| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Peter answered him, "You are the Messiah."; "tu es Petrus".... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 13. September 2009, 19:51 (1,695 Views) | |
| Powerofone | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 19:51 Post #1 |
|
From today's second reading. Isn't the contrast between Mark's and Matthew's versions of this teaching interesting? Mark stops at this point. Indeed Jesus admonishes to "tell no one about him". Matthew, on the other hand, does on to add the famous verse on which the Bishops of Rome were to later place so much emphasis. Indeed any visitor to St. Peter's Basilica can see inscribed in gold letters 2 meters high, the Latin inscription encircling the dome above the very crypt of Peter: "tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam". Why would Mark have neglected so important a verse? Or was verse 18 interpolated to Mattrew's gospel at a later date? |
 |
|
| Gerard | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 20:05 Post #2 |
|
Good question. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
|
|
|
| PJD | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 20:26 Post #3 |
|
"Why would Mark have neglected so important a verse? Or was verse 18 interpolated to Mattrew's gospel at a later date?" This to my mind is 'leading' PowerofOne. Negative direction my friend. PJD |
|
|
| pete | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 21:31 Post #4 |
|
I have to agree with PowerofOne, I wanted to take this up with my priest but never had the opportunity. I suppose we must realise that Christ’s words were written much, much later; sadly He never had a stenographer to take down everything therefore both Mark and Mathew may have received their information from different sources. Martha also said that Jesus was the Son of God, yet Jesus never said to her, only the Father in Heaven could have revealed this to her. Why say one thing to Peter and say nothing to Martha for saying the same thing? |
|
|
|
| KatyA | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 21:46 Post #5 |
|
Administrator
|
One of the top evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment. Scott Hahn on the Papacy Matthew is also the only Evangelist who traces Jesus' genealogy back to David, and we have no reason to doubt that on the basis it isn't in the other three Gospels. Scott Hahn appears to be right when he suggests that Matthew's gospel builds on the Old Testament more than any other and especially the idea of David's kingdom, and goes on to say
While the synoptics do have a lot of material in common, there are differences which I suppose may be attributed to both the individual approach of the writer and the intended audience. KatyA |
  | |
|
|
|
| Powerofone | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 22:15 Post #6 |
|
Yes, PJD, it probably was leading. But if you're interested in a more academic, forensic examination, we can explore the logical possibilities one by one. For instance: 1. The "tu es Petrus" was known to both evangelists but was not used by Mark for some literary / theological reason. 2. The "tu es Petrus" was known to both evangelists but was excised from Mark by an anti-papal party 3. The "tu es Petrus" was known only to Matthew. 4. The "tu es Petrus" was unknown to either evangelist but was later interpolation by the Papist party. Each of these presents it's own difficulties. The list may not be exhaustive. Which one do you prefer? |
|
|
|
| Powerofone | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 22:46 Post #7 |
|
For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that the verses in both Mark (8:27) and Matthew (16:13) relate to the same event. This is because they have common elements and the theology revealed in them is so unique and profound (""You are the Christ.") that it is unlikely to have occurred twice in two different events. Both start with Jesus' question ("But who do you say that I am?" / "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" ). It is Peter in both cases who provides the answer ("You are the Christ." / "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." ). He also charges the disciples to tell nobody ("And he charged them to tell no one about him. " / "Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. " ). So much for the similarities. What about the differences? Difference number 1: Matthew has the "tu es Petrus" speech which Mark entirely omits. Difference number 2: Matthew has Jesus say that Peter's first answer came from God, not from man ("For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. " ). Mark is silent about the origin of Peter's answer. Difficulty number 1: is Peter inspired by God or Satan? Was his answer from God or from man? How can the same event have resulted in polar opposite positions? Was Peter alternatively divinely inspired (for the correct answer) and then, moments later, diabolically inspired (for rebuking Jesus)? Such schizoid behaviour is usually associated with the mentally ill. Difficulty number 2: somebody who has just been put in charge of the church could then suggest, moments later, that Jesus not give himself up for crucifixion? Wouldn't that make the person who made such an appointment (Jesus) look pretty stupid? Edited by Powerofone, Sunday, 13. September 2009, 22:50.
|
|
|
|
| Emee | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 22:55 Post #8 |
|
To me it just emphasises the flawed nature of the human soul. That Peter is so human and yet has become one of our greatest saints has always been a sense of reassurance to me. |
|
|
|
| Powerofone | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 23:01 Post #9 |
|
I agree Emee. But for the sake of avoiding PJD's accusation of putting leading questions, with which of 1 to 4 above do you agree? |
|
|
|
| Emee | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 23:11 Post #10 |
|
Probably 1, at a pinch 3, but I am not going to give either 2 or 4 any serious concern. There are enough conspiracy theories outside the Church, without them being brought inside also. I would say the same to Kevin about the thread he started about the Divine Mercy also. Let's not make rods for our own backs in our Christian lives; "sufficient today is the evil thereof" etc. It's so easy to start forgetting and missing out on the bigger picture as it is. |
|
|
|
| KatyA | Sunday, 13. September 2009, 23:17 Post #11 |
|
Administrator
|
Perhaps the reason for the omission from Mark could simply be that Matthew was more aware of the connection with Isaiah 22 v19
That said, I agree wholeheartedly with Emee - conspiracy theories go nowhere. KatyA |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 14. September 2009, 01:41 Post #12 |
Administrator
|
My attitude to all this is, people who know more than I, about Scripture and were authorised by a Pope, studied deeply and decreed which books would be accepted as Holy Scripture. Why something is more significant to one evangelist than another is not always clear to me, and it does not give me sleepless nights. I agree with Emee and KatyA on this, conspiracy theories do no good. If I took any notice my faith could be endangered. |
 Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Anne-Marie | Monday, 14. September 2009, 05:44 Post #13 |
|
No idea whether those words were what you really meant  If we have to avoid even thinking about our Faith, because to do so would cause us to lose it... then we really are on very slippery ground indeed! Each Gospel is, quite understandably, different and emphasising different points. As humans, many of us will realise that if you take four different people (say doctor, lawyer, engineer, salesman) each will 'pick-up' on different aspects of a detailed discussion about another specialty. Each of them could be right in the detail they report. In those long-ago days when I was selling, I recall a series of drawings showing 'what the sales department understood to be ordered, what the engineers thought had been ordered, what the design department thought', and so on, concluding with what the customer actually wanted (a plank of wood with two ropes, to make a swing hanging from a tree branch)! Remembering that, I always stop and try to understand what things are really all about. It is all too easy for the theologian, in the calm of some study, centuries or millennia later, to see things very differently than those in the front line putting their lives on the line for a reason they may have understood all too clearly. Watch any courtroom drama... and then put yourself in the position of having to defend your actions when under attack with the way others, having no comprehension of how that affects thought and actions, think in the calm of a courtroom. The totally defensible can suddenly seem totally indefensible. If Our Lord or Our Lady appeared to you on the way to work this morning (or on the way home this evening), I think you'd see life totally differently from how anyone else would be capable of seeing life. Your transformation would be completely incomprehensible to everyone else. Yet, both you and they may believe 100% in our Faith.... |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
|
|
|
| PJD | Monday, 14. September 2009, 06:45 Post #14 |
|
PowerOfOne wrote: Yes, PJD, it probably was leading. But if you're interested in a more academic, forensic examination, we can explore the logical possibilities one by one. For instance: 1. The "tu es Petrus" was known to both evangelists but was not used by Mark for some literary / theological reason. 2. The "tu es Petrus" was known to both evangelists but was excised from Mark by an anti-papal party 3. The "tu es Petrus" was known only to Matthew. 4. The "tu es Petrus" was unknown to either evangelist but was later interpolation by the Papist party. Each of these presents it's own difficulties. The list may not be exhaustive. Which one do you prefer? Thank you for that 'gentle' response PowerOfOne. To be frank I am not equipped I feel about answering many questions relating to the dissection of Scripture etc. Many here e.g. Gerry, James, just to name but two, I am sure are much more knowledgeable. For myself I merely reacted to the phrasing of your post - reaction rather than response is best avoided as my confessor tells me - so in penance I will settle down and read the explanations afforded to your topic with a 'proper' interest. God Bless, PJD |
|
|
|
| O'Ratty | Monday, 14. September 2009, 07:12 Post #15 |
|
There's nothing fishy (sorry!) going on here. There are loads of such anomalies in the synoptic Gospels. There is nothing "magical" about their authorship: three saints, at least one of whom knew the Lord intimately, wrote accounts of his life, each recalling (and thus emphasising) whatever he considered most significant. Three different men*, three different characters, three different perspectives, three different circumstances - One Lord. The Church subsequently distinguished these three traditional accounts as "canon" (i.e. "straight edge") - completely in conformity with the Apostolic teaching - from a great welter of other "New Testament" - type material, which wasn't for various reasons, "straight-edged". Ascribing the Petrine verses to a "papal party" is simply an anachronism. If they were appropriated subsequently to serve developing Papal claims, this was over a period of several centuries. The early Church simply did not, and could not have read Tu es Petrus... and thought "Bishop of Rome". *(e.g. Matthew=Torah, Mark=Apocalypse, Luke=Narrative history) Edited by O'Ratty, Monday, 14. September 2009, 13:15.
|
|
Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything. - St. Gregory of Nyssa | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » | |
5:06 PM Nov 23