How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[Claudius]

Let me jump in again if I may.

First I am always happy to get new information about Syriac so I thank Rony for his post. I and some of my friends have kind of dedicated ourselves to learning the 8 languages of the Church and we often conclude that Syriac is of prime importance due to its close connection to the Gospels as well as a way to support our Brothers in the Holy Land.

The other Catholic Langauges (as I call them) are Coptic, Ge`ez, Slavonic, Koine Greek, Hebrew, Armenian, and of course Syriac and Latin.

With that said, we do need to eventually move one past the language on the page to what it means.

From what I can see, I just do not see how Lord Jesus could have been speaking of anyone or anything else. In the Greek especially, (even though I think that Greek Matthew is a translation from Syriac Matthew) Jesus has to be speaking about Peter. Even if we take the Tayte Te to not mean the (the same) idiom, it still does not follow that Jesus was speaking about anyone else. Even changing the gender does not affect this.

May I use some Latin?

Litterae mysterium sunt.

This says, Letters Mystery are.

Greek as well as Latin both work this way and this simple sentence can teach us a lot. Here we have a Feminine in the Plural and a Neuter in the singular. They are in apposition with each other. They are being equated with each other in the sentece and both hold the grammatical place of the subject of the sentence.

Now in the Greek sentence that is in Greek Matthew, because of the way the language naturally works, Jesus could have said any number of things and he still would be speaking about Peter. Jesus could have said (you are Peter and on this TinkerBell I will build my Church) and he still would be speaking about Peter. He could have called Peter a spunge, a plant, an egg, anything at all in any gender and he still would be talking about Peter.

Seeing that Kepa is feminine (which I did not know before) I can see even more that Petra has to be a translation from Kepa. Sho`a being Masculine probably would have been translated using the Greek word Oros. I may have found a point when that did indeed happen but I will wait to go home from work to check on it before I list it.

Now, once we can see that Jesus did in fact say to Peter and to no one else that Peter and nothing else is the Rock onto which the Church of Lord Jesus is built, we need to ask several questions. These questions take into account the idea that Sola Scriptura is wrong of course since the Early Church just did not hold this doctrine. The Bible is one part of Church Tradition.

We see in the Bible that the Power given to Peter is eventually given to all the other Apostles. Does this mean that Peter has no primacy?

Aquinas says that Peter is given the power first to show that the others recieve it in a way from Peter as when Jesus says (confirm your brothers).

We know that Jesus appeared to Peter first among the Apostles after the resurrection but did this have anything to do with the Power given to Peter?

We know that Only Peter was given the keys. Are the keys a symbol of the Power given to Peter that was eventually given to the Other Apostles or is is a singular sign of the special role of Peter only?

We see that in the Bible the Apostles appear to be ranked, all of equal episcopal order but ranked non the less. We see Peter with the highest possition and under him is James and John and the other Apostles under them. To what extent did this ranking truly exist and have an affect on the Church?

If we accept that Peter was given a singular priviledge or power not enjoyed by the others, was that Power passed on to successors? 　Did Peter in fact have any successors to begin with?

Was the power given to Peter a power unique to Peter or was it an office that Peter held in his person but for him alone, or was it an office that others could fill after Peter s death? It is in fact an office for the Church that is part of the Church or is this an office that is outside of the normal workings of the Church?

Now, these questions are here to help us to think about them and to show how as we move closer to the Truth, the Papacy is in fact the office that Peter was given and that office is of Episcopal rank but superseedes the rank of the episcopate by a power of the same kind. It is an office of the Church and can not be held outside of the Church. It is not an office that can be owned except that by the Church as a whole but can be occupied by one man at a time.

Other things to keep in mind before really moving on to tackle these points is the neccesity of the priesthood, for indeed if the priesthood truly not be neccisary then the Papacy would seem to loose reason for itself. Also, we must consider the Eucharist and the role of Liturgical worship found in the Catholic Church and the Churches of the east not in communion with us.

I myself feel that the real question should be, how can someone who accepts the Eucharist not become a Catholic but indeed the Eucharist and the Papacy almost go hand in hand when all theology is on the table.

The Eucharist more then anything esle really makes one a Catholic. It makes you part of that family. I think of all other Catholics in the world as my flesh and blood relatives. They are my family. I am closer to them then to any one else. This helps to ground me and helps me to look at Peter and the Apostles and Lord Jesus as the real physical people that they are.

 

[SCALCO]

I agree – this thread is providing some very useful information. I particularly like rony’s style of posting full quotes in Aramaic demonstrating such use. I only wish I could actually read Aramaic.

I don’t have time to reply to everything I’d like to, but I would like to address at least a couple of things:

In regards to “The Peter Syndrome” – I’ve heard James White use this term (he perhaps invented it – I don’t know for sure). The problem with White (let’s please not get into a huge debate about White here) is that he’s a bit too extreme about it. That said, the principle does have a valid point – some people do get all excited any time they see an ECF saying something nice about Peter, and thus call it evidence for Petrine primacy, even though such is not reasonable.

In regards to the topic of this thread – even if one does accept that both petros and petra in the Greek of Matthew 16:18 are speaking of the same thing, one need not necessarily accept Roman Catholic theology on the subject.

rony> If kepha is feminine, I take it Aramaic doesn’t have the same requirements as Greek in regards to names taking the same gender as their owners – is this a correct assessment?

I’d love to continue further, and I do hope rony will continue to post more information on what the spoken Aramaic might have been, but my time for the rest of the week will be very limited, so I probably won’t post much on this, nor will I have time to read a lot.

If someone wants to get into the discussion of why I (and/or others) reject the papacy in general even in spite of Matthew 16:18 referring to Peter if that were conceded (which seems to be the direction some are pushing in), I would ask that you please start a new thread and link to it from here. To put a discussion like that in this thread would be rather off-topic, not to mention it’d make this thread much longer to read. The exegesis of Matthew 16:18 was itself off-topic, but not quite enough to warrant a new topic in my opinion.

 

[PC_Master]

As I mentioned, this should certainly be a separate thread, but whatever…

With that said, we do need to eventually move one past the language on the page to what it means.

Certainly.

From what I can see, I just do not see how Lord Jesus could have been speaking of anyone or anything else.

Another potential way to look at the passage – you assert that petros and petra refer to the same thing. Need this necessarily be the person of Simon, as separate from all other persons? Why need this be intrinsically linked to the one individual, as opposed to speaking to the on, as a representative of all.

This is the view taken by Origen, and certainly seems logical to me.

We see in the Bible that the Power given to Peter is eventually given to all the other Apostles. Does this mean that Peter has no primacy?

Actually, in Matthew 16, Christ says “I will give you the keys…and whatever you bind…”. Later on, the “power” is given to all the apostles, but we have no record of Peter actually being given this power uniquely.

Aquinas says that Peter is given the power first to show that the others recieve it in a way from Peter as when Jesus says (confirm your brothers).

Where do we find this theology in early church history, or in scripture? Surely power comes from God.

We know that Only Peter was given the keys. Are the keys a symbol of the Power given to Peter that was eventually given to the Other Apostles or is is a singular sign of the special role of Peter only?

It’s a good question – personally I see no reason for the keys to be in any way separate from the loosing and binding issue.

We see that in the Bible the Apostles appear to be ranked, all of equal episcopal order but ranked non the less.

I understand the relation for Peter, and maybe James and John. Judas being listed last is also there consistently, but beyond that I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

Much of the similar ordering comes from either the Q document, or whatever source each gospel author used. Peter, as a sort of spokesperson for the apostles, would also naturally be listed first. Beyond this, I don’t see it.

We see Peter with the highest possition and under him is James and John and the other Apostles under them. To what extent did this ranking truly exist and have an affect on the Church?

We obviously see claims of later papal authority, but do we ever see someone claiming the authority of James or John, as opposed to the other apostles?

If we accept that Peter was given a singular priviledge or power not enjoyed by the others, was that Power passed on to successors? 　Did Peter in fact have any successors to begin with?

The question of successorship is a simple one. If Peter occupied a particular ministry and then left it (or died), someone following in the same ministry could be legitimately called his successor. This, however, need not indicate a transfer of special powers or authority (if Peter had any to begin with).

Was the power given to Peter a power unique to Peter or was it an office that Peter held in his person but for him alone, or was it an office that others could fill after Peter s death?

Succession of ministry is indicated in scripture and in early church history (Clement mentions this, I believe) but succession of any special authority or “supernatural” office is not found in early testimony.

Other things to keep in mind before really moving on to tackle these points is the neccesity of the priesthood, for indeed if the priesthood truly not be neccisary then the Papacy would seem to loose reason for itself. Also, we must consider the Eucharist and the role of Liturgical worship found in the Catholic Church and the Churches of the east not in communion with us.

Since neither of these things explicitly necessitate the papacy (or at least the Eastern Orthodox don’t think they do), I’d say the papacy should be addressed separately. After all, I don’t think it should be a discussion of “why the papacy is really necessary in my way of thinking” but rather “did God institute the papacy or not?”

 

[mercygate]

Another potential way to look at the passage – you assert that petros and petra refer to the same thing. Need this necessarily be the person of Simon, as separate from all other persons? Why need this be intrinsically linked to the one individual, as opposed to speaking to the on, as a representative of all.

This is the view taken by Origen, and certainly seems logical to me.

The GRAMMAR indicates Peter. The Church accepts that ALL the apostles receive the power of binding and loosing in Mt. 18. No problem. Peter and Peter’s Confession are not separable. Martha also makes “Peter’s Confession.” Andrew identified Jesus as “the Messiah” from the moment John pointed out “the Lamb of God.”

Actually, in Matthew 16, Christ says “I will give you the keys…and whatever you bind…”. Later on, the “power” is given to all the apostles, but we have no record of Peter actually being given this power uniquely.

Peter is promised the keys “uniquely.” He is “uniquely” told to “strengthen your brethren.” He is “uniquely” told to ‘tend the sheep and feed the lambs’.

 

[Mickey]

Actually, in Matthew 16, Christ says “I will give you the keys…and whatever you bind…”. Later on, the “power” is given to all the apostles, but we have no record of Peter actually being given this power uniquely.

Correct.

personally I see no reason for the keys to be in any way separate from the loosing and binding issue.

Ditto.

Peter, as a sort of spokesperson for the apostles, would also naturally be listed first.

Correct.

 

[Mickey]

He is “uniquely” told to “strengthen your brethren.” He is “uniquely” told to ‘tend the sheep and feed the lambs’.

None of these references points to papal supremacy/infallibility.

 

[mercygate]

None of these references points to papal supremacy/infallibility.

Infallibility is a separate question from Petrine prmacy. All of those references point to Petrine primacy.

“Papal” infallibility is a refinment and sub-doctrine of the belief held by both Orthodox and Catholic Christians that the Church is “indefectible.” The Church cannot “defect” from teaching the true Gospel.

This thread is about how someone could believe that "Peter IS the rock but not be Catholic.

 

[Mickey]

“Papal” infallibility is a refinment and sub-doctrine

No it’s not. It is an innovation of the post schism Latin Church.

 

[SCALCO]

You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. Those questions and discussions can overwhelm this thread. Please refrain from trying to refute every single issue that you do not agree with and stick to the topic.

 

[mercygate]

No it’s not. It is an innovation of the post schism Latin Church.

Even if papal infallibility appears as a full-blown understanding later in time, it absolutely IS a sub-doctrine of indefectibility.

The East and West might disagree on whether it is a “novelty” or an inevitable clarification of the parameters of indefectibility, but infallibility definitely lives under that umbrella.

 

[Mickey]

Even if papal infallibility appears as a full-blown understanding later in time,

Full blown understanding?

The early Church of Rome was the capital of Christianity. She was the pre-eminent Church. Her bishops were greatly respected. Sometimes, the Pope of Rome acted in a mediator capacity. But never did the early undivided Church view the bishop of Rome as the “supreme pontiff of the universal Church”. Never was he titled as “Vicar of Christ”. And the doctrine of infallibility was completely unknown. There was not even a “seed” of such a strange doctrine. The theological hoops that one must jump through to retroactively force this doctrine onto the early Church, boggles the mind.

 

[Mickey]

You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. Those questions and discussions can overwhelm this thread. Please refrain from trying to refute every single issue that you do not agree with and stick to the topic.

Sorry. I will retreat.

 

[mercygate]

Full blown understanding?

The early Church of Rome was the capital of Christianity. She was the pre-eminent Church. Her bishops were greatly respected. Sometimes, the Pope of Rome acted in a mediator capacity. But never did the early undivided Church view the bishop of Rome as the “supreme pontiff of the universal Church”. Never was he titled as “Vicar of Christ”. And the doctrine of infallibility was completely unknown. There was not even a “seed” of such a strange doctrine. The theological hoops that one must jump through to retroactively force this doctrine onto the early Church, boggles the mind.

I am not tracing the full development of the concept as it is now understood to the early Church.

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee,

I’m not really getting you’re point. Why does it matter that Jesus tells them to keep his true identity quiet? How does this negate the fact that the Christ said to Peter, “you are (the) rock.” ???

**If it is so obvious, how can most of the ECF’s including Augustine NOT see it?

If it is so important why is it not even not even mentioned in the parallel Gospel passages of Mark 8:27 and Luke 9:18?**

Jesus is not the foundation of His own church! He is the cornerstone of the foundation. If we follow your logic we must assume that Jesus was intentionally ambiguous. He was not.

Eph 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Peter is never singled out in any other verses describing the foundation of the church.

He knew He was not going to be here as a human being to be the foundation of the church militant until the end of the age. So, he created a foundation.

**John 14: 26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. **

If God says, “you are rock,” then you are. It’s that simple. If God says, “this is my body,” then by God, this (bread) IS HIS body. That’s a period at the end of that sentence. It means, period. YIKES!

Well, I think what is apparent is your anachronistic understanding of the verses. For the early church did not understand Matt 16 that way.

 

[Thing]

PC Master:

…personally I see no reason for the keys to be in any way separate from the loosing and binding issue.

Mickey:

Ditto.

As an aside, I am wondering, if everyone has the keys, does this quality extend to both of you.
Do both of you bind ‘stuff’ on earth, and is it bound also in heaven?
Just wondering…

 

[mercygate]

As an aside, I am wondering, if everyone has the keys, does this quality extend to both of you.
Do both of you bind ‘stuff’ on earth, and is it bound also in heaven?
Just wondering…

Not the right question. The power of “bindng and loosing” is clearly given to the Apostles.

PC Master would likely disagree with Mickey about what that means, but it is unlikely that, as an Orthodox Christian, Mickey would make a personal claim to hold the power of binding and loosing.

 

[SCALCO]

PC-

You do understand that there is a reason why Origen is one of the few ECF’s who has not been declared a saint by the Catholic Church, right?

Why? Was Origen considered a heretic? I would be interested in reading the passages where Origen talks about Matt 16:18.

 

[MIZER]

Kaycee wrties about the primacy of Peter:

If it is so obvious, how can most of the ECF’s including Augustine NOT see it?

If it is so important why is it not even not even mentioned in the parallel Gospel passages of Mark 8:27 and Luke 9:18?

It may not be mentioned precisely because it is so obvious. Did you ever get a recipe or some other instructions from a friend or co-worker? If you got a cake recipe from a friend, for example, she probably wouldn’t tell you to turn on the oven because it would be so obvious. If you were looking for a recipe for a single crust pie you wouldn’t need to be told to make half the crust recipe because it would be obvious. Instructions for doing a power point presentation for work or school wouldn’t include turning on the computer or downloading the necessary software to accomplish the task, that would be obvious. Very important information but not anything that would need to be mentioned.

Have you ever taught a teenager to drive? You don’t have to tell them to get the keys or to turn on the car or to pull the seat up so they can reach the pedals or put gas in the car or turn on windsheild wipers if it’s raining, etc…etc…etc… All of this is obvious.

It was so obvious to His Jewish listeners that Jesus, the King of Kings was making Peter His Prime Minister, modeling His Church, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, after the Davidic Kingdom (Isaiah 22:22) that it didn’t need to be detailed in the Bible or mentioned for hundreds of years following the assension of Christ. This is how it is for many of the teachings of Christ.

The Baptism of infants comes to mind. People will say they didn’t Baptise infants in the early church because Christ never said to do that. Well, He never said not to do that either and it stands to reason that parents then, were a lot like parents today, and if they understood that Baptism replaced circumcision as the vehicle for making one a member of the family of God, which they obviously did, then they certainly would have Baptised thier Babies. That this is not mentioned specifically in Scripture simply tells us that it wasnt’ necessary to mention it because it was so obvious.

Do you understand?

The pertinent concept here is “reason.” A lot of the Bible and much of Church teaching on the faith can be easily understood if one applies reason and logic. I’m sorry to have to point this out to the non-Catholics on this board, but perhaps it is not so obvious to you, that a problem and conffusion will occur when reason and logic are forsaken for a preconcieved 16th century idea, tradition, or belief. Step into the light of reason and so much is cleared up. It becomes,… obvious.

 

[ronyodish]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been up all night and this morning working on an intriguing linguistic puzzle that I’ve encountered in kaycee’s first link. I’m going to take some time, perhaps some days, in order to solve it or at least attempt a solution. I will try to do this from now until the beginning of June, and then for a while, I won’t be able to post much, if at all, due to some heavy academic summer commitments.

I know that there are some questions that were asked of me in recent posts, and I’m hoping to get to them after I crack this puzzle. I’ll try to catch up, God willing. I usually post in the Eastern Catholicism forum, so I have to keep up with those threads as well, but I’ll try my best.

God bless,

Rony

 

[MIZER]

Kaycee,

What do you mean by this?

Well, I think what is apparent is your anachronistic understanding of the verses. For the early church did not understand Matt 16 that way.

God is not bound by time (chronology) as we are. And the early church most certainly did understand Matt 16 this way. It is the same church that wrote the NT and cannonized the Bible and it is the same church today that teaches this understanding. Nothing has changed.

This verse:

John 14: 26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

actually tells us how the foundation of the true church would be able to maintain constant and perpetual teaching on all issues pertaining to the faith. Who specifically is Jesus speaking to when He utters these words, and makes this promise to send the Holy Spirit? You see, you wish to apply every word our Lord uttered to every individual, as an individual. In the non-Catholic world it’s all about Me, My, I, Myself, “My personal relationship with Christ.” “My personal savior.” “Jesus came to save me, personally.” Now I’m not saying there is anything inherrantly wrong with that but it does limit your abilbity to see the big picture and in a sense the concept, if it is all you can see, leads you into error. Jesus came to establish a universal church, not an individual church. He died so that ALL could be saved, not just you personally and he established the foundation of His Church in such a way as to protect it, lead and guide it so that it would forever be the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” (Timothy 3:15) so that ALL could come to knowledge and understanding of that truth, which is, incidently, one in nature as the true body of Christ is one in nature, as He and the Father are also, one in nature. See?? Reason through this stuff and it all fits together. It’s just sooooo obvious.