M
Melvin
Guest
Amen. And Peter would never have separated himself from the other Apostles, or exalted himself above them…
Melvin
- Status
Melvin
A
Aramis
Guest
Someone hasn’t read the letters of Peter…
S
steve_b
Guest
At the Last Judgement there will be St Peter, and all the popes who were his successors.
H:
EVERYONE answers for themselves. Peter, the other apostles, the popes, you and I, etc etc
H:
Someday we hope, but it isn’t yet
S
steve_b
Guest
Peter didn’t do that. Jesus did that for Peter. Would you like to know WHERE and when?
M
Melvin
Guest
You must be talking about the distinctly Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18…ignoring the extension of the same ministry to the other Apostles in Matthew 18:18. The same logic that is used to deny the conciliar nature of the Church. By the way, note that in Matthew 18:19, following immediately on and referring to Matthew 18:18 (at least as it is written in the Ignatius RSV) Christ says, “Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in Heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom, in his First Homily on the Gospel of St. John, wrote that St. John the Apostle “holds the keys of Heaven,” and was the “pillar” of the Churches throughout the world." This shows that Peter was not solely held to be the “holder of the keys,” but also the other Apostles and, hence, their successors, the Bishops.
But, believe what you like. Most do.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Matthew 18:18 is indeed giving authority to all of the Apostles. But Jesus singled out Peter as the rock he would build his Church on. Peter does indeed have a higher position. He did not give it to himself, Jesus gave it to him.
Melvin, I’m confused; you seem to be rejecting the authority of the Pope. If you are, then how can you possibly call yourself Roman Catholic?
EDIT: Also, St. John Chrysostym was a great man but not an infallible one.
Also, in Matthew 18:19 Jesus says, “…If two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.” No one apostle has this authority…except for Peter, who Jesus specifically singles out. When Jesus is talking to Peter, he doesn’t add, “You all hear that? If you all agree with him, THEN it’s okay.” He simply tells Peter that he has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to forgive sins (in God’s name, of course).
The verses in Chapter 16 refer to the authority of the Pope, Peter. The verses in Chapter 18 refer to the authority of the Church Jesus established as a whole.
Melvin, I’m confused; you seem to be rejecting the authority of the Pope. If you are, then how can you possibly call yourself Roman Catholic?
EDIT: Also, St. John Chrysostym was a great man but not an infallible one.
Also, in Matthew 18:19 Jesus says, “…If two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.” No one apostle has this authority…except for Peter, who Jesus specifically singles out. When Jesus is talking to Peter, he doesn’t add, “You all hear that? If you all agree with him, THEN it’s okay.” He simply tells Peter that he has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to forgive sins (in God’s name, of course).
The verses in Chapter 16 refer to the authority of the Pope, Peter. The verses in Chapter 18 refer to the authority of the Church Jesus established as a whole.
S
steve_b
Guest
Those are good but actually I’m thinking of other passages
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744436&postcount=60
M:
Marc Anthony gave you an answer on this.
I would just Add re: Chrysostom, have you read what he wrote about Peter?
M
Melvin
Guest
Again, this is the Catholic interpretation…i.e., that in some manner Peter was given a ministry unlike the rest…and separate. This interpretation does not view Matthew 18:18 as a commentary on the earlier statement to Peter (Matthew 16:18), but as separate from it, and also Matthew 18:19 not as a further re-statement or clarification of what Christ meant by the authority to bind and loose, e.g., the authority of the keys, to all of the Apostles in general, but only those other than Peter. To view these scriptures thusly actually requires an interpretation.
The point of this thread was choosing between Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran. My advice to the OP was to investigate all, and not to fall into the false Catholic-Protestant paradigm. The Protestant position is the straw man, and can be easily defeated on the basis of Scripture, Tradition, and History.
The real issue is between Catholic and Orthodox. And I maintain that to fail to investigate the Orthodox faith for one who has not committed to any one of the three, is a mistake. The journey is significantly shortened from the perspective of the OP: for once one becomes convinced of the truth of Apostolic Succession, Tradition, Holy Orders, and the reality of the Sacraments (which all are in some sense shared by both Catholic and Orthodox, and two, baptism and the Eucharist, with the Lutheran), one must consider the distinctly Catholic doctrines. But to do so, one must consider them not in light of their weakest opposition (Protestant), but the strongest (Orthodox). The Light shines in the darkness. If the Catholic doctrines hold, so be it. If the Orthodox position holds, so be it.
Jesus said that the Truth would set us free. This is our mandate: to know and seek the Truth. The OP owes it to himself to be as exhaustive as possible in his search.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Melvin,
“For the Son of Thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with his baptism…”
With regards to “holds the keys of Heaven,” do you notice the difference between the words I highlighted in red? The clause at issue is in the present tense, while the other clauses, referring to actions that actually occured during the Apostle’s lifetime, are in the past tense. St. John Chrysostom is in no way indicating that St. John the Apostle received the keys to the kingdom while he was yet alive. Rather, he is simply stating that St. John, having run the race and crowned, being in heaven, presently holds the keys. Accordingly, the conclusion you proffer that all the Apostles received the keys is a real stretch of the imagination.
The same thing applies to the statement “pillar of the Churches.” It was the Apostle himself who informed us by revelation, “Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the Temple of my God.” (Rev 3:12) In fact, it is a common praise of the Orthodox Churches to call not just the Apostles, but many orthodox Fathers “pillars.” An anti-papal interpretation to this clause is unjustified.
Blessings,
Marduk
Brother Marc Anthony gave an awesome explanation of the distinction between the two passages.
These statements from St. Chrysostom have been used and abused by non-Catholic apologists. Here is the entire context of those statements:
“For the Son of Thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with his baptism…”
With regards to “holds the keys of Heaven,” do you notice the difference between the words I highlighted in red? The clause at issue is in the present tense, while the other clauses, referring to actions that actually occured during the Apostle’s lifetime, are in the past tense. St. John Chrysostom is in no way indicating that St. John the Apostle received the keys to the kingdom while he was yet alive. Rather, he is simply stating that St. John, having run the race and crowned, being in heaven, presently holds the keys. Accordingly, the conclusion you proffer that all the Apostles received the keys is a real stretch of the imagination.
The same thing applies to the statement “pillar of the Churches.” It was the Apostle himself who informed us by revelation, “Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the Temple of my God.” (Rev 3:12) In fact, it is a common praise of the Orthodox Churches to call not just the Apostles, but many orthodox Fathers “pillars.” An anti-papal interpretation to this clause is unjustified.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Melvin
Guest
Exactly. “Drank the cup of Christ” and “baptized with his baptism” refer to John’s suffering with Christ, both having occurred during the Apostle John’s earthly life, and therefore in the past, no longer ongoing actions or states. However, I do not see that being “holder of the keys” is in any way dependent on the Apostle’s having died and entered Heaven, rather, on the gift of Christ to the Apostles in the Gospel during John’s earthly life. I know of no place in the Scriptures or Tradition (which may speak only to my ignorance) that indicate that on entering Heaven, we attain the Keys of the Kingdom.Dear brother Melvin,
Brother Marc Anthony gave an awesome explanation of the distinction between the two passages.
These statements from St. Chrysostom have been used and abused by non-Catholic apologists. Here is the entire context of those statements:
“For the Son of Thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with his baptism…”
With regards to “holds the keys of Heaven,” do you notice the difference between the words I highlighted in red? The clause at issue is in the present tense, while the other clauses, referring to actions that actually occured during the Apostle’s lifetime, are in the past tense. St. John Chrysostom is in no way indicating that St. John the Apostle received the keys to the kingdom while he was yet alive. Rather, he is simply stating that St. John, having run the race and crowned, being in heaven, presently holds the keys. Accordingly, the conclusion you proffer that all the Apostles received the keys is a real stretch of the imagination.
The same thing applies to the statement “pillar of the Churches.” It was the Apostle himself who informed us by revelation, “Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the Temple of my God.” (Rev 3:12) In fact, it is a common praise of the Orthodox Churches to call not just the Apostles, but many orthodox Fathers “pillars.” An anti-papal interpretation to this clause is unjustified.
Blessings,
Marduk
As for St. John the Apostle being a pillar, it would seem to me that St. John Chrysostom is referring not to the Heavenly state, but the earthly, i.e., “the churches throughout the world,” indicating not what St. John the Apostle attained on entering Heaven, but his under-girding the Church on earth through his Apostolic ministry, in the same way that St. Paul notes that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Himself being the Cornerstone. The end being, “in whom the whole structure is joined together, and grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:20-22).
Is the purpose really anti-Papal, or giving to each of the Apostles, and their successors the Bishops, that honor given them by Christ?
Blessings to you as well.
Melvin
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Melvin,
“Truly I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sin on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mt 19:28)
Understanding what “the keys” mean to the Jewish mind, I hope you can see the connection,
I should also note the concluding line of the excerpt I gave from St. John Chrysostom. Immediately after he gave the honorifics for the Evangelist, he writes: “this man comes forward to us now…wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” It seems obvious to me that he is writing about the Evangelist in a present sense as someone in heaven.
Secondly, the whole pillar issue is really beside the point, because the Church has never claimed that St. Peter is the only pillar of the Church. Agreed?
Blessings,
Marduk
Well, I’m not referring to “we,” as if all Christians attain the keys upon entering heaven.
“Truly I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sin on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mt 19:28)
Understanding what “the keys” mean to the Jewish mind, I hope you can see the connection,
I should also note the concluding line of the excerpt I gave from St. John Chrysostom. Immediately after he gave the honorifics for the Evangelist, he writes: “this man comes forward to us now…wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” It seems obvious to me that he is writing about the Evangelist in a present sense as someone in heaven.
First of all, we don’t believe that the solicitude of the Saints for the Church ends after they leave earth; rather, it is more powerful when they are in heaven. So being a pillar of the Churches in heaven is perfectly consistent with the teaching of the Church universal.
Secondly, the whole pillar issue is really beside the point, because the Church has never claimed that St. Peter is the only pillar of the Church. Agreed?
That’s a worthy point, but we can’t kid ourselves because the rhetoric is more often than not couched in the polemics against the papacy. So at best, it serves a double purpose - one noble, one unworthy.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Lord forgive me!!! I just reread this post, and I noticed my “freudian slip.”:crying:
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
Thank you mardukm for your posts. You have explained the matter very well indeed.
Melvin, affirming the primacy of saint Peter does not detract from the holiness and the importance of Christ’s other apostles. It is right to acknowledge the one as well as the other. Saint Peter and his successors in the Holy See deserve praise rather than interrogation from those who have received the faith from their hands. Do not let doubt be an occasion for disrespect. Even if some who succeeded to the Papal throne proved to be morally weak and a very few unworthy of praise we must never forget that the foundations upon which the Church rests are apostolic and that for the first several centuries all the bishops who presided over the Church in Rome died martyr’s death so that we who live today could receive the faith of Christ unpolluted by false doctrine. Let us remember also that among the twelve chosen by Christ there was a Judas; thus if the Master chose one who proved unfaithful and who did wrong we should not expect that His servants would be greater than He in the matter of choosing successors.
God keep you both in the faith of our Fathers.
Melvin, affirming the primacy of saint Peter does not detract from the holiness and the importance of Christ’s other apostles. It is right to acknowledge the one as well as the other. Saint Peter and his successors in the Holy See deserve praise rather than interrogation from those who have received the faith from their hands. Do not let doubt be an occasion for disrespect. Even if some who succeeded to the Papal throne proved to be morally weak and a very few unworthy of praise we must never forget that the foundations upon which the Church rests are apostolic and that for the first several centuries all the bishops who presided over the Church in Rome died martyr’s death so that we who live today could receive the faith of Christ unpolluted by false doctrine. Let us remember also that among the twelve chosen by Christ there was a Judas; thus if the Master chose one who proved unfaithful and who did wrong we should not expect that His servants would be greater than He in the matter of choosing successors.
God keep you both in the faith of our Fathers.
A
Alveus_Lacuna
Guest
The slip is only “Freudian” if you really meant what you accidentally said.
M
mardukm
Guest
M
Melvin
Guest
Markduk, your kind response has inspired me to start a thread of my own…
I have been seriously considering converting to Orthodoxy for some time, the reason being that there are some questions I have about the Papacy that are simply not addressed well in any of the literature I have read…at least well enough to overcome my concerns. These concerns all came to the fore after my conversion to the Catholic Faith, when I became aware of many of the Orthodox claims.
So, I think I’m going to open a thread sometime in the next few days and ask these various questions and see what kind of answers I get. Some of the questions may seem petty to others, but not to me.
Who knows… if my concerns can be answered, I may just stay Catholic after all.
BTW, God knows your heart, and I find it hard to believe that He would be offended by your “Freudian” slip.
God bless,
Melvin
S
steve_b
Guest
What were you before your conversion?
M
Melvin
Guest
Charismatic Christian, followed by Fundamentalist, then WELS Lutheran. The Lutheran faith is where I first became aware of the Real Presence and the validity of Baptism. When I became Lutheran is also when I began to have some inkling of the necessity of Tradition…eventually, I became aware of the Catholic claims, and eventually became more aware of history and Tradition in the Church. I learned about Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and Apostolic Authority through the Catholic Church.
Being ignorant of Orthodoxy, and taking at face value the statement that the Orthodox broke from the Catholic Church as did the Protestants, I dismissed Orthodoxy at the beginning of my inquiry into Catholicism. I concluded, without having investigated Orthodoxy and without any idea that its claims were as ancient and as powerful as the Catholic Church’s, that the Catholic Faith was the True Faith.
Then, after becoming Catholic, I began to come into contact with Orthodox writings and Orthodox apologetics. At that point I realized that things were not as cut and dried as I had believed.
When I became Catholic that my journey was at an end, that I was home. Now, I am not so sure. This is why I urged the OP to thoroughly investigate both Catholic and Orthodox. Better to settle things at the beginning, than to believe they are settled, then find they aren’t.
S
steve_b
Guest
Melvin,
the Holy Spirit isn’t the author of division in the Church Jesus builds on Peter and the apostles. Don’t buy into division. You’re home now in the Catholic Church. Keep learning your faith so that you know why you’re home.
E
Esdra
Guest
I am actually Catholic - and I can tell you I was in the same position as you are now. I have been searching for 8 years. - Well, I “ended up”, after long private studies, in a Baptist Community but I really love it. I couldn’t imagine going anywhere else!
If I had to choose between these three, I would choose Lutheran.
As I have written before, I have been studying the Holy Bible (btw. I would advise you to do that too!) for eight years and I found out that there are a few things in the RCC and the Orthodox Churches that are completely contradictory to what the Bible says. - I don’t have an example handy at the moment, sorry.
During my search I also attended a few times a Lutheran Evangelical Church - and I must say I loved it! There is some kind of liturgy like in the RCC but not that firm and it is completely Bible based, which is, in my opinion, most important when considering a Church.
I really (again) advise you to read in the Holy Bible. It is God’s word and when you pray faithfully to our Father in Heaven, he will send you the Holy Spirit and it will guide you during your search.
Read also maybe the two catechisms of Luther - then you get a little bit more into the teachings of the Lutheran Evangelical Church.
Good luck with your search. I know the Holy Spirit will guide you and you will find “your Church” just as I did.
You are in my prayers.
Best wishes,
in Christ,
Esdra
- Status