T
Tomyris
Guest
Well, that is what a lot of Protestants believe, but since it probably is of no interest to anyone around here, I will just let this little thread die a lonely,miserable death. Sigh.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
It would be an interesting take on Mt 16:18, in which Jesus is speaking to Peter alone, and in which he mentions the keys to the kingdom (cf Is 22:22 to understand what that reference means), to suggest what Jesus meant, if He didn’t mean authority in the Church. 
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
Ok, ill bite.
Christ is the head of the Church.
Jesus gave Peter a special anointing and authority.
Christ is the head of the Church.
Jesus gave Peter a special anointing and authority.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Christ is always and will be always the head of the Church. And he is the rock of the faith, as he said in today’s gospel reading.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.It would be an interesting take on Mt 16:18, in which Jesus is speaking to Peter alone, and in which he mentions the keys to the kingdom (cf Is 22:22 to understand what that reference means), to suggest what Jesus meant, if He didn’t mean authority in the Church.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Good point. Catholics don’t assert that Peter’s leadership supercedes Jesus’. Rather, Peter is the temporal leader of the Church (as is each subsequent pope); not as a successor of Christ, but only as His Vicar…
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
No, it actually helps support what catholics believe. Peter, the popes…they are not free from being unable to error. They can not error when they definitively speak on faith or morals when they are speaking to the entire church meaning to make permanent change.
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
and dude…he was not being strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge…he LOVED Jesus… He didn’t want to see Him harmed.
Don’t be too tough on our brother Peter.
Don’t be too tough on our brother Peter.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
That’s not what Peter, nor the bishops in the early church taught. That doctrine would take hundreds of years to show up.
A
adrift
Guest
Please give references that they did not teach this. I have been reading Warren Carroll’s history and he doesn’t support your statement. That doctrine was there from the first. Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep. He asked him three times if Peter loved Him. Making up for the three denials?
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
He most certainly was accepted by the community as first…as evidence by the writers of the gospels and the actions of the community:
His name is always listed first with apotles OR its “Peter and the apostles”.
When they ran to the tomb…the others waited outside even though they got there first and let peter go in…
over and over again we see his respect and authority:
from the Vatican website…the proof:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19921216en.html
His name is always listed first with apotles OR its “Peter and the apostles”.
When they ran to the tomb…the others waited outside even though they got there first and let peter go in…
over and over again we see his respect and authority:
from the Vatican website…the proof:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19921216en.html
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Warren Carroll also advocated that folks like me be tortured and killed by the RC denomination. I am thinking he wasn’t serious but it left a foul taste in my mouth.
Anyway, the bishops of the early church accepted that the Petrine ministry is for ALL the bishops.
Cyprian:
The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. 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 (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).
**Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; **but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).
T
Tomyris
Guest
Well, that is followed by v21ff - Peter tries to be in charge again, and again gets rebuked.
Do you see a pattern here?
The argument being explored on this thread is that Peter being in charge was not Christ’s idea, but Peter’s, and so it was an early corruption of the will of Christ in the church. Thus, if you use a church father as authoritative, it can be dismissed as contaminated evidence.
When they argued about who was the greatest among them, did Jesus say Peter? No. It was a perfect opportunity.
T
Tomyris
Guest
I am not the one who called him Satan. If you insist he is the rock you have to insist he is the devil, too.
I am not going to call him names, though.
A
adrift
Guest
So when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter it didn’t mean anything? Jesus didn’t know that Simon would betray Him or try to deter Him from His mission? The fact that Peter later was a stumbling block to Jesus does not wipe away the declaration that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church … 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. As Jesus knew what Judas would do so He knew what Peter would do.
A
adrift
Guest
Seriously, Jesus was not saying he was Satan but that he was doing Satan’s work of being a stumbling block to Jesus’ mission.
T
Tomyris
Guest
So it didn’t mean anything when he called him Satan?
And we can argue (yes we can!) whether Peter or faith or Christ was the rock. If it was Peter’s idea that he was in charge, not Christ’s, then he was not the rock, definitely not.
H
howirenic
Guest
LOL. Staying out of this one…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Peter’s confession of faith (v. 16:16) was inspired by the Father, and he receives the blessing of Jesus (v. 16:17). However, in v. 23, Jesus rebukes Peter because Peter’s natural instincts object to a suffering Messiah. On his own, Peter cannot see the spiritual necessity of Jesus’ passion.
Thus, in a few short verses, Peter learns what it is like to receive revelation from the Father and to be chastised for relying on his own human understanding apart from God.
This was all part of maturing as the man who would one day be responsible for leading, tending and caring for the Church built by Jesus.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You are misinformed.
I have two dozen quotes from Protestant scholars and Bible commentaries (some of which you may have on your shelf) that say Peter was the rock.
Need to see them? :coffeeread:
- Status