Can a Catholic please refute this interpretation of Matt 16:18?

[searn77]

I am still studying and praying about which church to belong to, Catholic or Orthodox. I’ve heard arguments about the interpretation of Matt 16:18 from a Catholic perspective with short quotes from early church fathers. And then I read “The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18” by William Webster where he takes some of the quotes from the early church fathers that some Catholic apologists use and explains the context to which they were given. Here’s a link to the article:

the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

This is a quote from the conclusion of the article that sums up what the author of the article believes as to what the early church fathers believed: “Though the fathers spoke in very exalted terms about the apostle Peter, their comments were not applied in an exclusive sense to the bishop of Rome, nor did they view the Roman bishops as given universal jurisdiction over the Church. Although they saw the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter, they did not see them as the exclusive successors of Peter, nor as the universal rulers of the Church, nor the see of Rome as the only apostolic see.”

I want to keep a clear and open mind about the pope and I’m really not exactly sure what to believe because before I read this, I really was siding towards Catholicism (I would most likely become Byzantine Catholic though and not Roman Catholic), but now I’m unsure. If a Catholic member could refute this article I would appreciate it, not because I just don’t want to believe it but because I want to gain a Catholic perspective about this exact article to help me in my journey. And I know that there has to be multiple threads about Matt 16:18 with dialogues from Catholics and Orthodox members who explain what they believe, but I would like this one to stick to the article at hand, because I’m pretty sure I have read most if not all of those threads. I want people to keep an open mind, read this (or at least scam and and catch the gist of it), and still refute it by siding with Catholicism and explain to me why Catholicism is right. If you would do this I would greatly appreciate it.
And also, are there any similar articles that give quotes from the early church fathers, explains them, and provides a detailed context of the quotes to help me understand the early church’s viewpoints (specifically on the pope having a ‘primacy of authority’ instead of a ‘primacy of honor’ and also how the pope is infallible)? Thanks a lot!

 

[thistle]

I am still studying and praying about which church to belong to, Catholic or Orthodox. I’ve heard arguments about the interpretation of Matt 16:18 from a Catholic perspective with short quotes from early church fathers. And then I read “The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18” by William Webster where he takes some of the quotes from the early church fathers that some Catholic apologists use and explains the context to which they were given. Here’s a link to the article:

the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

This is a quote from the conclusion of the article that sums up what the author of the article believes as to what the early church fathers believed: “Though the fathers spoke in very exalted terms about the apostle Peter, their comments were not applied in an exclusive sense to the bishop of Rome, nor did they view the Roman bishops as given universal jurisdiction over the Church. Although they saw the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter, they did not see them as the exclusive successors of Peter, nor as the universal rulers of the Church, nor the see of Rome as the only apostolic see.”

I want to keep a clear and open mind about the pope and I’m really not exactly sure what to believe because before I read this, I really was siding towards Catholicism (I would most likely become Byzantine Catholic though and not Roman Catholic), but now I’m unsure. If a Catholic member could refute this article I would appreciate it, not because I just don’t want to believe it but because I want to gain a Catholic perspective about this exact article to help me in my journey. And I know that there has to be multiple threads about Matt 16:18 with dialogues from Catholics and Orthodox members who explain what they believe, but I would like this one to stick to the article at hand, because I’m pretty sure I have read most if not all of those threads. I want people to keep an open mind, read this (or at least scam and and catch the gist of it), and still refute it by siding with Catholicism and explain to me why Catholicism is right. If you would do this I would greatly appreciate it.
And also, are there any similar articles that give quotes from the early church fathers, explains them, and provides a detailed context of the quotes to help me understand the early church’s viewpoints (specifically on the pope having a ‘primacy of authority’ instead of a ‘primacy of honor’ and also how the pope is infallible)? Thanks a lot!

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp
catholic.com/library/peter_and_the_papacy.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9707frs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9302clas.asp

 

[NotWorthy]

Searn,

What you are going to find is that men, being men, are what they are. There are numerous cases of Church Fathers bringing issues or controversies to the Holy Father. At this stage, they are declaring how absolute is his rule in the Church. But, after finding out the Pope didn’t rule in their favor, these same Church Fathers then discredit the Pope’s authority. Tertullian and Origen come to mind, but its well detailed in Steve Ray’s “Upon this Rock”.

A couple of other striking examples come to mind.

The Church in Corinth went to Rome to settle the matter of “non-Apostolically ordained priests”. Rome was quite a distance away and the Apostle John was still alive. Why did the Church appeal to St. Clement (roughly 90AD) when they could have gone to St. John? Then the Church in Corinth read the Epistle of Clement during their Church liturgies, treating the letter as Scripture, for roughly the next 100 years.

Another example is in the 2nd century when Pope Victor ex-communicated the entire Easter Church (over the issue of when to celebrate Easter). When people appealed to the Pope to rescind the ex-communication, they never questioned the Pope’s authority to issue the order, just the wisdom in issuing it.

 

[Benadam]

Well sir, I’m a Catholic, certainly no scholar of Church history but here is my take on what you presented nevertheless.

it seems to me that the author of the article has formed a view supported by a common misconception albeit from a less than common understanding of the subject of authority. This misconception is a false understanding that presupposes that something can’t be true if this other thing is when both can coexist harmoniously in truth.

The author perhaps rightly concludes;

‘Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18–19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its ‘spiritual’ members.’

Peter being a representative of the entire Church doesn’t invalidate the conduit of authority to successors who themselves do not ‘in their own person’ as Peter does, represent the entire Church. Tertullian is explaining that there is only one doorway and it was opened in front of Peter not any other.

The author’s misconception of the nature of Peter’s exclusivity leads him to cite this as proof that succession is impossible.

In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome.

here is the quote the author references;

you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?

Tertullian is explaining that the authority is not received directly from God by any other man but Peter. The successors receive Peter’s authority that he received from God. Apparently some were misunderstanding the conduit of divine authority on earth, as it seems to me, is the author of the article.

On to Origen who say’s,

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc.

The author can’t be presuming that Origen is teaching that the gift of faith in Christ and the Father’s revelation to mankind of His Son are one and the same? No, he is expressing the characteristics of oneness the gift of faith through hearing has with the gift of faith given to Peter from the Father. They are not of the same order and therefore are not bound by the same order.

I’m just an ordinary Catholic layman and I hope I didn’t muddle your view, if so I pray a more knowledgeable Catholic correct what I’ve posted here.

May God bless your journey

Yours in Christ

Marvin

 

[BrianH]

The Church in Corinth went to Rome to settle the matter of “non-Apostolically ordained priests”. Rome was quite a distance away and the Apostle John was still alive. Why did the Church appeal to St. Clement (roughly 90AD) when they could have gone to St. John? Then the Church in Corinth read the Epistle of Clement during their Church liturgies, treating the letter as Scripture, for roughly the next 100 years.

Another example is in the 2nd century when Pope Victor ex-communicated the entire Easter Church (over the issue of when to celebrate Easter). When people appealed to the Pope to rescind the ex-communication, they never questioned the Pope’s authority to issue the order, just the wisdom in issuing it.

The Epistle of Clement has a wide range.

The date of this Epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some persecution (chap. i.) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or Domitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century or the beginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of this question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him and the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter doubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. The probability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the Epistle may be dated about a.d. 97.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html

The date of this Epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some persecution (chap. i.) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or Domitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century or the beginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of this question.

biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/ANF01/ANF0104.HTM#P157_12341

Clement is associated with Paul. As Father Ambrose pointed out on a few occasions, their close association and possibly travel together would have made Clement a likely person to intervene as a companion of Paul.
The Apostle John’s death has one source that says he died at the time of Trajan…rougly at the end of the first century. However, we cannot be certain of any details about his condition at this time or if he was indeed alive due to a wide range of dating.

The statement about Bishop Victor is also an overstatement of what we actually know. For example, some contend Victor rescended his excommunication but that is an assumption. No patristic evidence exists that supports that.
And people objected plenty!

This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom (Eusebius, Church History V.23-25). We have no information concerning the further course of the matter under Victor I so far as it regards the bishops of Asia.

catholic encyclopedia

I will include the pertinent section in my next post about Bishop Victor.

 

[po18guy]

Are we not overlooking the fact that the Catholic Church exists in virtually every nation on earth? Thus, its claim to “universal” status holds water. It truly, at the price of the Martyr’s blood, has made “disciples of every nation”. Is the Eastern Orthodox Church expanding to all nations, per Christ’s command? It is, to the best of my knowledge, not present in every nation.

They have their own Patriarch, a reflection of the pope’s authority. On principle, I keep it simple and realize that the Lord did not populate His Church with theologians of advanced degree, rather with common sinners. Thus, doesn’t the simplest and most direct explanation (primacy of Peter/successors) suit the purpose best? Is it not best for unity, always a concern even to the Apostles?

To reject the Bishop of Rome in 50, 60, 70 or 2009 AD is to reject the authority of the Church which Christ founded, since it flies in the face of consistent Church practice, from the Apostolic age onwards. IMHO.

 

[BrianH]

But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

1. We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

1. He fell asleep at Ephesus.

1. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.

1. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

1. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

1. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man.

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

1. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

1. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

1. For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

1. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.

1. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:

Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which you now rule. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.

1. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before you who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.

1. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

1. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.

1. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

Irenaeus did not think Victor should cut off unity with other churches. Any of the bishops could cut off unity. That is what they are talking about.

 

[COPLAND_3]

St. Irenaeus, who was taught by Polycarp, and Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John, shows that the See of Rome was supreme, read the first two paragraphs newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Epistle of Clement has a wide range.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html

biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/ANF01/ANF0104.HTM#P157_12341

Clement is associated with Paul. As Father Ambrose pointed out on a few occasions, their close association and possibly travel together would have made Clement a likely person to intervene as a companion of Paul.
The Apostle John’s death has one source that says he died at the time of Trajan…rougly at the end of the first century. However, we cannot be certain of any details about his condition at this time or if he was indeed alive due to a wide range of dating.

He is mentioned once in Scripture and this makes him a “likely person”? Its funny, though, that Clement doesn’t mention this in his letter, regarding why Corinth should rescind their falsely selected priests.

The statement about Bishop Victor is also an overstatement of what we actually know. For example, some contend Victor rescended his excommunication but that is an assumption. No patristic evidence exists that supports that.
And people objected plenty!

catholic encyclopedia

I will include the pertinent section in my next post about Bishop Victor.

But none of those protests questioned Victor’s authority to do it - they simply questioned the wisdom displayed by Victor.

BTW, haven’t you and I been down this road before?

 

[NotWorthy]

Irenaeus did not think Victor should cut off unity with other churches. Any of the bishops could cut off unity. That is what they are talking about.

I agree with your summation. But where in this cacophony of vociferous uproars do they question the authority of Victor to do this?

 

[Benadam]

from post #8

tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority

,

doesn’t this settle St. Irenaeus’ view?

 

[BrianH]

I agree with your summation. But where in this cacophony of vociferous uproars do they question the authority of Victor to do this?

He is cutting off unity. ANY bishop can cut off the unity of his church from the others. We do not have any evidence that Victor said by my authority etc. What we have is a bishop essentially telling everyone else they are not part of the Unity. The passage self defines excommunicate.
Polycrates **does **say he does not have to listen to Victor and said he only has to obey God. That is the only direct statement that survives and it shows he thought he did not have to listen to Victor. We have no surviving statements that show that any Bishop actually listened and thought he had “authority”.
The unity was not the result of his authority unless you are predisposed to think that was the case. Like the Orthodox today, the unity was the result of all of their choice to be united.
Remember there is no evidence that Victor rescinded his excommunication. That is what is often claimed but as the Catholic Encyclopedia supports we do not know what happened.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Mr. Webster is a little disingenuous when he cites the words of Tertullian from his treatise, On Modesty,failing to mention that when he wrote that treatise he had already separated himself from the Catholic Church and was a full-fledged Montanist heretic. In his treatise, this heretic expressed his opinion that a bishop, presumably the bishop of Rome, had exceeded his authority, acting as a “bishop of bishops,” by unilaterally issuing a decree that churches were to readmit repentant adulterers to communion, a decree Tertullian objected to, and Tertullian thought that the bishop’s appeal to Matthew 16:18-19 for justification for issuing such a unilateral decree was unfounded.

The question we should ask ourselves is, Whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 should we accept, a bishop’s or the heretic’s? My money is on the bishop.

If nothing else, Tertullian’s remarks support the idea that the bishop of Rome, as early as A.D. 220, was acting very pope-like, unilaterally issuing decrees to churches and appealing to Matthew 16:18-19 as justification for the authority to do so.

 

[M0nkey]

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

If you misread scripture, it is very likely you’ll misread the church fathers. Here St. Augustine is not disproving anything that involves the authority of the bishop of rome. To put it succinctly, he is simply stating that Christ is the rock in which the church rests, which is consistent with Catholic teaching. In this article most the patristic writtings are neither against or for the pope since it has nothing to do with the subjects they write about.

I see this question of authority being fought from the early stages of humanity, no one wants to submit to truth, no one wants to follow. They simply stand, in contrast to authority, and create one for themselves. So the question is this, who’s authority is it, and who’s interpretation of scripture do you follow? Your own? The Church? Or someone else?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Mr. Webster says that Catholics misinterpret Matthew 16:18-19, when they say that it refers to Peter and the bishops of Rome, because Origen says it refers to all believers. Mr. Webster also says that Catholics misinterpret it because Cyprian says it refers to all bishops. By the same logic, Mr. Webster must also admit either Origen misinterprets it or Cyprian misinterpret it because they do not agree with each other.

Or, Mr. Webster must admit that Matthew 16:18-19 is open to different interpretations and, consequently, the Catholic interpretation may be just as correct as that of Origen and Cyprian. On one level it refers to all believers (Origen) and on another level it refers to the bishop of the local church (Cyprian). Whose to say that on still another lever it can’t refer to the bishop of the whole Church, the bishop of Rome?

Without foundation, Mr. Webster indicates that Cyprian wrote a second rendition of his treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church because his first rendition was being misused by those who supported the idea of the primacy of the Church of Rome. The fact is that we do not know why there are two renditions. My guess is that the first rendition (favorable to Roman primacy) was produced before Cyprian and the bishop of Rome, Stephen, had their falling out over the issue of the rebaptism of returning heretics which Cyprian supported but Stephen opposed. When Stephen issued a unilateral decree that the returning heretics were not to be rebaptized, Cyprian opposed him and, like the heretic Tertullian before him, Cyprian accused the bishop of Rome of exceeding his authority and acting as a “bishop of bishops.” It was at this time that Cyprian wrote his second rendition (less favorable to Roman primacy).

If nothing else, at the time of Cyprian, about A.D. 255, the bishop of Rome was acting very pope-like, unilaterally issuing decrees to churches.

 

[Ruthie]

The Webster argument says:

The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is* built upon* Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon *all *the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching. And in addition, the Roman Catholic interpretation imports a meaning into the Matthew 16 text that is completely absent. This text says absolutely nothing about infallibility or about successors.

Once again, we have a case of proof-texting. Eph 2:20 is not even a complete sentence!

built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

It is part of a longer passage (vv. 11-22) which is about the Jews and the Gentiles being joined together into one family of God. The word “church” (Greek Ecclesia) is not used.

Paul could have said “Peter and the other Apostles and Elijah and the other prophets,” but that would be pretty clunky.

On the other hand, Jesus does use the word “church” in Mt 16:18.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Taken in its context, Mt 16:13-20, there are two parts. First, that Jesus is the Son of God, and second, the establishment of His church. What Jesus said about it includes vv. 18-20. Webster leaves out the next verse:

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This refers to Isa 22:15-25. (And “you” is singular, meaning it’s about Peter, not the other apostles.)

15 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: … I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, … And I will place on his shoulder the ****key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

bolding mine.

The steward gets the keys of the ruler’s house. The steward’s authority is such that nobody may open what he has shut, or vice versa. Jesus gave Peter the steward’s job, in the Church. The steward is not the ruler; he does the ruler’s bidding, and passes it on to the ruler’s other servants. In this, Peter is certainly unique. And since he has the power of binding and loosing, he can pass the steward’s job on to someone else.

(For more on the steward and his job, see Gen 44.)

Hope this helps!

God bless,

Ruthie

 

[RMallory]

This passage, “I also say to you that you are (A)Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (B)Hades will not overpower it.” (NASB) has two common interpretations. Both seek to define, “this Rock”. The first is that Peter, the person, whose name means rock is the one whom God has chosen to build His Church. The other common definition, especially in protestant circles this the Rock is referring to Peter’s confession that the Church will be build upon that faith. Both lead down a similar path, the Church is build upon faith in Jesus Christ.

The critical turning point is Jesus himself called Peter to the ministry of establishing his Church. The faith he expressed in Matthew 16:18 and Jesus affirmed is the heritage of the Catholic Church.

One of the images of the Pope is the heir of Peter’s Chair as the head of the Church, which was ordained by Jesus in Matthew 16:18.

I hope this helps.

RM

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve heard also that Jesus means Himself when He says “Upon this Rock”. That would be linguistically ungrammatical.

It would be like Brett Favre going into coaching, drafting Colt McCoy and saying, “Colt, you have been gifted by God with great football talent. So, I tell you, Colt, you are a quarterback, and upon this quarterback I will build my team”.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Regarding Cyprian’s use of the phrase "the chair of Peter, it is true that, on the local level, a bishop sits in “the chair of Peter” in his own local church, as the source of unity of that local church.

However, elsewhere in Cyprian’s writings, he seems to have regarded the bishop of Rome as sitting in “the chair of Peter” on the universal level, as the source of unity among the bishops of the whole Church, at least before his own falling out with the bishop of Rome, Stephen, over the issue of the rebaptism of returning heretics. In a letter to Cornelius of Rome, Stephen’s predecessor, he says:With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance*. (Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome, A.D. 252,* [59 (55), 14], as found in William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, p. 232)The idea seems to be: Christians can be sure that they are in the Church when they are in communion with their bishop. Bishops can be sure that they are in the Church when they are in communion with the bishop of Rome.