F
Fidelis
Guest
Hmmm…that’s wierd. The one on my original post (#37) still works. Or try this one:
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
- Status
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
C
CindyGia
Guest
Finally worked! I persevered trying to open it until it finally gave in. It must be a “very” busy page.
L
linus
Guest
Sorry, can’t be done. This is a unique instance and Jesus was employing a “play on words” to express His point. Jesus responds to Peter’s “emphatic,” with another equally “emphatic.” Peter says, “You are the Messiah, Son of the living God; Jesus replies, “You are Peter” (Petros), used here as a proper name but not losing its meaning as a common noun. The name itself was bestowed on Simon when he first encountered Jesus (Jn. 1:42), but under the form of is Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In Matt. 16:18 attention is called, not to giving the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (“Iliad,” vii, 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (Iliad,” xvi, 734).
In Scripture the Greek word petrodes is used in its plural form describing small stones or stony places in Matt. 13:5, 20 and Mark 4:5, 16. Some translations say “rocky” places, but the inference is not a large rock but “stony” soil.
In “…epi taute te petra” (upon this rock) the feminine form means rock, as distinguished from a stone or fragment of rock. In Homer (“Odyssey”) its the rock which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, a mass which twenty-two wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, creating by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back to the land. You might say a small tsunami.
In Matt 16:18, in context, Jesus uses the word “petra” as an architect, a foundation on which He, the architect, will build His Church.
He used it elsewhere in the same manner:
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock” (Matt. 7:24-25; cf. Luke 6:46-49).
It is true Jesus employs Peter and the meaning of Peter’s name (Petros) in what He expresses in Matt. 16:18. But it’s the meaning of his name, not Peter himself, that is significant to Christ’s play on words. Peter is personally significant only in WHAT he confesses regarding WHO Jesus is, and the Divine means BY which it was revealed to him (the Father). It is this revelation of Christ, and the Divine means by which that revelation is given to each believer, that Christ will build His Church, even to this present day. Who Messiah is, and what Messiah accomplished was first Divinely revealed and entrusted to His Apostles and, subsequently, they took that message out to the world. Hence, for this reason Paul says that the Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the corner stone (Eph. 2:20-22).
Notice Paul, in Ephesians, does not recognize Peter alone as any type of foundation. Such a notion is completely foreign to any of the Books of the N.T. If this was the meaning of Matt. 16:18, then it would have been a major theme throughout the Epistles. Paul would have constantly pointed his converts to Peter, as would have John, Luke, Jude, the writer of Hebrews, even Peter himself. But nothing, nada, zilch to that effect. All point to Christ, and Christ alone that “the word of the cross should not be made void” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-18).
M
MrS
Guest
*Isn’t it wonderful that the same Holy Spirit Who guided His Church in determining which books would be in the canon, is the same Holy Spirit Who guides the leaders of His Church in interpreting the scriptures.
Including the verses that warn of the dangers of self interpretation.
*
Including the verses that warn of the dangers of self interpretation.
*
A
Amadeus
Guest
DOXA:
Returning to your “simple” math:
The world’s population is slightly over 6 billion today. By all acounts, there are about 2 billion Christians.
Of the 2 billion Christians, there are slightly over 1 billion Catholics (East and West)!
Of the remaining 900 million Christians, 600 million are Protestants and pseudo-Christians while between 250 and 300 million are Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern).
(N.B. There are about 1.2 billion Muslims [Sunni, Shi’ite, and other sects] and about 800 million Hindus, both more than the Orthodox of all nationalities!)
Just some hard facts, my friend!
Returning to your “simple” math:
The world’s population is slightly over 6 billion today. By all acounts, there are about 2 billion Christians.
Of the 2 billion Christians, there are slightly over 1 billion Catholics (East and West)!
Of the remaining 900 million Christians, 600 million are Protestants and pseudo-Christians while between 250 and 300 million are Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern).
(N.B. There are about 1.2 billion Muslims [Sunni, Shi’ite, and other sects] and about 800 million Hindus, both more than the Orthodox of all nationalities!)
Just some hard facts, my friend!
M
MrS
Guest
I GUESS WE CATHOLICS HAVE OUR WORK CUT OUR FOR US.DOXA:
Returning to your “simple” math:
The world’s population is slightly over 6 billion today. By all acounts, there are about 2 billion Christians.
Of the 2 billion Christians, there are slightly over 1 billion Catholics AND PERHAPS 30% ARE STRONG PRACTICING CATHOLICS (East and West)!
Of the remaining 900 million Christians, 600 million are Protestants and pseudo-Christians while between 250 and 300 million are Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern).
(N.B. There are about 1.2 billion Muslims [Sunni, Shi’ite, and other sects] and about 800 million Hindus, both more than the Orthodox of all nationalities!)
Just some hard facts, my friend!
“Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing…”
F
Fidelis
Guest
You were doing OK until you got to this. This a classic case of wishful thinking–trying to make the text say what you want it to say based on a pre-supposition.
This is a pretty common objection. Since I know you read the article I provided, you must know that this has been answered.
Again, this is an interpretation based on a pre-supposition.
The inapplicabilty of this passage has been pointed out.
This too has been pointed out as being irrelevant. We’re starting to go in a loop.
E
etcevenio
Guest
Hi cazayoux
I would have added : 1Peter 5:1 :
“To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:”
and
Titus1:9 :
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”
T
thessalonian
Guest
It should be pointed out that there is significant unfaithfulness in the 600 mil protestants and 250 Orthodox as well. It is more difficult to put a number on it with the Protestants because they have various standards as to what a “faithful” protestant is. I know many Protestants who never go to Church and don’t open their Bibles (by the way I heard on Protestant radio that about half ever read their bibles at all). Yet call themselves born again Christian. I am sure there are similar considerations when discussing Orthodox “faithful”.DOXA:
Returning to your “simple” math:
The world’s population is slightly over 6 billion today. By all acounts, there are about 2 billion Christians.
Of the 2 billion Christians, there are slightly over 1 billion Catholics (East and West)!
Of the remaining 900 million Christians, 600 million are Protestants and pseudo-Christians while between 250 and 300 million are Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern).
(N.B. There are about 1.2 billion Muslims [Sunni, Shi’ite, and other sects] and about 800 million Hindus, both more than the Orthodox of all nationalities!)
Just some hard facts, my friend!
The numbers game and the spin of it does little to resolve the issues that divide us. God knows the hearts of men.
Blessings
L
linus
Guest
The problem is NONE of the above are examples of “Apostolic succession.” A “successor” is someone who immediately* replaces* someone else. The elders that were appointed in the various churches didn’t replace the Apostles, nor did Timothy replace Paul. Both Paul and Peter in the N.T. refer to their timely deaths, but neither talk of a successor. This is an unbiblical concept, totally foreign to the Scriptures.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
"Acts 1:15-26 (filling Judas’s position - he was gone, yet the office remained)"
There is an office that must be filled. This sounds like a position that needs succession. Since this position also happened to be Apostolic, wouldn’t this be an example of Apostolic Succession?
*** “Tim 1:18 (Paul passes on authority to Timothy)” *** Since Paul the Apostle knows he’s fixing to be crucified, he is passing on his position to Timoth. Isn’t this an example of Apostolic Succession?
Since we, the Catholic Church, know every Bishop of Rome, beginning with Peter, wouldn’t this be an example of Apostolic Succesion?
NotWorthy
There is an office that must be filled. This sounds like a position that needs succession. Since this position also happened to be Apostolic, wouldn’t this be an example of Apostolic Succession?
*** “Tim 1:18 (Paul passes on authority to Timothy)” *** Since Paul the Apostle knows he’s fixing to be crucified, he is passing on his position to Timoth. Isn’t this an example of Apostolic Succession?
Since we, the Catholic Church, know every Bishop of Rome, beginning with Peter, wouldn’t this be an example of Apostolic Succesion?
NotWorthy
R
RyanL
Guest
Actually, Acts 1:15-26 (mentioned above) is a direct mention of Apostolic Succession, just as 2 Tim 2:2 (mentioned above) fairly heavily implies.
Additionally, Apostolic Succession does not exclusively mean that when one dies another takes his place. While this is true, it’s not exhaustive of the term. It also means that the Apostolic Gift is transfered from one Bishop to another by the laying on of hands (2 Tim 1:6 - mentioned above) - this can be done while both are still living, and is to last for the entire life of the Church (Eph 4:11). St. Paul illustrated Jesus’ acceptance of there being more than 12 Apostles, and the ability of the Church (which is to Body of Christ - Col 1:24) to ordain more as required.
Finally, Paul ordained Timothy and Titus - Phil. 1:1 (and others - 1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul received Apostolic Authority from the Lord - John 20:21, 1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), and therefore wouldn’t need to mention a need for successors. Peter says the following in 2 Pet (NKJV):
The question is …how? Peter doesn’t discuss this further in the epistle, so how did he ensure the faithful would *always *have a reminder? He was on his way to his death and this was the last thing he wrote. Could it be that he would appoint someone to faithfully preach the Gospel as Peter received it? Could that be why the following could be said in 98 A.D., which was before the death of the Apostle John, BTW:
Thus it is shown to be both Biblical and historical. The ball is in your court.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
Interesting. Couple of points:
- Homer was using Attic Greek, not Koine Greek (which is the language of the NT). There were word changes.
- In Attic Greek, we also see Sophocles used petros for boulder in Oedipus at Colonus (1595OC). In Koine, we see Josephus in The War of the Jews use petra in the following way:
Hmmph. Petros = boulder for Sophocles, and Petra = boulder for Josephus. Kinda’ shoots down the idea that the two words are exclusive and indicate entirely different things.
Also, lithos was used for stones in the NT, not *petrodes *(which is derived from petra, BTW, not from petros). Petrodes is only used 4 times in the NT.
God Bless,
RyanL
J
JLove
Guest
If it can’t be shown in other uses within the same text or some other text from the same time period can you really put so much faith upon it as to make a doctrine. You say it was used as a proper name without losing its meaning as a common noun; how common can it be if you can’t find it anywhere? Rather you rely on a reference from a text written 800 years earlier. I’m not sure if you’re aware but languages undergo quite a change within that amount of time. I mean how well do you really understand Middle English?
.
Exactly, renamed simply because of who he was.
This cannot be the case look at John 1:49 and John 11:27
J
JLove
Guest
The words are extremely important and I don’t think anyone would deny that, but you can’t deny the importance of Peter himself.
The word for first there is prw/toj which can be either first in a chronological sense or first as in chief/primary. We know it must be the latter because Andrew came to Christ before Peter. (cf. John 1:40)
L
linus
Guest
The account recorded in Acts actually shuts the door on the Roman Catholic idea of “Apostolic succession” i.e., applying this so-called “succession” to its Bishops. In Acts they were simply bringing the number of the Apostles back up to twelve, the number chosen by Christ Himself. And these were the requirements: (1) accompanied them all the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them; (2) beginning with the baptism of John; (3) an eyewitness to the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ (Acts 1: 21-22).
If Peter was Rome’s first Bishop (which, of course, is greatly disputed), then surely the church of Rome had an Apostle as its first Pope. But unless Rome’s second Bishop was a Jew who was directly taught by Jesus Christ and an eyewitness of His bodily resurrection, then he would not, nor could not, qualify as Peter’s successor, muchless as an “Apostle.”
Nor did Timothy qualify in any of the above requirements, either. Did Paul ever address him as an Apostle (see 1 Tim. 1:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:1-2)? The “spiritual gift within” him, bestowed on him through prophetic utterance and with the laying on of hands through Paul and the presbytery (board of elders), was just that, a “spiritual gift,” not an office (1 Tim. 4:14).
Ryan, how does your present Pope fair with the above requirements presented by Peter himself in the first chapter of Acts? Was he from the beginning walking with the other original twelve during Christ’s earthly ministry (that would make him quite old, indeed)? Did he, himself, eyewitness Christ’s physical, bodily resurrection? Did the former Pope (John-Paul II), or the one before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, or…?
The ball remains in your court.
L
linus
Guest
You’re putting a meaning into the word which the context cannot bear. Matthew states nothing, nor implies, anything about rank, but simply a list of names. Peter is the first mentioned in the list. If we went with your logic, then Andrew would have a higher rank than John. I don’t think so!
R
RyanL
Guest
I agree, if you went just by Acts you could have a hard time going from 12 Apostles with the above requirements to the present state of hundreds of bishops who are 2000 years separated from the earthly life of Christ.
Thank God for St. Paul!
The reason I stated the following…
…was to show that Christ Himself made more than 12, and the 13th Apostle never walked with Christ and never witnessed Christ’s resurection. So…the requirements you have mentioned aren’t biblical.
See St. Paul. The Apostle.
You are right. I can’t find where Timothy was addressed as an Apostle. I can find an aweful lot about Bishops (especially in the epistles to Timothy), however, starting in again in Acts 1:
Acts 1 (KJV):
And here…
1 Tim 3 (KJV):
And then requirements are given by St. Paul that have nothing to do with being a physical witness to the Resurection. Additionally, by using the Greek word “episcopoi”, St. Paul’s readers would have known that this office has succession (again, see Acts 1 above).
Eph 4 (KJV):
I don’t see a limit placed here WRT any time. It appears that this is to last for the life of the Church. My conclusion seems supported by the following:
1 Cor 12 (NKJV):
Finally, you haven’t replied at all WRT the 1st / 2nd Century Christian Church’s understanding of Apostolic Succession and the place of Bishops. I can give you more quotes, if you would like…
I’d say he stacks up pretty well, having been ordained a bishop by the laying on of hands, exactly as the Bible says, and exactly has happened since God first breathed on the Apostles in John 20:22 and charged them with the office of bishop.
Pong.
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
linus,
Do you really think it’s an accident that Judas is always mentioned last? Wouldn’t this lend some credibility to the importance of order in listing names?
God Bless,
RyanL
L
linus
Guest
Paul was chosen directly by Christ Himself, and He personally saw and was taught by the resurrected Lord. Which he claims as his credentials for his Apostleship (1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11-12). Can any of your Popes honestly claim any of these credentials?
The requirements I mentioned are totally Biblical. Again, Paul was taught directly by Christ Himself (Gal. 1:11-12; 2 Cor. 12:1-4).
I am one of those who believes that Paul is the 12th Apostle. Chosen by Christ Himself. Scripture records in Acts what Peter suggested to the others concerning they drawing lots to chose another Apostle. But the account is void of stating that he was led by the Holy Spirit, or instructed by Christ, to do so.
Your quote from Clement is vague. You put a lot of your own meaning into it. Did Clement call himself an Apostle? Nevertheless, it doesn’t matter how men view it, but that which is Divinely revealed. True Christianity is based on Divine Revelation, never on men’s imagination.
Oh, so he personally witnessed the resurrected Lord? He was personally chosen by Christ (Gal. 1:1)? Has he performed the signs and wonders and miracles of a true Apostle (2 Cor. 12:12)?
Blessings to you.
L.
- Status