/lit/ - Literature

>>21879995
They only wanted to reform the roman catholic church but they wouldn't let them so they broke away. Indulgences and other retarded shit caused the creation of clown world.

>>21880022
Heresy is not reform.

>>21880022
But the corruption of the Catholic church was based. Protestants don't have anythi g as cool as the feast of chestnuts

>>21880026
Can be. The Franciscans heavily criticized the wealth of the church and only narrowly avoided being labeled heretics cause Francis came and growled beneath the feet of the pope

>>21880039
Every cleric appointed to look into and approve or disapprove Francis and his followers was in awe of them, all the way from the Bishop of Assissi to Pope Innocent III. No saint until our times has been canonized so shortly after death. Luther, refused the authority of the Church time and again, and rejected all their offers of compromise. Luter was a heretic. Francis was a saint. This is the difference between true and false reform.

>>21880026
Heresy is an offense against men and their egos, not against God.

>>21880022
>Reform
Moral flexibility has killed religion in the West.

>>21880089
Ridiculous. God is Truth. Whatever is false is abhorrent to God.

>>21880022
/thread

Though I could use an indulgence right bout now frfr on god

>>21880189
Go to confession, go to communion, pray a rosary with your family and pray for the good intentions of the Pope and the Church will grant you a plenary indulgence. You could merit such an indulgence every day of your life. Though, the efficacy of an indulgence depend on the intention and contrition of the recipient.

>>21879995
>he explicitly invokes the jester's privilege when saying that monks should break their chastity vows.[16]
It's amazing how much of Luther's thought is literally just mental gymnastics to justify wanting nun pussy.

>>21880197
kill yourself asap, all jokes aside

>>21880246
Why?

>>21880252
You've completely closed your mind and therefore offer nothing to the world. You are spiritually a man at the end of his life, rigid and at full storage capacity, unable to let the new or different into his mind unless it slots into the labyrinthine latticework of fragile glass that is your psyche.
You present nothing real to your fellow man, you are merely a Staples Easy Button that spews prepackaged piety when hit.

>>21880212
And he got it too.

It's easy to understand Luther once you learn that he suffered from scrupulosity. And of course scrupulosity is the most sensible response to the Catholic sacramental system. If it doesn't cause you constant terror and despair then you aren't taking it seriously.

>>21880279
>scrupulosity
Doesn't this basically mean that the retardation of the church has given you an anxiety disorder?

>>21880282
It means you can't feel sure that you're in a state of grace because you have a heightened consciousness of your own sinfulness and are always finding things that you did wrong and need to confess. Luther would spend hours every day in confession.

>>21880276
>You are spiritually a man at the end of his life, rigid and at full storage capacity, unable to let the new or different into his mind unless it slots into the labyrinthine latticework of fragile glass that is your psyche.
NTA, but this is the worst mixed metaphor I've read in a long time.

>>21880290
Right, so we agree. An imaginary judge watching you at all times inducing mental illness seems all too obvious a pitfall of the bibble's method of control.

>>21880293
Elaborate? I'm really happy with the wording of that post to be quite desu with you.

>>21879995
Luther is the Joker for people who actually believe in God

>>21879995
>>21880022
The western schism caused clown world.

>>21880297
It's not something intrinsic to Christianity, but specifically to the Catholic sacramental system. If you commit a sin in which you knowingly do something wrong, and the sin consists of sufficient "grave matter" then you ipso facto lose your salvation and go to hell if you die. Doesn't matter what you believe or what else you do. You have to have it absolved by a priest or perform an act of perfect contrition (repenting out of love of God rather than fear of God) coupled with the legitimate intention to receive absolution from a priest as soon as possible. Otherwise you definitively go to hell. Of course all of the criteria that I just gave are subjective, which creates scrupulosity if you think about it more than you're supposed to.

>>21880313
>Of course all of the criteria that I just gave are subjective, which creates scrupulosity if you think about it more than you're supposed to.
And of course if you do actually believe in and fear hell, which people then did and most today don't.

>>21880313
You're describing a belief system comically self destructive, yet sound like you almost endorse it.

>>21880319
I don't. I hate Catholicism. Most of them would probably object to how I described it even though it's technically correct.

>>21880293
>>21880305

>>21880276
There is nothing new under the sun.

>>21879995
The buffoon of the new eternities!

>>21880313
You have proved the opposite. Only the sacraments can give a man confidence in salvation. Unless there is some external sign given by God--a sacrament--what certainty can a man have that his personal sins can be forgiven? I know when I have done something that gravely violates the law of God. If I do not know it, then I have done it in ignorance, meaning I am not guilty of the full gravity of the crime. Scrupulosity is a symptom of doubt, and the sacraments are a gift of clarity.

>>21880396
didn't read

>>21880396
>Unless there is some external sign given by God--a sacrament--what certainty can a man have that his personal sins can be forgiven?

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080829813/priest-resigns-baptisms

>A Catholic priest in Arizona has resigned after he was found to have performed baptisms incorrectly throughout his career, rendering the rite invalid for thousands of people.

>During baptisms in both English and Spanish, Arango used the phrase "we baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." He should have said "I baptize," the diocese explained.

>"It is not the community that baptizes a person and incorporates them into the Church of Christ; rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all sacraments; therefore, it is Christ who baptizes," it said. "If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized."

>>21880430
fucking kek
church autism levels are off the charts

>>21880430
>priest stutters during confession
>you go to hell for eternity

>>21880430
Thank you for demonstrating the point. Imagine if the Church did not know what the correct form were? Imagine if no one knew? How would anyone know if they were baptized or not? The very uncertainty and doubt with which you sympathize in these people is the condition for everyone who does not believe there is a form at all. You would leave it all to a man's feelings. But what is more changeable? What is less solid than our emotions? It was for his emotion that Luther went to confession so many times.

>>21880468
This only makes sense if you follow the Catholic conception of God as some kind of legal machine.

>>21880468
You are not given sacraments by the Church, they are performed by fallible priests, making them potentially invalid if they are performed incorrectly. You cannot be sure if they were performed correctly, which does not give you confidence in salvation.

Either way, you also can't be confident that you'll live long enough for the sacraments to be performed.

>>21880475
>And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Why would God give a law, if he were not going to exact it? What kind of a God do you suppose he is?

>>21880503
Actually, the form and matter of the sacrament and the ministers of the sacrament are taught in catechism. It is very easy to know if they are performed correctly. And while it is the priests who minister most of the sacraments, it is from the authority of the Church that we know of them and know what comprises them. And the Church knows these things, because Christ himself instituted the sacraments and the Church through the Apostles.

Luther was a retard, but so were the Cathowops.
>jews are bad!
>but if they would convert they would become good!

>>21880022
I was taught this at school but it's utter bullshit.
The theology of Luther is absolutely different from that of the Catholic Church. He didn't want a reform, he wanted to form a religion on his own and that's what he did.
He believed he received a "personal revelation" (like every protestant founding leader) that superseded the doctrine held by the Church.
He was really a textbook case heretic that had the wit to leverage on political problems and to side with the northern princes that were hostile to Rome.
Most ppl today doesn't know what indulgences actually were and are, and they have been taught by the school system what Luther told they were but in fact they never have been.

>there are still people who think Luther was the bad guy for calling out priests saying God would forgive you and let you do bad shit if you gave them money
>>21880545
>He didn't want a reform, he wanted to form a religion on his own and that's what he did
He explicitly said he didn't want a religion, and even opposed the use of the term "Lutheran" because he didn't want a religion formed and didn't want the movement centered on himself.

>>21880276
>pray
>sin
>confess
>repeat

>>21880518
>the church is good because it says it serves God

>“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

>>21880558
Believe what people do, not what they say. The outright selling of indulgences was relatively rare and was condemned. But an indulgence requires some kind of pious act, and alms are a work of charity. If someone with money gives a lot of that money to the building of a beautiful church, that's pretty obviously a good act. If they really do this for a nefarious purpose, then they don't actually receive an indulgence, because the reception and efficacy of an indulgence rest on the intention of the recipient, which is fundamentally the case for any kind of grace.

>>21880518
>Actually, the form and matter of the sacrament and the ministers of the sacrament are taught in catechism.
and yet, they were not performed in Latin rendering them null and void... sorry!

>>21880558
>He explicitly said he didn't want a religion
If he said that it was to save his ass.
If by "reform" you mean "destroy the Church from the ground up and replace it the way I say so it's not a new Church it's the same """reformed""" " uh ok!
Word twisters will always twist words.

>>21880570
>the church is bad because I say so
Not everyone who belongs to the visible body of the church will be saved. After all, Judas was an apostle. And the members of the Church will not always do good; after all, Jesus was denied even by Peter during the passion. But at the same time Jesus gives to Peter the power of binding and loosing, Jesus calls him Rock, and says that upon this Rock he will found his Church and it will not fail. Jesus goes further and says that whosoever listens to the Apostles listens to Christ, and whoever denies them denies Christ. So in the light of the scriptures, how do you know that you will be among the saved? After all,
>Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Are you not one of the lawless?

>>21880583
Baptism does not need to be said in Latin.

>>21880475
>Catholic conception of God as some kind of legal machine.
Isn't that what it is in practically all (most) organized religions?

>>21880605
>Jesus goes further and says that whosoever listens to the Apostles listens to Christ, and whoever denies them denies Christ
The Apostles Yeshua appointed were not the same as modern-day priests pushing gender theory or washing Muslims' feet.

>>21880627
If Jesus appointed Apostles, as you and I both seem to agree, where are their successors today?

>>21880608
If the language is arbitrary, the words cannot stay the same. Were you born a little earlier, you'd be saying mass in anything other than Latin is a heresy.

>>21880633
who says there need to be successors

>>21880558
Indulgence is not the forgiving of sins, that only God can do and it's administered with the rite of conciliation (that has always been free), it's the shortening of the temporal penance, ie reparatory works, that was once imposed to sinners to be accepted back into the community.
Sometimes it was also donating money to the community. Then yes some scams by some crooked lower clergy happened, but it was a scandal within the Church and not of the Church.
Lither sperged out and told it was the Church and it was about forgiving sins.

>>21880643
Peter and the Psalms:
>For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

>>21880633
>where are their successors today?
Did He say He blessed their successors? Did He say that the successors could sin and do whatever they wanted and we'd have to obey them anyway?

>>21880696
That entire passage is about praying for deliverance from evil. It has literally nothing to do with the concept of churchly succession.

>>21880637
Obviously not. Greek masses are valid, and always have been. The same for Russian. And Coptic. And certainly for masses in Old Church Slavonic. Now, it was forbidden in the Latin Rite to use anything but Latin until recently, and if someone had tried prior to these new laws, I'm not sure if it would have been valid or not. Part of what grants a translation its efficacy is the approval of the Church. But your argument shows my point. You try and show how doubt is introduced when there is a lack of respect for the laws and teaching of the Church. But you do not respect the laws and teaching of the Church; how then do you have any certainty?

>>21880703
Check the Acts of the Apostles. Judas kills himself, and Peter declares that another must be appointed to take his episcopate. Peter cites the Psalms as I have just quoted to you. Why do you disagree with Peter as to their interpretation?

>>21880719
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

>>21880697
Jesus gave his 12 apostles the power of binding and loosing. He taught them all things. He appointed Peter the leader of them. Peter declared that a successor was needed for Judas. Paul was also given an apostleship. If the apostleship did not stop at 12, why should it stop at 13. If Judas needed a successor, why would none of the others? And when Jesus made Peter the head of the Church, he promised that this Church would not fail. When do you suppose the succession of the Apostles ended? If it continues, than certainly we must obey them in all they lawfully command, for their power is not their own, but God's. If they try to command something unlawfully, then let it be ignored.

>>21880605
>and says that upon this Rock he will found his Church and it will not fail.
Yeah, referring to the confession that Peter just gave, differentiated from Peter himself in Matthew 16:18.

>>21880740
>If they try to command something unlawfully, then let it be ignored.
You're assuming everything they command is lawful, therefore the modern church can't possibly be corrupted.

>>21880739
>To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

>>21880744
Says who?

>>21880740
>If Judas needed a successor, why would none of the others?
Because Judas Iscariot died and went to hell, as Peter says in Acts 1. Jesus also said in John 17:21, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

The "son of perdition" refers to Judas Iscariot. Jesus also said in John chapter 6 the following:

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."
(John 6:70-71)

>When do you suppose the succession of the Apostles ended?
It was a single event that happened in Acts 1 due to Judas Iscariot. The apostles of Jesus Christ still retain their positions to this day.

>>21880763
See Matthew chapter 16 in the Gospel of Matthew.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
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."
(Matthew 16:16-19)

>>21880771
Then how and why is Paul an apostle?

>>21880775
Exactly:
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
How is this interpreted to mean his confession, and not his person, and who makes this interpretation? Many have made such a confession, but to no others has God made such a statement.

>>21880777
Because it says so in the New Testament.

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;" (Col. 1:25)

I would think that most people would know this information.

>>21880713
>how then do you have any certainty?
Certainty is anathema to faith. Worship God and not institution.

>>21880783
>How is this interpreted to mean his confession, and not his person,
It doesn't say "upon thee I will build my church," but "upon this rock." And as Jesus Christ refers to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:17, so He refers to it again in Matthew 16:18. It means that "this rock" is the Christ, the Son of the living God, which is what Peter had confessed.

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
(1 Corinthians 3:11).

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
(1 Corinthians 10:4)

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"
(Ephesians 2:19-20)

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?"
(Matthew 21:42)

>>21880787
>Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. And he said to him: I am the Lord who brought thee out from Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land, and that thou mightest possess it. But he said: Lord God, whereby may I know that I shall possess it. And the Lord answered, and said: Take me a cow of three years old, and a she goat of three years, and a ram of three years, a turtle also, and a pigeon. And he took all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid the two pieces of each one against the other; but the birds he divided not.
>And the fowls came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away. And when the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and darksome horror seized upon him. And it was said unto him: Know thou beforehand that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage, and afflict them four hundred years. But I will judge the nation which they shall serve, and after this they shall come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age.
>But in the fourth generation they shall return hither: for as yet the iniquities of the Amorrhites are not at the full until this present time. And when the sun was set, there arose a dark mist, and there appeared a smoking furnace and a lamp of fire passing between those divisions. That day God made a covenant with Abram, saying: To thy seed will I give this land, from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates.

>>21880803
>Thou art Rock, and on this rock I will build my church
Christ is the Rock, and by Christ's own mouth is Peter called Rock also. Does he say that all who confess him shall be called rock? No, he says this only to Peter. You even quote:
>built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;
Christ clearly, then, identifies Himself with His church, and Peter with Himself and Peter with His Church. Christ is the foundation, and Peter is the foundation, and this is no contradictin, for Peter is in Christ. Therefore, all who are with Peter are with Christ, as Christ himself says to all the apostles.

>>21880829
>Christ is the Rock, and by Christ's own mouth is Peter called Rock also.
The name Peter means stone, as mentioned when Christ gave that name to Simon Peter in John chapter 1. Matthew 16:18 is not the place where Simon Peter was first given that name, which seems to be another misconception you've raised. See John 1:42.

>Christ clearly, then, identifies Himself with His church, and Peter with Himself
Right, and in Matthew 18:18 the apostles are all given the rightful authority to exercise church discipline, with Peter included among them. See also:

"If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
(1 Peter 2:3-8)

>Therefore, all who are with Peter are with Christ,
Right, but a false prophet who claims to be Peter or to have succeeded Peter is still nevertheless a false prophet. Biblical ecclesiology, as mentioned before, is congregational, and sacerdotalism was invented by false prophets much later. Peter even warned us about them.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."
(2 Peter 2:1-3)

That's referring to people like the leaders of various brands of Catholicism. Paul said something similar, as well.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
(1 Timothy 4:1-3)

See also Acts 20:28-32 where Paul warned about wolves coming in sheep's clothing to draw away disciples after manmade traditions, while Paul commends us to the word of God, which is able to give us an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

>>21880886
>Thou shalt be called Cephas
>And I say to thee: Thou art Cephas
Jesus meets Simon, and says to him, you will be called Rock. And then, when witnesses Christ on behalf of the Apostles, Christ declares him Rock. Before I asked you how it is interpreted that this refers to his confession, and you have not explained this. What in Christ's speech indicates that he speaks of Peter's confession, and not of Peter?

>>21880311
>nobody checking the truest statement itt baka

>>21880938
>What in Christ's speech indicates that he speaks of Peter's confession, and not of Peter?
See >>21880803

>>21880976
You have shown other passages of Christ being the rock. But that's not the question. How have you determined that Christ refers to Peter's confession of faith, and not to Peter himself?

>>Christ is the Rock, and by Christ's own mouth is Peter called Rock also.
The name Peter means stone, as mentioned when Christ gave that name to Simon Peter in John chapter 1. Matthew 16:18 is not the place where Simon Peter was first given that name, which seems to be another misconception you've raised. See John 1:42.
damn
really no language other then english allows someone to misinterpret so hard

>>21880998
>Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Tense matters, does it not?

>>21880990
Because, as I said in this >>21880803 post, It doesn't say "upon thee I will build my church," but "upon this rock." And as Jesus Christ refers to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:17, so He refers to it again in Matthew 16:18. It means that "this rock" is the Christ, the Son of the living God, which is what Peter had confessed.

>>21880998
>really no language other then english allows someone to misinterpret so hard
The two words for Peter and rock in Matthew 16:18 in Greek are not the same. One of them is Πέτρος and the other is ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ.

>>21881023
In addition to "Pétra" being a metaphor for a strong man, it is obvious that "Pétros" in addition to being a synonym is a masculine version of the word.
this is the first time I see this absurd hypothesis

>>21881023
No, no, no--where is the textual evidence Christ refers to Peter's confession? Does Christ call Simon's answer the rock? No. He says 'Thou art Cepahs.'
And I don't know why you're quoting Greek when you can't read it: Πέτρος is the same as πέτρᾳ.

>>21881032
Someone must have quoted Matthew 16:18 to you out of context which made you assume it must be referring to Peter when it actually refers to his confession.

I don't really see how you employ a sentence where Christ refers to Peter by two different names, once masculine and another not masculine, both times in the third person, instead of saying "thee" when referring directly to Peter, as He does in Matthew 16:19 when He says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc.

Reading Matthew 16:18 in context shows, as mentioned in three previous posts, that Jesus was already referring to the confession of Peter in Matthew 16:17, which he then refers to as "this rock."

But if someone quotes just verse 18 and leaves out the first part of what Jesus says and the full context, they might assume it has to refer to Peter, which would be based on not reading the entire passage (including Matthew 16:16-17).

>>21881056
>Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona
>Thou art Cephas; and on this Rock I will build my Church
>And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Thou, Thou, Thee. Christ is talking to Peter, about Peter.

>>21880311
The Donation of Constantine caused clown world. The Carolinians started the Faustian era.

>>21881071
The full Matthew 16:17 says this: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

I quoted this before earlier, I am not sure why you chopped this verse into pieces here. See the part where the Bible says, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee"? That is referring to Peter's confession.

So when it says "upon this rock I will build my church," it is referring to Peter's confession as well, because it doesn't say "upon thee I will build my church," but instead, "upon this rock I will build my church."

>>21881056
simple, one refers to an actual rock and other, as I said, a metaphor
simon wasn't a actual rock
> instead of saying "thee" when referring directly to Peter
it's a statement.

>>21880545
didn't cathiolicks already start reforming within to get rid of the abusive of indulgences?

>>21881095
You're quoting 17,18, 19. In each of these verses, which are but one speech, Jesus addresses Peter and speaks to Peter. Jesus does not say "Thine confession is Cephas". He says "Thou art Cephas." How do you take this to be referring to the confession?

>>21881095
καί Ἰησοῦς αὐτός ἔπω αὐτός μακάριος εἶ Σίμων Βαριωνᾶς ὅτι οὐ σάρξ καί αἷμα σοί ("TO") ἀποκαλύπτω ἀλλά μοῦ πατήρ ὁ ἔν οὐρανός

>flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee
this error is unique to the English language, no other bible translation allows this to happen.
precisely this "to" means "for you", it is used specifically when addressing a person

>>21881120
See >>21881023 , specifically the first part. The initial reference to Peter's confession is found in verse 17, where it says, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee." Where the Gospel says "it" in this sentence, it is referring to what was revealed to Peter, which is what Peter confessed in verse 16.

The grammar continues to verse 18, where Peter's name is differentiated from it by mentioning the fact that Peter, whose name means "stone," had just confessed Christ, who is the "rock." This is the same name given to our Lord in places like 1 Corinthians 10:4, as the one irreplaceable foundation and cornerstone of the church, as it says in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6 and Isaiah 28:16.

If, conversely, Christ had meant to refer to Peter again after mentioning his name, then he would use the second person pronoun "thee" instead of bringing up another name for something in the third person. But as we mentioned, Matthew 16:18 doesn't say, "upon thee I will build my church," but instead "upon this rock," referring to Peter's confession just as Matthew 16:17 had when our Lord and Savior said that "flesh and blood hath not revealed it" unto Peter, where "it" here refers to Peter's confession.

>>21881168
Yes,
>Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Blessed are you Simon, for God has revealed this to thee. Followed by:
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;
That is, you are blessed Simon, for the Father has revealed this to you. And I say to you, you are Peter.
Cepha and Cephas are the same word. Petra and petrus are the same word. In other languages, a noun is conjugated to make it a name. The name of Simon becomes Rock. Your reasoning is sound. Christ chose these words specifically. Where, grammatically, is the reference to the confession? How does 'this rock' refer to the confession. I will grant you, Christ does not say 'thee' again, but when else is the confession called a rock? How do you derive this interpretation?

>>21881168
>>21881185
Apologies, I mistyped--your reasoning is unsound.

>>21880089
dumbass

>>21881128
>this error is unique to the English language
This is an accurate translation here according to the original languages, and similar to how it is in non-English translations. The word "it" is a necessary word particle in English due to the analytic nature of the language, similar to how the English Authorized version says "I am he" in John 8:24 and John 18:5, when the underlying Greek words are actually "I am." But the extra word is there for grammatical correctness and consistency because English has a lot less word conjugation and is more analytic and uses particles instead.

>How do you derive this interpretation?
I haven't derived anything, I am just repeating what the full passage in Matthew 16 says. I have also brought up other passages that all support the fact that the church is built upon Christ the Lord, which I mention in addition to this one. This isn't my interpretation but rather what the Bible says, and if someone has a problem with that, then obviously it just points to bigger issues about acceptance of the Holy Bible as a whole.
>Blessed are you Simon, for God has revealed this to thee.
And "this" refers to the object of Peter's confession, which is Christ the Son of the living God.

>In other languages, a noun is conjugated to make it a name.
You know better than that. You know that a nominative singular masculine is not the same as a dative singular feminine, and it would be positing an entirely unique Greek solecism to suggest that both names refer to the same subject within the same sentence.

Imagine a sentence, "I say unto you, you are John, and I want you to take care of Johnny, and I will give you my phone number."

And then imagine someone thinking "Johnny" was supposed to refer to "John," and so it really means "I want you to take care of yourself," even though it's two different names being mentioned in the same sentence.

Yes, there are many times where "you" appears in that sentence. But just because "you" appears a lot, doesn't mean that "Johnny" = "John" in that sentence. And he could have just said "I want you to take care of yourself," instead of specifically mentioning his name and then saying "take care of Johnny" using a different name in the same sentence.

It's very deliberate in implying that it's not referring to John for that part of the sentence, even though the other parts of the sentence are all referring to John via the second person pronoun (you), making it an even bigger contrast that that one part of the sentence is not. Now combine this weirdness with the lack of context by leaving out the earlier part of the sentence where another antecedent for the sentence is clearly mentioned, and you arrive at a pretty strange solecism.

>>21879995
Pope Pius XI (1923): “… the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.” (Rerum omnium pertabationem #4, Jan. 26, 1923)