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

[SCALCO]

Origen’s argument weighs in heavily here.

I would be curious if there are any other fathers (not sure if Origen is considered a church father) who had a similar view as Origen if in fact the way you are interpreting him is indeed completely accurate.

I have not read much of Origen’s letters, but I have read that his comments on Matthew 16 that you are refering to were probably written after he had been removed from the church. In his earlier years, he speaks of Peter as the Rock and foundation of the Church. I managed to find one such quote but I copied this from an indirect source.

“of the sum of authority being delivered to Peter as to feeding the sheep, and the Church being founded upon him as upon the earth” (In Rom. Lib. V. tom. Iv. 568 in The See of
Peter, by Thomas Allies London: Catholic Truth Society, 122)

 

[sambos671]

Ok PC Master I got it from On The Apostolic Tradition Hippolytus It’s a translation of documents from an early liturgy from a coptic sources known as the “Egyptian Church Order” and supplemented from fragments of other translations in Latin and Greek and some Syriac. The Quote specifically comes from the introduction on page 12 1st paragraph. It is published by St. Vladimir’s Press Seminary. Copywrite 2001. The sources are from the last chapter of Romans 16:4-16. Other sources he quotes: Allen Brent , Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension Before the Emergence of the Monarch Bishop. and Peter Lampe, Die Stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten.
Does this help?

 

[Always_For_Him]

PC Master, without all the highly intelligent information given here to show the Catholic position, doesn’t it stand to reason that since Peter (and the apostles) established One, Holy Church, that there should still be One, Holy Church? The Catholic Church has always claimed Peter as the founder of the Church. The Catholic Church has always maintained and taught the same teachings to carry on Peter’s, inspired by the Holy Spirit, legacy, and still teaches the same to this day, never adding or taking away from the canon. There was some herecy in the early years, which was firmly admonished. Outside of that, it wasn’t until the 1500’s that for some reason the original teachings as they were, tradition, beliefs that had been understood as ONE Truth, were questioned and suddenly wrong and no longer true. That was divisive to the ONE, Holy Church. No one squabbled about whether or not Peter was the rock, apostolic authority or over apostolic succession. It just was what it was and is now. From the time of the apostles, it was taught and believed that Jesus breathed on them and gave them authority. It was also understood then by the other apostles, that Peter was given supreme authority. How is it that so many believe the teachings of men that came along in the 1500’s thinking they knew better, so their changes were Truth? Why does our 2,000 year old Church that has been maintained as a One, Holy Church, having never changed the teaching or meaning of scripture, have to be the one to prove ourselves over and over again? We are still teaching the same ONE, TRUE meaning of scripture that was taught 2,000 years ago and recorded for ALL christians to have One Truth. It is the churches that came as a result of the Reformation that changed everything. Why isn’t it understood that it is those Churches that adopted the new meanings and teachings that need to be questioned, picked apart for changing, adding to, or taking away from canon? They took our bible, changed it, then now use it to argue against Catholic teaching that always been One, understood truth. How come that is not ever acknowledged or understood?

 

[Swan]

PC Master, without all the highly intelligent information given here to show the Catholic position, doesn’t it stand to reason that since Peter (and the apostles) established One, Holy Church, that there should still be One, Holy Church? The Catholic Church has always claimed Peter as the founder of the Church. The Catholic Church has always maintained and taught the same teachings to carry on Peter’s, inspired by the Holy Spirit, legacy, and still teaches the same to this day, never adding or taking away from the canon. There was some herecy in the early years, which was firmly admonished. Outside of that, it wasn’t until the 1500’s that for some reason the original teachings as they were, tradition, beliefs that had been understood as ONE Truth, were questioned and suddenly wrong and no longer true. That was divisive to the ONE, Holy Church. No one squabbled about whether or not Peter was the rock, apostolic authority or over apostolic succession. It just was what it was and is now. From the time of the apostles, it was taught and believed that Jesus breathed on them and gave them authority. It was also understood then by the other apostles, that Peter was given supreme authority. How is it that so many believe the teachings of men that came along in the 1500’s thinking they knew better, so their changes were Truth? Why does our 2,000 year old Church that has been maintained as a One, Holy Church, having never changed the teaching or meaning of scripture, have to be the one to prove ourselves over and over again? We are still teaching the same ONE, TRUE meaning of scripture that was taught 2,000 years ago and recorded for ALL christians to have One Truth. It is the churches that came as a result of the Reformation that changed everything. Why isn’t it understood that it is those Churches that adopted the new meanings and teachings that need to be questioned, picked apart for changing, adding to, or taking away from canon? They took our bible, changed it, then now use it to argue against Catholic teaching that always been One, understood truth. How come that is not ever acknowledged or understood?

You seem to be suggesting that until the Reformation no one seriously questioned the RC. Yet there were variations in belief during the lives of the apostles. There have always been variations of belief. Until the Reformation, however, these “heretics” were tortured, burned at the stake, or otherwise silenced. It was only during the Reformation that the dissenters finally had the ability to truly speak out and question without taking their lives into their own hands. Silence via persecution does not equal right. You may silence those that disagree with you but that doesn’t mean your position is correct.

 

[SCALCO]

You seem to be suggesting that until the Reformation no one seriously questioned the RC. Yet there were variations in belief during the lives of the apostles. There have always been variations of belief. Until the Reformation, however, these “heretics” were tortured, burned at the stake, or otherwise silenced. It was only during the Reformation that the dissenters finally had the ability to truly speak out and question without taking their lives into their own hands. Silence via persecution does not equal right. You may silence those that disagree with you but that doesn’t mean your position is correct.

Swan, it is off topic, but could you please cite some sources for all of this?

 

[MIZER]

PC Master,

You claim:

I wouldn’t say it hasn’t convinced me of anything – I just still can’t fit together the entire Roman Catholic position on the papacy as valid. Given that, I must conclude that there’s something wrong with that position, which may lie in something about Matthew 16 that we’re missing or mis-interpreting.

Again my question is why? Why can’t you fit together the RC postion on the papacy? It is the only position that makes any logical sense. Jesus prayed for unity in His Church. Don’t you think that what the Son of God prayers for might just be the will of God?

How better to produce unitiy when dealing with sinful man than to establish a perpetual authority figure on Earth (an office) and then give that office a special charism to ensure that no false teaching on specific matters (faith and morals) would proceed from it?

This system is what we have prefigurement for in the OT and this system is born out in at least two places in the NT, one where Jesus tells them to follow the teachings of the scribes and pharisees because they sit on the seat of Moses. (the seat or chair speaks of an office and implies succession.) And, in Acts, the first order of business is to replace Judas and the verse says “let another take his office.” So again that tells us the Apostles each hold an office. An office implies succession. Think of the “office of the presidency.” Jesus did breath on the Apostles in John’s rendition of Pentecost, saying, “recieve the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive they are forgiven…” You won’t or at least haven’t, to my knowlege commented on this verse, nor have you commented on Isaiah 22:22 which gives us the prefigurement for the keys in Matthew.

So, again, I ask why. Why is it easier to believe a system which produces nothing but division in the Body of Christ, when the Bible tells us that such division is of Satan and it is seemingly impossible for you to believe a system which has fostered unity of thought and mind for over two thousand years?

 

[JRKH]

You seem to be suggesting that until the Reformation no one seriously questioned the RC. Yet there were variations in belief during the lives of the apostles. There have always been variations of belief. Until the Reformation, however, these “heretics” were tortured, burned at the stake, or otherwise silenced. It was only during the Reformation that the dissenters finally had the ability to truly speak out and question without taking their lives into their own hands. Silence via persecution does not equal right. You may silence those that disagree with you but that doesn’t mean your position is correct.

Swan and Always For him,
Both of you are making statement that are oversimplifications. Yes there were variations within the Catholic Church before the Reformation, and some of these questioned, not so much the authority of Peter Himself, but the Office of Pontiff. Yes there were and still are different Rites within the Body of Christ that is the Catholic Church. There were also heretics who attemped to pervert the Pure and True Teachings of Our Lord and these were dealt with in ways that were deemed appropriate to the heresy and the time in history in which they took place.

As to your statement, “It was only during the Reformation that the dissenters finally had the ability to truly speak out and question without taking their lives into their own hands.” This is an immensely oversimplified and one sided comment. The reformation took place during and contributed to a very timultuous time in history. The reformation and the Bloodletting - on both sides - was driven as much or more by Secular Political issues of power and greed than anything Religious or Spiritual. Protestants and their leaders were as guilty of killing Catholics as Catholics were of killing Protestants. Perhaps this is a good example of Jesus admonision about the Blind leading the blind. In this case, our ancestors on both sides fell into the ditch.

I pray that we all here will refrain from this sort of fruitless historical fingerpointing lest we only perpetuate things that cannot be changed, and provide nothing useful to todays discussions.

 

[Always_For_Him]

JRKH and anyone else that feels my post was not in good taste, I am sorry for coming across as one sided or oversimplified. I didn’t mean to. What I was trying to do (failing to do) was to make points outside of having to bring in verses/proof/etc… I love this thread, but in “proving” everything it just seems that the stuff in the middle, simpleness, simple truth, gets a little lost. I must admit that some of the information in these posts is new to me so it is a little overwhelming and that might be a reason for my need to try to simplify things a little. There have been so many really insighful, intelligent, extremely knowlegable posts that have proven the CC’s beliefs, but to someone who has been taught otherwise by their own denomination, this wonderful information, for some reason, can’t be viewed as correct because their teachings are steeped in their own denominations beliefs and tradition. I was just trying to simplify things, not to oversimplify as to bring in non truths or falacy. Although, I have to say that in a way, I am glad I did, because look at the wonderful posts that came after it! In the end, maybe it wasn’t exactly fruitless!! Very informative. I love it! Thank you for your understanding and continuance of trying to teach us all!

 

[JRKH]

JRKH and anyone else that feels my post was not in good taste, I am sorry for coming across as one sided or oversimplified. I didn’t mean to. What I was trying to do (failing to do) was to make points outside of having to bring in verses/proof/etc… I love this thread, but in “proving” everything it just seems that the stuff in the middle, simpleness, simple truth, gets a little lost. I must admit that some of the information in these posts is new to me so it is a little overwhelming and that might be a reason for my need to try to simplify things a little. There have been so many really insighful, intelligent, extremely knowlegable posts that have proven the CC’s beliefs, but to someone who has been taught otherwise by their own denomination, this wonderful information, for some reason, can’t be viewed as correct because their teachings are steeped in their own denominations beliefs and tradition. I was just trying to simplify things, not to oversimplify as to bring in non truths or falacy. Although, I have to say that in a way, I am glad I did, because look at the wonderful posts that came after it! In the end, maybe it wasn’t exactly fruitless!! Very informative. I love it! Thank you for your understanding and continuance of trying to teach us all!

No Problem at all my friend. Believe me we have alllllll been there.
I agree with what you are saying about the simplicity of things getting lost.

Look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

Peace
James

 

[Isa_Almisry]

OR

The history of the infant Church shows the son of Jona had full consciousness of being “pastor” (shepherd) not only of the lambs but also of the sheep - of all Christ’s flock; in fact, immediately after the Ascension, Peter acted as the supreme head of the Church. It was Peter who proposed in the Cenacle that a substitute be named to take the place of Judas Iscariot in the Apostolic College; it was Peter who was the first to preach on Pentecost; it was Peter who received the first pagans into the bosom of the Church at Cornelius’ home, although St. Paul is par excellence the missionary of the Gentiles; it was Peter who questioned and reproved the couple guilty of lying; it was Peter who, like a president, was the first to speak at the Council of Jerusalem.

But it was St. James, like a pope, who presided, made the decision and sent the encyclical out.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How to prove that the Church is “a visible Church”? My Protestant friend and, sadly, my beloved uncle who converted from Catholicism said that the word ekklesia itself means “people who are called out.” So the church is “an invisible Church,” not a hierarchical organization.

The Church is the Body of Christ.

And He’s not the Invisible Man.

All those Epistles writtend to Churches got delivered. If they were invisible, how did the mail man find them?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thanks, JRKH and tomarin!

I ask this question because he has an argument from Act 19:39 “And if you inquire after any other matter, it may be decided in a lawful assembly.” The word “assembly” derived from the word “ekklesia.”

I will read your source soon.

About Matt 16:18, he also has different interpretation

Matt 16:18,
KAGO [And I] DE [yet] SU [to you] LEGO [am saying] HOTI [that] SU [you] EIMI [are] PETROS [Peter] KAI [and] EPI [on] HOUTOS [this] HO [the] PETRA [rock] OIKODOMEO * EGO [of Me] HO [the] EKKLESIA [out-called] KAI [and] PULE [gates] HADES [of un-perceived] OU [not] KATISCHUO [shall be prevailing] AUTOS [of her].

He highlighted the phrase OIKODOMEO EGO. The phrase means “I shall building of Me.”

As far as I know, it should be “I will build my church.” What kind of explanation shall I give to him? I don’t understand Greek.*

He’s wrong on the EGO [of Me], which would be MOY. EGO here emphasis that Christ would be doing the building.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The reason Peter is singled out is quite obvious. Peter is the one who has confessed Jesus as the Messiah. It does not follow that other apostles, or other believers in general, are excluded.

And it’s simply too much of a stretch to say that because the language here sounds like language used for a steward in Isaiah 22, therefore you can make all sorts of extrapolations from what you think stewards did in the ancient world and use them to argue for the Papacy. This is the place where Hahn is weakest (I don’t know if you’re getting this from Hahn, but it is one of his favorite arguments). He’s imaginative, but he makes his parallels and analogies hold way more weight than is reasonable.

I wasn’t accusing you of altering Scripture. I was simply pointing out that the text says nothing about successors. You cannot get that from exegesis. You have to do theology and appeal to tradition and talk about the actual alternatives we are faced with in Christendom today. Do all of these things, and you have a strong case. But you can’t just proof-text.

Edwin

As an Episcopalian, you might look at the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was translated against your church. If Isaiah 22 had any application against the Church of England, you would have seen it there. It instead makes the steward in that verse a “type of Christ.”

I’m interested in when Isaiah 22 became a proof text for papal supremacy, because it doesn’t seem to even predate the Reformation.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How you can even begin to think that Paul ecliped Peter in authority in the Catholic Church is far beyond my understanding. This is a twisted form of Bible literalism that needs to stop, where people come to crazy conclusions that are not evident in reality. Paul was under Peter. This is clear.

The reason the ROCK is so important, and believe me it is of huge importance, is that Jesus gave his own name to Peter. Jesus Equated himself with the Father in Heaven then he Equated himself with Simon Bar Jona. The implications of this are very clear considering the context that this happens in and the fact that these were Semitic people speaking a Semitic langauge.

Then we have the prophacy in Daniel. In the prophecy, a Rock comes down from Heaven (the mountain of God) and turns into a huge mountian on the Earth and covers everything. This is the ultimate mission of the Catholic Church and no other Christian body or religion can accomplish this because it has been set by God that the Catholic Church should fulfill this prophecy. This prophecy is one of the very reasons for the very existance of the Catholic Church to begin with. This prophecy is not talking about a confession of Faith or some secret invisible mountian. It is a MOUNTIAN sent by GOD. The prophecy is also not talking about all “christians” together. It is talking about the Catholic Church and ONLY the Catholic Church. If we loose the Pope, then our status as the MOUNTIAN sent by God goes away. The Pope is a nessesary part of God’s plan of salvation because GOD has decreed it so and Humans are in no place to question Him who Is “Blessed be His Name”.

In any event, Catholics need to take with a huge grain of salt any comments on this coming from protestants since they usually don’t have any original facts that they didn’t get from anti-Catholic websites or preachers. I still have yet to meet a protestant who was fluent in Syriac or Latin or who had more then just a litterate level of knowledge of Greek.

We also need to look at the fact that the people who speak Syriac as their Native Language are overwhelmingly Catholic even though they live in countries where being a Catholic gets your head cut off, as the recent violence in Lebanon shows. If you go ask a Maronite why they are Catholic and it is a No Brainer, Jesus Means What He Says. Please note the use of the Present tense and not a past tense. The Commands of Jesus are still pressing even for today as Jesus is still with us. So everyone please, Stop Sinning, since Jesus very earnestly tells us so.

I’d be careful here: the fact remains that ALL the ancestors of the speakers of Aramaic parted ways with Pope Celestine, Pope Leo I, or Pope Leo II. Only later did they join up with Rome.

And whereas there is a lively tradition of St. Peter in the Aramaic tradition, it is as patriarch of Antioch, not Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As usual, you lot do not recognize that some professed more than one interpretation, very much including “the Rock is Peter, the bishop of Rome, and his successors.”

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/4/e/a/4eaaa51707d875843a537e87fd2320b7.gif

Please them then.

 

[Contarini]

As an Episcopalian, you might look at the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was translated against your church. If Isaiah 22 had any application against the Church of England, you would have seen it there. It instead makes the steward in that verse a “type of Christ.”

I’m interested in when Isaiah 22 became a proof text for papal supremacy, because it doesn’t seem to even predate the Reformation.

It’s a good point. I don’t know. I used to think that Scott Hahn made it up, but was clearly proved wrong on that point (it’s in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, for one thing).

Edwin

 

[SCALCO]

I’m interested in when Isaiah 22 became a proof text for papal supremacy, because it doesn’t seem to even predate the Reformation.

It’s a good point. I don’t know. I used to think that Scott Hahn made it up, but was clearly proved wrong on that point (it’s in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, for one thing).

Early Isaiah 22 references?

I have this from Mark Bonocore but haven’t verified his quotations:

(snipped)

St. John Cassian (c. 362-435), who writes:

“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Compare this to Isaiah 22, which reads:

“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. …I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”

Cassian is clearly drawing from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16.

I believe the reason we don’t see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it’s rooted in a sense of Jewish national identity. And, since most of the fathers were Gentiles, it’s not surprising that they see the Keys of Matt 16 referring to authority in a more generic sense (which is equally valid). However, we do see the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys alluded to more often in the Semetic-speaking branches of the Church. For example, Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.), one of the oldest fathers of the Syrian Church, says:

“David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him.” (Aphraates, xxi, 13).

Also, St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350) writes:

“Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.” (Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli).

From Answer to James White on the Early Papacy

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think the use of the singular proves that Cassian was referring to Isaiah 22. That’s extremely thin.

Edwin

 

[SCALCO]

I don’t think the use of the singular proves that Cassian was referring to Isaiah 22. That’s extremely thin.

Edwin

I can’t say it proves it or not, but it is extremely close.
The other key words in the passage are “House” and “open”. Maybe you just read the bolded part.

 

[MIZER]

Contarini comments:

I don’t think the use of the singular proves that Cassian was referring to Isaiah 22. That’s extremely thin.

It’s not that thin. Don’t we all notice how we won’t embrace a truth that we don’t want to embrace? Arguments that you might use Contarini, to support your own system of faith are no doubt just as thin, probably more so, to whatever degree they are not supporting a universal truth, rather in fact, the opposite. Yet you accept and embrace that support because it’s what you** want** to believe.

I’m assuming you are a non-Catholic. Could you answer a question for me? What is so terrifying about the prospect of becoming Catholic? Is it the response one might get from family and friends? Is it the idea that you may be disowned by these people? Is it the prospect of having to go to confession and articulate your sins to another human being? What is it that makes people seem scared of the idea?

Maybe I should start another thread with this question. I’m really curious to know the answer.