Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition

[RightReason]

I stumbled across a thread at the very bottom of the forum home page that prompted this post. I am essentially replying to a post in the Sacred Scripture section in the thread titled Scripture Vs. Tradition. I guess the thread is closed now, but I was interested in continuing the conversation

viewtopic.php?t=31174

The Bible is not an exhaustive catechism.

This is perhaps where the Roman Catholic approach is a net plus. In Catholicism, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are considered two faces of the same deposit of faith “delivered once to the saints� and they are each illuminated by the teaching authority of the Church, which Catholics believe was granted by Christ to the Apostles and comes down to believers today.

Good observation.

Tradition overcomes the logical conundrum of having scripture interpret itself, which is a circular proposition.

Yes. It also is what Scripture itself reveals to us. No where in Scripture will you find the Bible say the Bible alone is our sole authority. In fact, in the Bible we are told Jesus established His Church and then said to her, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him . . .��I will remain with my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it�

Also, Sacred Tradition came prior to Sacred Scripture. The Church gave us the Bible. So, very odd for any religion to accept the authority of the Bible, but rejects the authority of the Church. This is illogical and contrary to Scripture!

However, if tradition is completely unshacked from scripture, as it is with the various Catholic dogmas associated with the mother of Jesus

Ha, ha, ha . . . merely stating something doesn’t make it so. Absolutely everything the Church teaches about Jesus’ mother is right in line with Sacred Scripture. In fact, due to your own acknowledgment above regarding what you explained about the Bible not being an exhaustive catechism and the logic of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition being two faces of the same deposit of faith, it would be reasonable to accept what Sacred Tradition (the Church) says about Jesus’ mother. Why should it have any less authority then what we read in Sacred Scripture? As you admit, the logical approach is to acknowledge God’s plan for the authority of both – a clever checks and balance if you will. Also, quite clever (should we be surprised from an all wise, all knowing God?) to anticipate the need for a united authoritative Church.

Prisoner #1: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.

Prisoner #2: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s mother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.

Prisoner #3: Vermin’s mother is going to kill Johnny tonight at the Savoy Theater. Pass it on.

Prisoner #4: Johnny and the Mothers are playin’ “Stompin’ At The Savoy� in Vermont tonight. Pass it on.

This perfectly demonstrates what happens when a person picks up the Bible and gives his own personal interpretation on what he has read.

As we can see, we can understand God’s design for a single, united, authoritative Church to provide a single, united interpretation (as guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by God). Nothing else makes sense. Even sincere devout Christians can read the exact same passage differently.

This IS the elephant in the room that it seems countless Christian denominations simply choose to ignore. How/why did Calvin know he was getting it right? How/why would Luther? How/why would Zwingli? Joseph Smith? John Wesley? George Fox? Charles Taze Russell? From where did their authority come? In fact, each and every one of them denies the authority of Christ’s Church. They all insist on the authority of the Bible (without noting the irony that they received the Bible from the Church. The Bible did not fall from the sky. The Church decided what was to be in it and what wasn’t).

It is something that simply makes no sense. And I can never understand why this doesn't bother more people. I have read of numerous converts to the Catholic faith who said they had been active in other Christian denominations, but realized how problematic it was when those within their congregation disagreed. They themselves admitted they just wanted to know what was right, but their churches admitted they held no authority. So, what would happen if disagreements arose would be splitting off, parting of ways, and new churches formed. So which one got it right?

Of course many other converts to the Catholic faith ended up becoming Catholic once they started delving into history to discover Truth. Once someone starts tracing the Church back to her origins, he ends up in the Catholic Church.

And of course a turning point for many is also John 6:51. One would have to completely ignore the blatant meaning of the passage it order to deny all understood Christ to be speaking literally that day regarding the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Adopting a figurative interpretation renders the passage meaningless and contradicts what His actual audience heard that day He spoke those words.

Anyway, this forum is full of Christians who want to discus Calvin’s predestination and salvation to the elect, Charles Russell’s paradise earth theory and no blood transfusions, John Wesley’s full immersion Baptism, George Fox’s rejected Baptism by water and rejection of rituals, Joseph Smith’s emphasis on no drinking or caffeine, etc. – all of which probably stemmed from good intentions. Nonetheless, no amount of sincerity makes 2+2=5. Having left Christ’s Church they were convinced they could find truth on their own – convinced they could do it better. Unfortunately, what we are left with is thousands of non authoritative denominations all teaching different things. What’s a sincere Christian in search of truth to do?

My suggestion is to start at the beginning. Learn history. I also suggest being on the lookout for inconsistencies in teachings regarding faith and morals. If your church once said the world would end in 1916, but then it didn’t, you might want to call into question your church’s ability to get it right. If your church forbids things that Jesus Himself never forbade (ie: wine), you might have a hard time justifying why. If your church use to be opposed to gay marriage, but has recently changed its teaching, you might want to ask how can truth change? And if they were wrong about that, what else did they get wrong? If your church added to or took out words from the Bible, I’d consider that sketch. If your church wasn’t even founded until a thousand years after Christ, then it couldn’t possibly be Christ’s Church.

Anyway, those are just some things to think about. I wish everyone peace.

[tam]

Peace again to you!

[Replying to tam]

Who does the Church listen to?

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit – just as Christ promised. Christ also promised He would remain with His Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. THAT was a promise from Christ Himself. So, if we are listening to Christ that is what we hear and we need to trust this revelation to us. That is what faith, coupled with reason is.

I'm sorry, I thought my question was simple and straightforward.

Do you not have a simple and straightforward response?


Who does the Church listen to?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

What about God-given Reason? Is that all entrusted to the Magisterium? Is the RCC believer still required to surrender that Divine faculty to ecclesiastic authority? If so, what safeguards the RC from clerical abuse or error? The whole Galleleo thing comes to mind.

This is a great question – thanks for asking. Yes, of course we are always expected to use God-given reason. The Bible itself even shows disagreements that would arise in the early Church. We are all trying to be sincere truth seeking Christians, so naturally we will have differences of opinions or think going one route would be better than another, etc. But as Scripture told us, Christ’s Church does have the final say. It is important however to recognize that the Church has always acknowledged she is made up of fallible human beings who can make mistakes, sin, and even go astray. Despite using ordinary fallible men to spread His message, Christ promised to protect His Church from erring when it came to teachings regarding matters of faith and morals – and so He has. The Church today stands alone in many issues that other Christian denominations have seemed to cave with the times. Many religions have changed their doctrines and teachings over the years. Many religions have changed their positions on moral issues – not the Catholic Church.

Yes, there can be fallible leaders in the Church, even sometimes evil ones, but as Jesus even told the Disciples during His time, “do as they say, not as they do�. We were never to look to Church leaders as idols or heroes, rather they were to always be servants and if some of them they fall short in that department then we use our God-given reason to do that which the Church teaches not necessarily what sinful Father so and so might tell his parish in contrast to the magisterium.

So, it is the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise that safeguards the Church from error. And this is a beautiful thing. It means we can trust Christ’s words and promise to remain with His Church which means we can trust His Church. We don’t have to worry or wonder if the Church is getting it right. We can trust Christ will not leave His Church. We should worry if someone starts teaching something different than the Church without Church approval, because once they start going down that path they are essentially saying they are no longer confident in Christ’s promise.


As for the Galileo Affair that is one of the most misunderstood events in history. What exactly do you think the Galileo Affair shows? Many think somehow the Galileo Affair is an example of the contradiction between the Church and science, but that is not true. The truth is the Church has no problem with science. Do you know the whole story? Galileo was actually a good friend of the Pope AND he was encouraged in all his scientific endeavors. The Catholic Church has always been the greatest leader in scientific discovery as she knows every scientific discovery simply gives greater glory to God. Anyway, Galileo, truth be told and as all history books describe as well, was quite an arrogant person and not easy to get along with. He had a hunch about the earth revolving around the sun, but none of his discoveries were confirmed – not even by the other scientists of his day. The Church had no problem with accepting Galileo’s findings when they were officially corroborated, but Galileo not only wanted to rush his findings but also began talking about religious matters, which he was not qualified to do.

Had he kept things in the scientific realm there would have been no problem, but the Church continually asked him to stop claiming that according to him his new discoveries contradicted the Bible. This simply wasn’t true – the bible is not a scientific treatise and second Galileo had no right to speak on Church matters.

Two strong personalities clashed and the Church reacted by sending Galileo away. By the way, he was never tortured as some history books suggest rather he was put up at the Pope’s residence. Yes, he shouldn’t have been imprisoned, but remember this was a time when there was not a real separation of church and state. Both parties were wrong. And the church shouldn’t have treated Galileo the way they did, which they later apologized for, but what does any of that have to do with the authority of the Church?

Throughout history we see how often those God Himself chose screwed up, right? Even Moses was prevented from seeing the Promised Land, but that didn’t mean everything he relayed to God’s people wasn’t true. And it certainly didn’t mean that due to Moses’ sin, God permitted His followers to get it wrong. On the contrary, God expected His people to continue to listen to Moses and show Moses obedience and God continued His promise of speaking truth thru Moses.

_________________

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 11 by tam]

I'm sorry, I thought my question was simple and straightforward.

Do you not have a simple and straightforward response?

I’m sorry, I thought my answer was simple and straightforward. What are you unclear about?

[PinSeeker]

Just testing. Sorry to bother.

[PinSeeker]

Actually, I will throw my hat in the ring here, albeit briefly. Four points:

1. Regarding Mark 16:18, Jesus says, I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church..." He says, "this rock," not "you" or "you are the rock upon I will build My church." So the first part of the verse and the second part are not parallel, and as such, do not both refer to Peter. The question then becomes, who or what does "this rock" refer to? Quite obviously, the word "this" in verse 18 refers to the same thing "this" in verse 17 (which is also a part of the same quote from Jesus) refers to. And that is -- as Peter himself answers Jesus concerning who Jesus is -- Christ, the Son of the living God. Christ is the Rock on which He builds His Church, not Peter. And we see this throughout both the Old and New Testaments. There are many, many more (a word study on "rock," "stone," and "cornerstone" will yield astonishing results), but I'll cite just a few:

• * In Exodus 17 and Numbers 20, Moses, at God's command, strikes the rock, and water comes out of it. The rock represents Jesus, Who gives -- as He Himself says in John 4 -- the water that truly quenches thirst and springs up to eternal life.
  
  * Paul, in Romans 9, refers to Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 portraying Jesus as the rock of offense to unbelievers, saying that believers in Him will not be disappointed. Peter Himself refers to the same Isaiah passages in 1 Peter 2.

2. Following from number 1 above, regarding the keys of Matthew 16:18, Peter is given the keys only after proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah (vv. 13–20); he receives authority only insofar as he faithfully represents the God's infallible and inerrant Word. By extension, this applies to all church authority; when church leaders are faithful to Scripture, their decisions are certified by the Lord Himself, and they bear His authority.

3. In even a cursory examination of 1 and 2 Peter -- Peter's own contribution to the Bible, he never refers to himself as any kind of leader, but only an apostle and as such equal to the other eleven, 1 Peter 1:1), a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1), and a bond-servant of Christ (2 Peter 1:1; James and Jude say the same about themselves in 1:1 of their letters; indeed, we are all, as believers, bond-servants of Christ).

4. Following from all points above, we only really need to look at what Paul writes in Ephesians 2:19-21. As believers, we no longer strangers and aliens, but all fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles (all the apostles, including Peter) and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in Whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in Whom we also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. Obviously, no one is over anyone else in God's economy except He Himself in the Person of Christ Jesus.

Grace and peace and love in the Name of Christ to all of you.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 15 by PinSeeker]

Let's back up your Eph. quote a bit to verse 11-16. We are welcomed into covenant with Isreal. Note that this is not a new covenant. We are now just not Goyim. Out of covenant. What was Israel's covenant? That should be the one we follow, as Christ did. Christ gave us the same message God always did. Repent and follow me.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 15 by PinSeeker]

Christ is the Rock on which He builds His Church, not Peter

That is an incorrect interpretation . . .


A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.�

Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.

Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.� Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock� (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.



Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock� and “on this rock I will build� shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... r-the-rock

2. Following from number 1 above, regarding the keys of Matthew 16:18, Peter is given the keys only after proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah (vv. 13–20); he receives authority only insofar as he faithfully represents the God's infallible and inerrant Word. By extension, this applies to all church authority; when church leaders are faithful to Scripture, their decisions are certified by the Lord Himself, and they bear His authority.

Sort of. Yes, that God chose to give Peter the keys is a gift that Peter did not deserve, but by the grace of God. And authority was obviously given to him in this exchange, even though Peter was human and in fact would continue to stumble in his personal life. But even though he is a fallible human, Peter’s authority is intact.

3. In even a cursory examination of 1 and 2 Peter -- Peter's own contribution to the Bible, he never refers to himself as any kind of leader, but only an apostle and as such equal to the other eleven, 1 Peter 1:1), a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1), and a bond-servant of Christ (2 Peter 1:1; James and Jude say the same about themselves in 1:1 of their letters; indeed, we are all, as believers, bond-servants of Christ).

The Primacy of Peter in Scripture
Matt. to Rev. – Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 – these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 – Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 – only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 – Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 – in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 – Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 – here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 – Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 – Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 – Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.�

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 – when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 – Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 – Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 – Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 – John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 – the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 – after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 – Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 – Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 – Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter�) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 – only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 – in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,� which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 – Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,� “tend my sheep,� “feed my sheep.� Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 – Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 – Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 – Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 – Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 – Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 – Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 – Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 – Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 – Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 – Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 – Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 – Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 – Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 – Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 – Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 – this verse implies that the “whole Church� offered “earnest prayers� for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 – Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 – Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 – only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 – then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…�

Rom. 15:20 – Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation� referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 – Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.�

Gal.1:18 – Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 – Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting� all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 – Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 – yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-primacy-of-peter/

In addition to all the evidence from Sacred Scripture I could also post all the writings of the early Church fathers who wrote about Peter being the leader if you are interested.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 15 by PinSeeker]

Let's back up your Eph. quote a bit to verse 11-16. We are welcomed into covenant with Isreal. Note that this is not a new covenant. We are now just not Goyim. Out of covenant. What was Israel's covenant? That should be the one we follow, as Christ did. Christ gave us the same message God always did. Repent and follow me.

Yeah. Well -- we are welcomed into Israel's covenant with God, because we are now also of Israel. Israel does not consist solely of ethnic Jews, but of all believers regardless of ethnicity; this has always been the case. But yeah, I think we're agreeing. Not sure I follow your stream of thought and how it led you here, but yeah. Peace be unto you, brother!

[PinSeeker]

The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.

...in your opinion. And it's not altogether incorrect, but way too limited in scope. The Lord communicated a unique authority to all of church authority through direct communication to Peter. God's Word is filled with all manner of instruction and empowerment meant not only for the immediate audience/hearers but by extension to us all.

Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building.

I most certainly agree that His Church is not a building but a people.

Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock� (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel.

Absolutely not. Jesus is the Rock, not the wise man. "The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord" (Proverbs 9:10), right? Yes, so, Jesus is talking in Matthew 7 of the foundation on which the house of the wise man is built, which is Himself. Do a word study of the term "foundation" -- again, the results are very clear. Love Proverbs 10:25... "When the whirlwind passes, the wicked is no more, but the righteous has an everlasting foundation." And as Paul says, "no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.

Oh, but it does. On Jesus, not Peter. Peter himself would rebuke any insinuation that he is the foundation or the rock on which the Church is built.

...But even though he is a fallible human, Peter’s authority is intact.

Sure. As is all church authority, but none of it over the church itself. That belongs alone to God/Christ.

Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

I agree that has significance, even great significance. But not for the reasons Catholicism supposes. Peter is not elevated by Christ or Scripture in general over the other apostles or anyone else.

Rom. 15:20 – Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation� referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

No, here, we see clearly that Paul chose not to go where others had laid the foundation by preaching Christ and His Gospel, so that he might not take another man's "crown," or boast in another man's line, or of other men's labors. In other words, he chose to go where others had never been, that he might first lay the foundation himself, by preaching Christ, and him crucified, and so all the more to serve as an apostle, and as the apostle to the Gentiles, which he established himself as because of God's calling that we see throughout the book of Acts.

In addition to all the evidence from Sacred Scripture I could also post all the writings of the early Church fathers who wrote about Peter being the leader if you are interested.

You are more than welcome to, but not necessary. Yeah, I mean, it's all interesting to me... but not in the sense in which you mean for it to be. Thanks anyway.

Grace and peace to you, RR.

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to post 11 by tam]

I'm sorry, I thought my question was simple and straightforward.

Do you not have a simple and straightforward response?

I’m sorry, I thought my answer was simple and straightforward. What are you unclear about?

You say the people (are supposed to) listen to the church <- that is simple and straightforward. But that is not the kind of response you gave when I asked to whom does your church listen.



So if your people listen to your church; to whom does your church listen to?





Peace again to you!