Last week on EWTN I heard the new NY Archbishop Dolan quote someone. I can’t remember who and I don’t have the exact quote, but it went something like this.

It is obvious that the Catholic Church is not of mere human origins. Only a divine institution could have survived 2,000 years of ineptitude and mismanagement.

lol I liked that quote and it is very true. No other government or institution is so old. Only the Catholic Church, both Eastern and Western, united under the Bishop of Rome.

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 12:56 AM

Two hours ago, we renewed our faith in a baptism at Mass,
What does that mean? Is this some sort of Vatican II “innovation”?

Don’t you know what the creed says? “I acknowledge ONE Baptism for the remission of sins”.

MaximusConfessor on July 12, 2009 at 8:28 PM

I think the person meant that at someone else’s Baptism, all present “renew” their own Baptismal promises, like we do on Easter Sunday. It is not an innovation.

It is not a new or different baptism for those already baptized. The Sacrament of Baptism makes an indelible mark on a person’s soul and can only happen once. That is why when Christians of other faiths convert to Catholicism, they are not rebaptized in the Church. They are Confirmed and receive their first Holy Communion.

(except of course for an Orthodox convert who already has had these valid sacraments, recognized as such by the Catholic Church. And like the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics as infants are Confirmed and receive a drop of the Precious Blood on the day of their Baptism. The Western Church separated out these Sacraments to later times. But initially it was all done together, as in the East. Different practices and disciplines, same Sacraments, same grace.)

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 1:08 AM

So common sense suggests the church is built on Jesus Himself, not Peter. . . .

The Rock is a common Jewish metaphor for God . . . . Jesus is a living stone and the chief cornerstone . . .

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 12, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Yes, of course Jesus is the rock. But that doesn’t preclude Jesus calling Peter the rock. The Bible is full of words that are used with multiple meanings in different passages. The Bible must be taken as a whole.

To me, common sense suggests the opposite. Look at the plain meaning, repeated over and over. Look at all the “yous” in it.

He is talking only to Peter. No one else.

It was the whole point of changing Simon’s name to Rock/Kepha/Petros/Peter. (Jesus would have used the Aramaic Kepha when speaking to Peter since it was their daily common language amongst each other and we even see this in the original Greek uses Aramaic when it says “Simon, son of Jonah/John’ – ‘Simon, bar-Jona.’)

The original Greek words used here for “this rock” are “tautee petra.” Tautee really translates as “this same rock” or “this very rock.”

Jesus was definitely setting up a physical Church, founded on Peter and the Apostls, not only a spiritual body of believers. We are made of spirit and flesh. So too the Body of Christ.

Matthew 16:16-19:

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus said to HIM in reply, “Blessed are YOU, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to YOU, YOU are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (of course the binding and loosing – rabinical religious authority – He later gave to all the Apostles, but the keys were only to Peter.)

There are two whole sentences between Peter’s declaration of faith and Jesus saying “upon THIS ROCK. He is not talking about Peter’s declaration of faith or the faith of all the disciples. Peter’s faith is what prompted Jesus to have Peter become the foundation stone of His Church.
And at the end of St. John’s Gospel, it was to Peter ALONE, that Jesus said, “feed my sheep” and “tend my sheep.” Not that the others weren’t also shepherds of His flock. But Peter was the one that was set by Jesus to be the head. The Good Shepherd was going away for a while and entrusted His flock to Peter.

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 1:30 AM

Yes but there are many differences. For instance..you will never see “clown masses” or “Halloween masses” in the Orthodox Church.

MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM

Praise be to God for that. And you won’t see them in the Eastern Catholic Churches either. Nor have I personally ever seen them or even heard of them, until a few years ago online.

And I would appreciate you praying along with other here and me that (even though those things are rare in the Western Church) that they become nonexistant soon.

God bless you. I’m going to bed. Maybe I will have time tomorrow to address a couple other things.

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM

correction – official Old Testament, not official Bible lol

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 1:46 AM

shick on July 13, 2009 at 1:38 AM

Hopefully, my previous post from my Word file will explain the keys to you. And my post Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 1:30 AM along with some other people’s here will show why we disagree with your interpretation of the whole rock thing and was it Peter or not. Note, we are all using Scripture for our doctrines. We disagree with interpretation, even though we all pray to the same Holy Spirit for discernment. Would God leave us without a Sacred Tradition to help with interpretation?

God bless you.

And now I am really going to bed. lol

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 1:56 AM

unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 2:24 AM

Good morning. I understand now what you were saying. Sorry. I guess I was tired last night.

And what you said about the Anglican holy orders is correct and that was my understanding of it, as well. There is a question about a few of them, but I too did not mean to imply that the Church recognizes them. As you said, converts then receive Catholic holy orders.

Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your posts. You posts are great posts on this thread too. Same with others here defending the Church.

God bless you always.

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 9:30 AM

The fact that Christ was talking about all of the apostles and not simply St Peter is universally attested to in the consensus of the writings of the Holy Fathers and is proven without a doubt.

MaximusConfessor on July 12, 2009 at 8:28 PM

That is not a “fact.” The facts show the opposite.

The early Church (East and West) was always united with the Bishop of Rome. They believed in the primacy of Peter, the chair of Peter and the orthodox teachings of Rome on matters of faith. They looked to Rome to settle issues that arose amongst them, both in the West and in the East. This is how the Church operates today, the Roman/Western Catholic Church and the 21 or so Eastern Catholic Churches, all united under the Bishop of Rome for final authority in matters of faith alone.

It was not as centralized as it is today, that is true. And Rome did not involve itself in the other Churches unless something major was going on. And the doctrine of the Papacy was not as defined and to the point as it is now. But even if it wasn’t exactly like it has developed into today, there was still unity with the Bishop of Rome as a sign that one belonged to the universal Christian Church and taught orthodox Christian teaching.

There are many early writings that show this. I will only mention a few.

In the later 1st century the Church in Corinth wrote to Clement to settle some disagreements that had come up between the Christian leaders in that area. The Bishops in areas nearer to them were not asked to intercede and help. Corinth did not ask St. John the Apostle living at the time in Ephesus, who was much closer to Corinth than Rome, to settle this. They asked the Bishop of Rome to intercede and help them and guide them. And when Clement wrote back, he did so with fatherly authority, as if it was expected of him and he even seemed to apologized for taking so long in responding to his responsibilities because of “calamities” that had befallen the Church in Rome.

This is from Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. It was Ignatius who first coined the term Catholic/universal Church. (and as you have said, “fullness.”)

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father”

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

We also see the unity with Rome from the writings of some of the East’s most revered Saints and Bishops and theologians. (There are early writings about the chair of Peter and the orthodoxy of teachings of Rome from all the major Christian cities around the Mediterranean, including Jerusalem, Alexandria, Caesarea, Antioch and Carthage)

In the 4th century, even St. John Chysostom (from Antioch, later Bishop of Constantinople and a Doctor of the Roman Church), (who some incorrectly say was against Peter’s Primacy and Rome), wrote many things in favor of these. He also asked the Bishop of Rome at the time, Innocent, for help when he was falsely accused of being a heretic.

Here are 3 excerpts from Homilies:

“God has had great account of this city of Antioch, as He has shown in deed, especially in that he ordered Peter, the ruler [Greek] of the whole world, to whom He entrusted the keys of heaven, to whom he committed the office of bringing all in [or to sweep the whole world of its plunder] to pass a long time here, so that our city stood to him in the place of the whole world.” (Hom in S. Ignat M 4, vol II, 591[597])

“In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me” (viz. St. Flavian, his bishop) “our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.” (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, ‘If you love me, preside over the brethren,’ …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

Just one other quote. From St. Cyprian of Carthage in 251AD:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition

Please read the last line especially.

God bless you. May the Church one day be fully united again.

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 10:31 AM

The Greek text, for example, makes it clear that the “rock” in verse 18 was not Peter. The Greek word used for Peter is petros, a masculine noun meaning a small rock or stone. The Greek word for rock (“upon this rock”) is petra, a feminine noun meaning bedrock. Thus, the Greek text reads like this: “Thou art Peter [petros, small rock], and upon this rock [petra, bedrock] I will build my church.”

Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I appreciate the respectful and charitable tone of your post.

But what you are saying about the “small rock” and “stone” translation is wrong. It is something that came up a few centuries ago, not at the time of the Reformation itself. And most Protestant scholars today will tell you that it is incorrect.

The word petros was used in ancient Greek poetry to mean stone. But many Protestant Greek scholars now agree that by the first century the words petra and petros were used interchangeably. In the first century the only time we see petros used to mean stone is Josephus. And he used it only once and when talking about a “large stone,” that killed someone. And he uses “lithos” a few times in his works.

Because by the first century the word for stone was “lithos.” In all of the New Testament the word petros is never used to mean stone. They always use the word lithos to mean stone. The only time petros is ever used in the New Testament is in relation to Peter.

As has already been pointed out here by someone else, Jesus was probably speaking to Peter here in Aramaic. Because the beginning of the passage in our Greek Gospel of Matthew has Jesus using Aramaic when He says, “Simon Bar-Jona”(son of John)

The Aramaic kepha is used for Peter and it translates to rock with no size.
(Kephas is the Greek way of making the Aramaic kepha into a name for Peter. Kephas has never been an Aramaic word, only kepha.) Several early Church fathers wrote that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. And the Old Syriac Peshitta (Western Aramaic Bible) says, “Anath-her Kipha, v’all hode kipha.” (Kipha/kipha – same word used for both.) This is probably how it was in Eastern Aramaic also with Kepha/kepha – same word, before it was changed to a Greek style of Petros by adding an “s,” spelling it Kephas in the Greek Gospel.

“Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter).”

Greek: êgagen auton pros ton Iêsoun. emblepsas autôi ho Iêsous eipen Su ei Simôn ho huios Iôanou, su klêthêsêi Kêphas ho hermêneuetai Petros.

Peter (and Peter alone) is called Kephas throughout the New Testament. And Kepha only means rock. Never stone.

It was the whole point of changing Simon’s name to Rock/Kepha/Petros/Peter. Since it was now a name for Peter, who was male, Jesus did not use the female term, but the male term.

As I said previously, The Greek words used for “this rock” are “tautee petra.” Tautee really translates as “this same rock” or “this very rock.” So Jesus is saying, “You are rock and on this very same rock I will build my Church.” Clear as a bell. This very same rock. He doesn’t say, “your faith is the rock.”

The sentence read, “YOU are Petros, AND (kai) on THIS (tautee-this same or this very) petra I will build my Church.”

It didn’t read, “YOU are Petros, BUT (alla) on this petra I mentioned before I will build my Church.”

As I mentioned previously, I can understand someone who recognizes that Jesus set Peter up as the earthly head of His Church, but does not believe there was succession of office, even if I disagree with that. Many Protestant scholars believe this.

But I can’t understand how someone can read and analyze this and think it is only the declaration of faith and Peter was not the head of the early Church.

God bless you.

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Sorry, I have to get going.

God bless all of you. Have a good day.

I consider you all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jesus’ prayer:
“May they be one, father, as you and I are one.”

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM