J
joe371
Guest
You mean alleged… right…? Or, were you given a direct line of communication to God, who then clues you in on matters of truth?
- Status
J
joe371
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Speaking of names, Jesus renamed him “rock” (Cephas - see John 1:42; 1Co 1:12,3:22,9:5,15:5; Ga 1:18,2:9, 2:11,2:14). So it’s not I, but Jesus, who insists that he is the rock. And John & St. Paul attest to this.
Jesus did not rename Simon “Satan.”
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Exactly.
Jesus is of the Holy Trinity, and God is the Unmoved Mover. God does not state something then change His mind.
Peter – beyond himself - confessed Who he would serve and in what context - the Son of the Living God as head of Christ’s Church.
Moments later, Peter’s humanity returned, depending on his own strength and fear of suffering, and in that weakness, Satan spoke through him to again – try not to allow the Lord to fulfill His ministry here on earth.
What it shows is that from our head down to the common believer, we cannot trust in our own judgement and way of looking at things, but be open to constant transformation in Christ, to see things and respond to them in the Lord…not man who is a self serving coward.
It is all about the openness to grace…and in the Church, it is Christ Himself Who calls those chosen to serve as His ministers of the Blood…referring to S. Catherine of Siena.
Jesus is of the Holy Trinity, and God is the Unmoved Mover. God does not state something then change His mind.
Peter – beyond himself - confessed Who he would serve and in what context - the Son of the Living God as head of Christ’s Church.
Moments later, Peter’s humanity returned, depending on his own strength and fear of suffering, and in that weakness, Satan spoke through him to again – try not to allow the Lord to fulfill His ministry here on earth.
What it shows is that from our head down to the common believer, we cannot trust in our own judgement and way of looking at things, but be open to constant transformation in Christ, to see things and respond to them in the Lord…not man who is a self serving coward.
It is all about the openness to grace…and in the Church, it is Christ Himself Who calls those chosen to serve as His ministers of the Blood…referring to S. Catherine of Siena.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
The fact that you offer no evidence makes me think you haven’t any.
P
ptisme
Guest
Probably a bit late for this but I just saw this. Satan means adversary. Jesus’ mind was made up regarding Calvary… It had to be very hard on him. The last thing he needed was Peter (or anyone else) trying to suggest it can’t be done. In no way does this verse suggest Peter wasn’t to be made the leader of Christ’s church on earth.
P
ptisme
Guest
Oh my… He wasn’t calling him the “devil”. He was calling him adversary because Peter was trying to talk him out of being crucified.
S
spedteacherita
Guest
The scripture verse(s) in question:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades* will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
**
We can debate this to death as well. From my perspective in reading and following the threads it’s an interpretation issue. Catholics understand it from the perspective of Jesus speaking deliberately and specifically to Peer.
Protestant and evangelicals (correct me if I am wrong) find the text telling all the apostles this and that it is our personal responsibility from generation to generation to be subject to what Christ teaches here.
This is my perspective from what I’ve been “hearing” from both sides of the river…:getholy:*
A
Abu
Guest
On the contrary, Mt 16:13-20 clearly and irrevocably designates St Peter as Christ’s Supreme Vicar:
**All three promises to Peter alone: **"
You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
First and foremost – preceding all the other Apostles:
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
To Peter alone: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” (Mt 16:18)
Of course it is a personal responsibility to follow Christ, but as He has mandated which is only through His Church – His Magisterium. The Catholic Church which cannot teach error in dogma or doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
P
prodromos
Guest
Why then does every English translation capitalise “Satan” as a proper noun?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
P
ptisme
Guest
From a previous discussion:
As was seen when he tried to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, Satan was all about getting Jesus diverted from God’s plan of salvation. Right before the passage in question, Jesus has predicted that he will suffer and be killed as part of God’s plan. Peter then vows that he will not let this happen to his Lord. Jesus calls Peter Satan, not in the sense he is literally Satan, but he is acting like Satan in that he would try to keep Jesus from fulfilling God’s plan of salvation for the world.
I believe the statement was made to the devil who was tempting Peter. Otherwise, we’d have to believe that Jesus had just handed the keys over to Satan… And that would mean that we have books in our bible written by Satan (1 Peter, 2nd Peter)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Let’s accept the fact that Jesus called Peter and Peter alone “Satan”.
It makes sense in light of Peter’s attempt (however good-intentioned it may have been) to dissuade Jesus from accepting the cross. Jesus recognized the voice of the tempter in Peter’s words.
However, anti-papists cannot insist upon Peter alone being called “Satan” without acknowledging that Peter alone is called “rock” (kepha, Cephas, Petros, Peter) just a few verses earlier.
Peter was rebuked for relying on his human wisdom regarding the things of God which were beyond his understanding, but there is nothing in Jesus’ rebuke that suggests that Jesus was saying, “Never mind what I said earlier about building my church on you…you just blew it.”
If anything, Jesus re-emphasizes Peter’s universal jurisdiction over the one flock in John 20 when Jesus, the Good Shepherd, commands Peter to tend and feed the sheep as the vicarious shepherd.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
To add on to Abu’s answer, it’s important to note that in Greek, there are singular and plural versions of “you,” and in Jesus’ answer to St. Peter, He used the SINGULAR.
He was referring to St. Peter, singularly, specifically.
J
JMM1957
Guest
And once you concede that Peter is the “rock”, then its not much of a leap of faith to accept Peter as the head of the new church Jesus was establishing on earth. The flight out of Protestantism to the Catholic church by Protestant pastors has been ongoing for quite a while now. What I find interesting, is that many of the prominent Catholic scholars and apologists around today were not too long ago Protestant.
J
JMM1957
Guest
That is correct, I just came across that fact myself when reading the other day.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Very true.
I have said in this forum on more than one occasion that Catholicism is receiving the best and brightest of the Protestant community who have studied their way into the Church.
Conversely, the non-Catholic Churches are receiving, for the most part, those Catholics who have objected primarily to one or more of the moral standards that the Church refuses to change such as contraception and divorce.
J
JMM1957
Guest
So true.
A
Abu
Guest
Thank you. Very pertinent.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Another thing that came to mind concerning authority in the church, I have recently read statements from more than a couple different Protestant pastors that they wish that the Protestant church had an authoritative body similar to the Catholic church, who could interpret scriptures in a way to remove much of the differences and finalize doctrine in the hope that there would not be so much division in their church’s. Can you imagine that, what a novel idea? Seems sometimes things have to go in full circle to open people’s eyes.
- Status