B
- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
The “keys” - attributed in the New Testament only to Christ (Revelation 1:18; cf. 3:7) and to Peter - are symbols of supreme power and authority (cf. Isaias 22:22). Hence Peter’s primacy is one not merely of honor but of jurisdiction; his power is plenary (“whatsover”), being subordinated to no earthly authority, since the judgements which he passes “on earth” are forthwith ratified “in heaven.” The character of the power bestowed is indicated in the words “bind” and “loose.” The terminology is that of the Rabbinical schools. What was prohibited was said to be “bound”; what was ruled to be lawful was said to be “loosed.” In both cases an obligation in conscience was implied. Thus Peter was to hold authority before God over the members of Christ’s Church. Of this our Lord, forseeing the coming denial, was to remind him at the Last Supper: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you [plural], that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee [singular], that thy faith fail not; and you, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32) We may note the parallels: Satan hath desired you - the gates of hell; I have prayed for thee - I will build upon this rock; confirm thy brethren - Peter the stabilizing force in the apostolic college.
M
Montgomeryatty
Guest
Apophasis, sorry I’ve not replied to you yet.
In brief, you’re wrong. Heisenburg’s point is precisely valid without any notion of the “unique Roman idea of divinely appointed ‘successorts to Peter.’” It was for this reason that I latched onto it to make my point. Specifically, whether Peter was the rock, as opposed to his confession of faith, is a wholly separate issue from whether he is the Pope. Peter’s designation as the Rock (in a personal sense), and his clear Biblical role as the leader of the early Church only mean that he was essentially first as some sort of senior pastor (as heisenburg noted).
There is a second part to any Petrine analysis: Whether he was given an “office” that was outside of himself, beyond himself, and would last after his death with successors filling that office. You are incorrectly assuming that the Papacy question requires 100% agreement or disagreement. The fact is that they are two separate questions: (1) Was Peter the Rock? and (2) What does that appointment mean? The second question is where any serious theologian asks himself about the keys, binding and loosing, etc.
Deny the second part if you must, but each and every one of your he-wasn’t-the-Rock arguments is lame, tired, and easily refuted straight from the Bible.
J
john_ennis
Guest
apophasis;2048127}:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Gee, you seem to have forgotten to mention to your readers that the next “you” is singular…as in, “Blessed are YOU Simon son of Jonah…” Jesus gave the authority to lead the Church to Kepha (or Peter if you speak English) alone.
But I agree the passage is all about Jesus. It’s about how HE would build HIS Church with Peter as the head. Contrary to common Protestant opinion, the Catholic Church is ALL about Jesus - it is His Bride, His Body. She speaks for her Beloved.
Agreed. You certainly don’t want to read into the passage the idea that it is Peter’s faith, or his confession that Jesus is declaring the rock. This simply isn’t in the text. Good pick up there!
You mean other than the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John mention Peter 195 times…more than any other Apostle by far?
Or the fact that these authors list Peter first in the lists of apostles EVERY time?
Or the fact that the Apostle Matthew specifically references the keys from Isaiah 22 as a bookmark for his Jewish audience - a clear allusion to the institution of an office?
Or the fact that the Apostle John (writing 40-50 years later) specifically mentions Jesus, the Good Shepherd, commissioning Peter to “Feed my lambs, Take care of my sheep, feed my sheep” in John 21. Since the Church was on its 3rd or 4th pope by that time, one has to wonder why John didn’t take the opportunity to take Peter down a peg or two…hmmmm?
One Apostle showed Jesus giving Peter the Keys, another showed Jesus Jesus Peter the Shepherd’s Crook, and no apostle ever showed Jesus taking them back!
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
H
heisenburg
Guest
Apop… I think you have your definitions confused…
An Assertion is a ‘teaching’ or ‘proclaiming’ of an understanding or interpretation…
In other words, to say that we are asserting, but not interpreting is completely wrong… We Assert our Interpretation…
Just as you assert your interpretation of our interpretation is wrong
Any Assertion comes from an understanding of something… biblical or not…
Please do not twist words
I would also like to comment you ignored the very clear point I made.
Why are YOU allowed to have head pastors, and the Catholics are not.
What is the problem with Peter being head pastor. As mentioned, there are many instances in the bible where Peter by inference was in charge. Paul submits to Peter, Peter is the head of the Apostolic Council in Acts, Christ tells peter to feed his sheep.
This is not an apostolic succession issue… its a what is so wrong with the biblical understanding that Peter was Head pastor?
Head Pastors are needed… That is in the bible…
Please… no hypocracy… if you can say your Church/Denomonation can have leaders… Whats wrong with the Catholic chusch having its own leaders…
Why are you so dead set on saying something that is opposite to the bible?
In Christ
An Assertion is a ‘teaching’ or ‘proclaiming’ of an understanding or interpretation…
In other words, to say that we are asserting, but not interpreting is completely wrong… We Assert our Interpretation…
Just as you assert your interpretation of our interpretation is wrong
Any Assertion comes from an understanding of something… biblical or not…
Please do not twist words
I would also like to comment you ignored the very clear point I made.
Why are YOU allowed to have head pastors, and the Catholics are not.
What is the problem with Peter being head pastor. As mentioned, there are many instances in the bible where Peter by inference was in charge. Paul submits to Peter, Peter is the head of the Apostolic Council in Acts, Christ tells peter to feed his sheep.
This is not an apostolic succession issue… its a what is so wrong with the biblical understanding that Peter was Head pastor?
Head Pastors are needed… That is in the bible…
Please… no hypocracy… if you can say your Church/Denomonation can have leaders… Whats wrong with the Catholic chusch having its own leaders…
Why are you so dead set on saying something that is opposite to the bible?
In Christ
T
TheApologist
Guest
I have a question: Do you believe the Bible is infallible?
To understand a reading…you have to make an ASSERTION on what it is saying. I’m saying how do you know that your ASSERTION is correct? Are you not infallible? Do you have the ultimate authority on this matter?
When you read something I think the only complete assertion you can make alone(without a Catholic Church Magisterium perhaps) is that the passage uses certain words in a certain order. This is the only “infallible” assertion you can make. “Interpreting” it on your own is a very fallible assertion.
A
apophasis
Guest
Sean Boyle:
Gal. 1:17 “…I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me”
In Gal. 1:18 Paul says he went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with “Cephas,” he says nothing about being “instructed” by him. Don’t change or add to the Word of God.
You’ve got it backwards, Sean. If Paul received his commission via Peter, then all he could have ever been was a missionary. Apostles are only appointed by Christ (Gal. 1:1), and one of the requisites is that he had to have seen Him after His bodily resurrection. They (His appointed Apostles) were to be His eyewitnesses to His bodily resurrection (Acts 1:8)."1 Cor 9:1 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?Have all the Roman Popes and Bishops who claim the office of Apostle seen the risen Lord? Which one’s were personally instructed by Him?
A
apophasis
Guest
Well of course. Do the bishops of Rome never acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope over them?
No, actually a correct understanding of Jesus’ words is what is enough. For example, Jn. 21:20-23.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
T
TheApologist
Guest
You know that passage highlights that Jesus wanted the papacy. He said, “what if I want him to remain until I come?”
Obviously since Peter died, he as an individual could not remain on earth until Jesus’s 2nd coming. BUT the office of pope COULD remain and so the office will remain until Jesus comes again.
Also you fail to quote John 21: 15-18
In it Jesus tells Peter to “Feed my lambs” “Tend my sheep” “Feed my sheep”
If Jesus wasn’t telling Peter to govern the church on earth, I don’t know what He was doing.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Okay if it helps you understand better…
Verse 17 speaks of Paul’s call to faith being by Christ not like his detractors at the time “the Judiazers”.
Gal.1:18… Paul goes to “confer” with Cephias. Don’t change scripture to your opinions!!!
Paul recieved his commission from Christ. Out of obedience to Christ and his Church, Paul goes to Jerusalem before being sent out to do the work of Christ: ie the Catholic Church. He did not preach until this visit to Jerusalem, did he?! No!
If you want to believe that Paul was just a missionary not an apostle then several passages contradict your statement. Including Gal 1:1, Romans 1:1.
A
Atemi
Guest
In there is not a single reference to being the monarchial ruler of all Christians everywhere.
What we do see is a threefold confirmation of what Peter was called to do. Peter denied our Lord three times, so our Lord reaffirms Peter three times. Our Lord did this specifically on His third appearance to His disciples after His Resurrection.
But even in this exchange, Peter fails Jesus Christ in a certain respect.
Our Lord specifically asked Peter twice:
“Do you love (agape) Me?”
Peter could not agree with our Lord at the time and confirm Him. Peter responded both times:
“You know I love (phileo) You.”
That is not what our Lord asked both times.
Jesus then brought His question down a notch for Peter and asks Him if he loves (phileo) Him, and to this Peter frustratingly agrees.
But we must remember that it is God’s command that all church elders do just as Peter was called to do. Even Peter tells us so:
1Pe 5:2 “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you”
That word “shepherd” there is the same exact word Christ used with Peter.
Peter was not the only one called to feed Christ’s sheep. If we were to look back and find the first reference to these verses as teaching a monachial papacy for all bishops of Rome, we would not be impressed to see how the early church did not see what many in the RCC insist they see plainly today.
This is significant.
…
B
Bishopite
Guest
T
Tomster
Guest
Jesus drew from Peter his three-fold profession of love in answer to the thrice repeated question: “Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?” Taught wisdom as well as penitence by his denials, Peter had lost his impetuous self-confidence. He relied now not on the force of his own protestations, but on his Master’s knowledge of men’s hearts: “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.” He was rewarded by being entrusted with the care of Christ’s flock. Peter was appointed shepherd over the sheep for whom Christ laid down His life. The perpetuity of his office, as the visible Head of Christ’s Church, had been made known after his profession of faith at Caesarea Philippi; he was the “rock,” as durable as the Church itself, co-extensive with its life, “until the consummation of the world.” Here, in response to his profession of love, was given him the universality of the pastoral charge. There would always be sheep of the Christian flock; different sheep, as age succeeded age; so there would ever be a Peter, a shepherd to tend the flock until “the Chief Shepherd makes his appearance,” to reward every true pastor with “the unfading wreath of glory.”
T
Tomster
Guest
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
This one always cracks me up when I see it. Petra does not exist in this verse.
Also Foundation and Rock are two completely different entities.
From Esword:
Stone is a translators insertion.
**Mt 16:18 **kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV, kai epi tauth th **petra **oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian, kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV.
Petra is in the red in the above greek. Do you see the same word down below?
**Eph 2:20 **epoikodomhqenteV epi tw qemeliw twn apostolwn kai profhtwn, ontoV akrogwniaiou autou cristou ihsou,
Notice the words in blue. One of them is missing from the English Translation.
**tauth **outoV,rd {hoo’-tos}
- this, these, etc.
- the 2) this, that, these, etc.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Also what is the real context of the passage if you look at the verse before it and the verse after it.
The Gentiles lacked Israel’s messianic expectation, lacked the various covenants God made with Israel, lacked hope of salvation and knowledge of the true God (Eph 2:11-12); but through Christ all these religious barriers between Jew and Gentile have been transcended (Eph 2:13-14) by the abolition of the Mosaic covenant-law (Eph 2:15) for the sake of uniting Jew and Gentile into a single religious community (Eph 2:15-16), imbued with the same holy Spirit and worshiping the same Father (Eph 2:18). The Gentiles are now included in God’s household (Eph 2:19) as it arises upon the foundation of apostles assisted by those endowed with the prophetic gift (Eph 3:5), the preachers of Christ (Eph 2:20; cf 1 Cor 12:28). With Christ as the capstone (Eph 2:20; cf Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 21:42), they are being built into the holy temple of God’s people where the divine presence dwells (Eph 2:21-22).
T
TheApologist
Guest
was the only earthly one called to be the Rock.
It is significant. Yet you still do not back up your claim with quotes showing Peter being treated any lower or equal to the other apostles. You haven’t quoted passages which state that Peter wasn’t the ultimate authority. You haven’t quoted words stating that some other earthly person had more authority in the Church than Peter when he was alive.
H
HailMary
Guest
Before you can understand, you would need to let go of your man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura made popular by Martin Luther, the father of your denomination.
If you gather enough courage, and ask God for some help, perhaps He will show mercy and rid you of this heresy.
Here is a good starting point:
geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
- ISAIAH 22: 20-22
MATTHEW 16:17-19
REVELATIONS 3:7
JOHN 21:15-17 – JESUS, THE GOOD SHEPARD, COMMANDS PETER TO “FEED HIS LAMBS”, INDICATING THAT NOW, WHILE JESUS IS AWAY, PETER, AND HIS SUCCESSORS WILL BE THE SHEPARDS OF CHRISTS FLOCK.
- Status