How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[EZweber]

As I said before,

Christ does say that he is Rock, and “upon this rock I will build my Church.” Before you start quoting the original Greek, you might want to look at the Aramaic, which is the language He would have spoken in - there is only one word for rock.

 

[ReadTheBible]

This is where you are obligated to trust what Catholicism tells you to believe.

Why is the context of what Jesus is talking about always left out when discussing this passage?

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You are told to believe Jesus is telling Peter that he is the rock that the church will be built on. You are obligated to believe that because you are the laity and not to even attempt understanding of the scripture without guidance from the Church. Therefore you do not have an opinion but the opinion of your Church.

I, and millions of others, say Jesus is talking about the faith of Peter because he believes that Jesus is the son of God. The faith displayed by Peter is the rock. There in lies the crux of our difference and Rome’s entire claim to be the one true church.

 

[EZweber]

If you look at the wording, it is not the obvious interpretation to say “Simon, you are faithful. You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” and say the rock is his faith.

 

[ReadTheBible]

From the time Jesus asks his apostles the question who do they think he is, the entire context is regarding faith.

 

[ReadTheBible]

We are not going to agree and settle the differences between Rome and Protestantism. I’m merely telling you what I believe.

I have many family members that belong to Catholicism. In the end, it only matters to me if one makes it to Heaven by believing in Christ and doing God’s will.

 

[EZweber]

You could also note that Christ promises to give Peter the “keys to the kingdom”, which is a reference to the prime minister of Israel in the time of the kings. In the absence of the king, the prime minister had the greatest power.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did Jesus confirm the one He names greatest, would rule them ergo over Our Lord’s kingdom? Yes
Did Jesus promise to pray especially for this one who would rule over the entire kingdom? Yes
Who is this man who is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church? The only one Jesus mentions by name. Peter.

Jesus prays to the Father for Peter because he already knows Peter is going to betray him.

Before anything that is came to be, Jesus knew who Peter would be, and what he would do . Peter said he wouldn’t deny Jesus and Jesus said oh yes you will…There were no surprises here. Just as Jesus knew before the foundation of the world, I as a Catholic, would be having this discussion today with you a non Catholic Protestant. No surprises here.

BTW, Did it change anything in the Divinity’s plans for Peter? No.

ReadTheBible:

Please show me where Jesus tells Peter that he is to rule and have primacy over the entire Church.

I already did.

Not one link was opened.

Why don’t you open the links I gave you in this post

 

[steve-b]

It’s Peter’s own words. I’ve already said if you wish to argue the facts to which Peter discussed we are all stones, which means we are all equal and priests unto God, then your argument is with Peter, not me.

Jesus doesn’t give you the keys to the kingdom. He gave those to Peter, the one who is the chief steward of the Church Jesus builds on Peter and all those in union with him…

 

[JonNC]

We are not going to agree and settle the differences between Rome and Protestantism. I’m merely telling you what I believe.

Good, because I certainly don’t want you thinking you speak for all communions that are loosely classified as ”Protestant “

From the time Jesus asks his apostles the question who do they think he is, the entire context is regarding faith.

I agree, but that doesn’t mean that Christ was only talking about Peter’s confession of faith.
There is a solid middle ground between the two positions being offered here. St. Peter is one of the clear leaders, if not the leader, of the apostles. No where in that statement do I find universal jurisdiction.

 

[steve-b]

This is where you are obligated to trust what Catholicism tells you to believe.

Why is the context of what Jesus is talking about always left out when discussing this passage?

Who says context is left out?

ReadTheBible:

You are told to believe Jesus is telling Peter that he is the rock that the church will be built on. You are obligated to believe that because you are the laity and not to even attempt understanding of the scripture without guidance from the Church. Therefore you do not have an opinion but the opinion of your Church.

*I, and millions of others, say Jesus is talking about the faith of Peter

Consider the following

Peter’s faith is Peter. It’s both

διχοστασίαι = division / dissension / faction etc etc from Our Lord’s Church. It is a grave sin according to scripture.

Where ?

Paul to the Church of Rome. Consider the Greek word διχοστασίαι. based on it’s consequences for the individual who dies in it, they won’t inherit heaven. διχοστασίαι is used in both Romans and Galatians, the passages I now quote.

Rm 16: 17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create Division / dissension διχοστασίαι, and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[b] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

Comment: One who διχοστασίαι dissents/divides etc does NOT serve Our Lord. AND Who in effect does Paul say they are serving? Satan

The consequences?

Gal 5: 19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension διχοστασίαι, party spirit, 21 envy,[b] drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Comment: the consequence for that sin διχοστασίαι ? the same Greek word used in both Rom 16:17. AND Gal 5:20 , = No heaven for THEM.

The Church talked about “in Writing” from the 1st century, one is to NOT to divide from? the Catholic Church

 

[steve-b]

ReadTheBible:

We are not going to agree and settle the differences between Rome and Protestantism. I’m merely telling you what I believe.

Good, because I certainly don’t want you thinking you speak for all communions that are loosely classified as ”Protestant “

From the time Jesus asks his apostles the question who do they think he is, the entire context is regarding faith.

No where in that statement do I find universal jurisdiction.

Jon,

When Jesus said to Peter, [Alone] in front of all the apostles, after His resurrection and before His ascension back to heaven,

Peter, the one Jesus gives the keys to His kingdom to

Jesus says to Peter, " ποίμαινε my sheep"

as in ποίμαινε = shepherd, tend, rule, govern my sheep (present imperative active 2nd person singular)

Does Jesus restrict which sheep He means for Peter to shepherd, tend, rule, govern? NO

Do the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gives Peter alone, have jurisdiction restrictions (as in Peter can only shepherd, tend, rule, govern, ) only certain sheep and not the entire flock of Our Lord’s? NO

If you find such restrictions of the flock Peter is NOT in charge of, , please post them

Peter has universal jurisdiction

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

ReadTheBible:

We are not going to agree and settle the differences between Rome and Protestantism. I’m merely telling you what I believe.

Good, because I certainly don’t want you thinking you speak for all communions that are loosely classified as ”Protestant “

From the time Jesus asks his apostles the question who do they think he is, the entire context is regarding faith.

No where in that statement do I find universal jurisdiction.

Jon,

When Jesus said to Peter, [Alone] in front of all the apostles, after His resurrection and before His ascension back to heaven,

Peter, the one Jesus gives the keys to His kingdom to

Jesus says to Peter, " ποίμαινε my sheep"

as in ποίμαινε = shepherd, tend, rule, govern my sheep (present imperative active 2nd person singular)

Does Jesus restrict which sheep He means for Peter to shepherd, tend, rule, govern? NO

Do the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gives Peter alone, have jurisdiction restrictions (as in Peter can only shepherd, tend, rule, govern, ) only certain sheep and not the entire flock of Our Lord’s? NO

If you find such restrictions of the flock Peter is NOT in charge of, , please post them

Peter has universal jurisdiction

Christ gives the keys first to Peter.
Later to the twelve.
The keys are for the whole Church, not one man, not one Bishop, not one See.

This link explains it quite well.

June 2018 – Saint Anne Orthodox Christian Church

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Later to the twelve.

There was binding and loosing, but I do not recall keys being mentioned. Article speculates about that, but does not prove it at all.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Later to the twelve.

There was binding and loosing, but I do not recall keys being mentioned. Article speculates about that, but does not prove it at all.

The power of the keys is, in its essential foundation, the binding and loosing of sin. Grace is the forgiveness of sin.
That the 12, and by extension the Church, have the power to bind and loose means that is where the sinner finds forgiveness of sins and the keys to the kingdom.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The power of the keys is, in its essential foundation, the binding and loosing of sin. Grace is the forgiveness of sin.
That the 12, and by extension the Church, have the power to bind and loose means that is where the sinner finds forgiveness of sins and the keys to the kingdom.

Cool interpretation I guess, but I happen to disagree. If you read Isaiah, you will find out that keys are also source of authority, being akin to having authority over city in ruler’s absence. They were not usually given to numerous people either. Yet another conflict of interpretation of Scripture arises, one that seems to be very significant at that. Guess we won’t know who’s right if we don’t get approval of everyone who believes in Trinity- including Catholics, SSPX, traditionalists, orthodox, miaphysite, all protestant denominations and therefore entire Christian Church (by your definition).

 

[adf417]

Guess we won’t know who’s right if we don’t get approval of everyone who believes in Trinity- including Catholics, SSPX, traditionalists, orthodox, miaphysite, all protestant denominations and therefore entire Christian Church (by your definition).

And by extension means the Holy Spirit (God) is controlled and stifled by man. :man_shrugging:t3:

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

And by extension means the Holy Spirit (God) is controlled and stifled by man. :man_shrugging:t3:

but but… Pope is a man too!

Jokes aside, Papacy has much better claim to authority of interpretation than any other institution or organisation on this Earth. Why would Primacy of Honor matter if it had no consequences? Why would Petrine primacy matter if no one inherited it?

 

[adf417]

adf417:

And by extension means the Holy Spirit (God) is controlled and stifled by man. :man_shrugging:t3:

but but… Pope is a man too!

Jokes aside, Papacy has much better claim to authority of interpretation than any other institution or organisation on this Earth. Why would Primacy of Honor matter if it had no consequences? Why would Petrine primacy matter if no one inherited it?

I agree for sure but i think the “one voice” aspect of the papacy get overlooked and snuffed out due the the primacy aspect.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Cool interpretation I guess, but I happen to disagree.

Of course you do. You are Catholic. It is, to me, the single most important divide of the Church.

If you read Isaiah, you will find out that keys are also source of authority, being akin to having authority over city in ruler’s absence. They were not usually given to numerous people either. Yet another conflict of interpretation of Scripture arises, one that seems to be very significant at that.

Sure, but even here is no implication of supremacy. The issue is not the primacy of the See of Rome.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Sure, but even here is no implication of supremacy. The issue is not the primacy of the See of Rome.

That is your opinion stemming from your interpretation, one I can not disprove nor can you prove it without actual authority on this Earth, that’s why Magisterium role of Pope is that important.