degree of harmony between the two positions.
If a Protestant wants to argue that they represent “true” christianity, then they have to prove that at some point in time in history the Catholic Church, or whatever you want to call the early Church, abandoned “true” Christianity, and it all fell to pieces until the Reformation. Attempts at this, like the grand forgery that is the “Trail of Blood,” always fall apart. Because there is no “great apostasy.” There is continuity in the teachings of the Church. Yes, concepts develop over time, but they grow naturally. Not in the stark, earth-rending way that all Protestant bodies often swing wildly from one position to another.
If so virulently an anti-Catholic as Newman, and so educated an anti-Catholic at that, sets out to do this, to show this, through a comprehensive journey through doctrinal history, trying to find the moment where “Christianity” was usurped by “Catholicism,” and failed, then one must take with a mountain of salt the claims of those lightweight Protestant apologists that say they have achieved such a monumentous goal.
Kirk
GAH! XXXXXX above should be Ignatius. I couldn’t remember how to spell it, and was going to look it up before posting, but forgot to! GAH!
Kirk
GAH! again. “All Protestant bodies” should, obviously, be “some Protestant bodies.” GAH! again.
My kingdom for a working “edit” function!
Kirk
Some could claim (and do) that that is just the history according to the catholic church. Not disputing the early history, but pointing to some doctrinal position adopted somewhere along the line and declare this is where the catholic church wandered from the true path and they continued on it.
Works great. Then they get to claim all the early history evidence for themselves as well. They were part of the catholic church back then.
Now all they need is some doctrinal difference to point to with a strong arguement supporting their position.
I am not necessarily arguing that I would agree. But, both sides possess the same documents, their are arguing over interpretation of something. And unfortunately, there is not an experiment or demonstration readily available to distinguish either claim as clearly superior.
Sorry about your name, cjhoworth, it won’t happen again. :smack: