tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post1696557680228167502..comments2019-11-06T11:19:05.426-08:00Comments on r e g u l a f i d e i: Matthew 16:18 and the Consensus of Scholars.R. E. Aguirre.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03462109808396671690noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-9206691761906900292008-06-02T19:33:00.000-07:002008-06-02T19:33:00.000-07:00George, good to hear from you brother. Let me resp...George, good to hear from you brother.<BR/><BR/> Let me respond to some excellent points you bring up. <BR/><BR/> 1. While admitting that there are small divergences within the received tradition, it is the exception rather than the rule. The rule is the "rule of faith" or the regula fidei which is the unanimous consent of the patristic fathers. <BR/><BR/> 2. Therefore brother George, Catholics have a measuring rod that has been codified. We cannot by definition come up with new doctrines or pick and choose what we decide to hold from the patristic testimony as if Christianity was a cafeteria where one can pick a little of this and a little of that. <BR/><BR/>3. You bring out the Eucharist and this is a classic example of what I am speaking about. The fathers are unanimous in their interpretation (the real literal presence)of the Eucharist and it's role in our Christian lives. He who strayed from the historic position was singled out as heterodox at best (hence, what Catholic theologians did to the Reformers, who could not -and still do not- agree among themselves on what the Eucharist means).<BR/><BR/>3. We know for a fact that the New Testament was written (in Koine GreeK) based upon the oral kergyma (the oral stories around the life of Jesus). Many stories are recounted in Aramaic because that is the language Jesus spoke. Matt 16:18 is a case in point that any good Protestant commentary would tell you. <BR/><BR/>4. The arguments about pebble/rock, the egalitarian interpretation of the Church's foundation based on Eph 2:20 and the genders in the Greek syntax (all arguments stemming from Calvin) have been thoroughly answered even by the majority of Protestant Matthean scholars. <BR/><BR/> The text read in it's natural and literal sense based on the grammar is plain and indisputable (a point that most Protestant commentaries even make). The rock is St. Peter. That is beyond question. The real question that is sharply dividing scholars is what does this appellation of rock to the person of St. Peter mean.R. E. Aguirre.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03462109808396671690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-88587361199674410982008-06-02T15:13:00.000-07:002008-06-02T15:13:00.000-07:00One other thing, and this moves away from the poin...One other thing, and this moves away from the point of this article.<BR/><BR/>We know that the NT was not written in Aramaic, but in Greek. We also agree that it is the Holy Inspired Word of God. The words that are there are two different words (I know you know this) One means Pebble and the other means Rock. Also, the gender comes in to play. Let us also not forget Ephesians 2:20.<BR/><BR/>Again, may each of you be blessed for the sake of Christ!<BR/><BR/>-g-George Weishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632714882132276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-87765377006698210962008-06-02T15:05:00.000-07:002008-06-02T15:05:00.000-07:00Rick,I see your point in this article, however as ...Rick,<BR/><BR/>I see your point in this article, however as the Den pointed out and you acknowledged we see more than just Peter himself as the view held by the Church Fathers. This is sort of my point on many topics. We see a plurality of opinions within the first couple of centuries. How then, can we make blanket statements in regards to what was really held as tradition. It seems as though people in general lean to whatever opinion they wish to hold fast to. I see this with this topic, and again in regards to the Eucharist. I feel like a scholar must be careful not to wrap up the early church in any absolute sense. We must give nod to the variety of thoughts. This to me, still begs the diversity of thought within Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Much love to each of you!<BR/><BR/>-g-George Weishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632714882132276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-14328102105048094882008-05-29T19:40:00.000-07:002008-05-29T19:40:00.000-07:00The Den welcome, As I pointed out in a footnote ...The Den welcome,<BR/><BR/> As I pointed out in a footnote on my posting the Catholic fathers have other interpretations of the pronouncement of Matt 16:18. <BR/><BR/> My main thrust of the article is that it was the Protestant Reformers who were the first to deny the identification of the "rock" with St. Peter under theological bias.<BR/><BR/> The Catholic Catechism echoes the patristic tradition correctly, the Protestants were in error on this point.R. E. Aguirre.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03462109808396671690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-79853131215918254212008-05-29T10:03:00.000-07:002008-05-29T10:03:00.000-07:00Hello,I stumbled over here from Ecumenicity.First ...Hello,<BR/><BR/>I stumbled over here from Ecumenicity.<BR/><BR/>First off, I'm a lifelong Catholic and agree with everything you said.<BR/><BR/>However, the argument about Peter and the Confession doesn't come from Evangelical Protestants. It comes from Augustine (I found this out when arguing with one once...) I concluded that this was because Augustine didn't know Aramaic and he had to make sense of it somehow.<BR/><BR/>The Catholic Church does accept that the confession of faith can be interpreted as the rock (ref: CCC#424) as per Augustine's teaching however, all Catholics understand that Christ was referring to Peter (per Church teaching). On that point, I had to stop arguing with the Protestant fellow because the CCC acknowledges it as well.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-14779776985791602942008-05-29T05:34:00.000-07:002008-05-29T05:34:00.000-07:00Exactly. And in his pre-Montanist days he even af...Exactly. And in his pre-Montanist days he even affirmed the primacy of Rome: <BR/><BR/><I>"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood!"</I><BR/>- Prescription Against Heretics<BR/><BR/>And then nearly 20 years later he denies it in "On Modesty" (yet still affirms that Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-78930378644570692542008-05-28T19:21:00.000-07:002008-05-28T19:21:00.000-07:00Indeed, the evidence from the pen of Tertullian is...Indeed, the evidence from the pen of Tertullian is important as you note. Equally interesting is the shift that Tertullian had against the Catholic Church when he joined the Montanists. In his early writings he was not as hostile and very "pro" tradition. It was only after he was decieved by the Montanist sect that he really shifted gears against Catholicism. Very similar shift to what we see in the Reformational "fathers" such as Luther, et. al.R. E. Aguirre.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03462109808396671690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8793579134319513144.post-2765886550030846272008-05-28T19:08:00.000-07:002008-05-28T19:08:00.000-07:00Nice post - quick and to the point. It's funny, I...Nice post - quick and to the point. It's funny, I was just thinking about this exact subject - that is, the consensus of scholarship on the Greek here in addition to the early fathers (maybe thats not too rare, what else do we polemic-minded Catholics think about all day?)<BR/><BR/>Tertullian is perhaps the strongest evidence from antiquity here. The fact that he denies papal primacy yet still assents to the fact that the Greek was referring to Peter himself is significant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com