How do you view Matthew 16:13 through 20? What does it mean to you?

[GLam1761]

from a homily I heard just in the pulpit, it
is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God! There are many
other verses which can affirm the Catholic
position that Christ chose Peter to be the
Vicar of Christ on earth. Jn 21 Acts 2 And
Many other Gospel accounts of how he
spoke out on behalf of all the other Apostles!

 

[MT1926]

Again, for me, bottom line, the apostles did not hear confessions as would later, much later, become the church’s custom.

How do you know they didn’t hear confessions?

Did the early Christians have to repent (which would be a form of confession) to the Apostles prior to Baptism or not?

St. James tells us… Let him call for the elders of the church,…if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

Sure this verse, by itself, does not prove confession to a Priest. But your claim is the Apostles did not hear confessions. This is speaking of “elder” of the church, whom I would argue are the Priests, but I won’t because the only point I am trying to make is that this does not line up with your claim that the Apostles never heard any confessions.

Sure I would agree that “confession” has gone through development over time but that isn’t evidence that Jesus did not intend for us to confess our sins to a Priest.

Just look in the OT confession to a Priest isn’t some new Catholic invention, it would have been evident to the people of the day and would actually be expected as a continuation of the Old Covenant.

Confession, penance and reconciliation have always been a part of God’s plan.

Read Genesis 3 God was looking for contrition. Instead Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent.

Also, it is interesting to note that God performed the first sacrifice in verse 21 when He sacrificed animals to make them clothing out of the skins. Then He gave them penance when He drove them out of the garden.

As our creator God knows we need ritual to help us order our lives. He continues this in…

Leviticus 5:5-6

5 When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, 6 and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Notice we have God insisting on an out loud confession to the priest. Then gives the sinner a liturgical act of sacrifice and penance. So they had to say they were sorry and then show that they meant it.

And notice it is the priest that shall make atonement for the sinner.

The rituals instituted by God our for our benefit not His. God forgives out of Love. He loves us so much that he gave us the perfect Sacrifice to atone for our sins. The Bible tells us that. However, no were in the Bible does it say that Jesus perfect sacrifice means God no longer wants (as He always did throughout the OT) our out loud confession to a Priest and our reconciling act of penance to show Him that we love Him and that we are contrite.

This isn’t a later custom of the Catholic Church. Out loud confession was around since before the time of Christ until Luther decided it was no longer necessary.

Hope this helps you see that the Catholic teaching on confession isn’t some man made invention, it was instituted by God and continued through Christ to the Apostles.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

from a homily I heard just in the pulpit, it
is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God! There are many
other verses which can affirm the Catholic
position that Christ chose Peter to be the
Vicar of Christ on earth. Jn 21 Acts 2 And
Many other Gospel accounts of how he
spoke out on behalf of all the other Apostles!

That is simply amazing. Heretics have given their lives over that very issue.

 

[MT1926]

from a homily I heard just in the pulpit, it
is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God!

Yes we have no problem with this because Catholics believe that it can be Both/And. It can be Both St. Peter And his affirmation. We don’t pit the two against each other and claim it has to be Either/Or their is no other way.

That is simply amazing. Heretics have given their lives over that very issue.

I don’t really know the facts on the giving their lives on this issue. However, this made me think of something I heard the other day.

Quite often the heresy was not in regards to the issue the heresy actually came down the the heretic holding to the “Either/Or” belief and unwilling to accept the “Both/And” belief.

The Gnostics said Jesus couldn’t be God and Man. Their “Either/Or” scenario was a denial of the incarnation.

Sebellianism set up an “either/Or” with the Godhead. Instead of the 3 persons of the Godhead…Father And Son And Holy Spirit, they believed in only one God with 3 modes of a single divine Person. This led to another heresy, Patripassianism that taught the Father in the mode of the Son suffered and died on the cross.

Pelagianism taught we can get to heaven under our own power “Either/Or” with God’s grace, doesn’t matter which way.

Nestorius denied Jesus was Fully God by insisting Mary is only the Mother of Jesus human nature. So at the time of His birth Jesus would have had to have been Either Human or Divine but not both at that very moment.

The list goes on and on.

It seems the “Either/Or” scenario has caused quite a bit of division over the years.

Matthew 16 being no different. Why does it have to be Either Peter Or his affirmation?

Why can’t it be “Both/And”? After all I am sure the one thing we can all Biblically agree on is that Peter was the one who said it.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

GLam1761:

from a homily I heard just in the pulpit, it
is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God!

Yes we have no problem with this because Catholics believe that it can be Both/And. It can be Both St. Peter And his affirmation. We don’t pit the two against each other and claim it has to be Either/Or their is no other way.

That is simply amazing. Heretics have given their lives over that very issue.

I don’t really know the facts on the giving their lives on this issue. However, this made me think of something I heard the other day.

Quite often the heresy was not in regards to the issue the heresy actually came down the the heretic holding to the “Either/Or” belief and unwilling to accept the “Both/And” belief.

The Gnostics said Jesus couldn’t be God and Man. Their “Either/Or” scenario was a denial of the incarnation.

Sebellianism set up an “either/Or” with the Godhead. Instead of the 3 persons of the Godhead…Father And Son And Holy Spirit, they believed in only one God with 3 modes of a single divine Person. This led to another heresy, Patripassianism that taught the Father in the mode of the Son suffered and died on the cross.

Pelagianism taught we can get to heaven under our own power “Either/Or” with God’s grace, doesn’t matter which way.

Nestorius denied Jesus was Fully God by insisting Mary is only the Mother of Jesus human nature. So at the time of His birth Jesus would have had to have been Either Human or Divine but not both at that very moment.

The list goes on and on.

It seems the “Either/Or” scenario has caused quite a bit of division over the years.

Matthew 16 being no different. Why does it have to be Either Peter Or his affirmation?

Why can’t it be “Both/And”? After all I am sure the one thing we can all Biblically agree on is that Peter was the one who said it.

God Bless

Thanks that was interesting.

 

[Wannano]

GLam1761:

from a homily I heard just in the pulpit, it
is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God!

Yes we have no problem with this because Catholics believe that it can be Both/And. It can be Both St. Peter And his affirmation. We don’t pit the two against each other and claim it has to be Either/Or their is no other way.

That is simply amazing. Heretics have given their lives over that very issue.

I don’t really know the facts on the giving their lives on this issue. However, this made me think of something I heard the other day.

Quite often the heresy was not in regards to the issue the heresy actually came down the the heretic holding to the “Either/Or” belief and unwilling to accept the “Both/And” belief.

The Gnostics said Jesus couldn’t be God and Man. Their “Either/Or” scenario was a denial of the incarnation.

Sebellianism set up an “either/Or” with the Godhead. Instead of the 3 persons of the Godhead…Father And Son And Holy Spirit, they believed in only one God with 3 modes of a single divine Person. This led to another heresy, Patripassianism that taught the Father in the mode of the Son suffered and died on the cross.

Pelagianism taught we can get to heaven under our own power “Either/Or” with God’s grace, doesn’t matter which way.

Nestorius denied Jesus was Fully God by insisting Mary is only the Mother of Jesus human nature. So at the time of His birth Jesus would have had to have been Either Human or Divine but not both at that very moment.

The list goes on and on.

It seems the “Either/Or” scenario has caused quite a bit of division over the years.

Matthew 16 being no different. Why does it have to be Either Peter Or his affirmation?

Why can’t it be “Both/And”? After all I am sure the one thing we can all Biblically agree on is that Peter was the one who said it.

God Bless

My apologies I can see I totally misread your info.

 

[Wannano]

from a homily I heard just in the pulpit, it
is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God! There are many
other verses which can affirm the Catholic
position that Christ chose Peter to be the
Vicar of Christ on earth. Jn 21 Acts 2 And
Many other Gospel accounts of how he
spoke out on behalf of all the other Apostles!

Did he present the fact that it is ok as long as you also believe it also means that Jesus meant it to mean that the Church was built on the man Peter?

 

[MT1926]

My apologies I can see I totally misread your info.

Sorry about that, was there something in particular that I wrote that seem to come off as confusing?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

My apologies I can see I totally misread your info.

Sorry about that, was there something in particular that I wrote that seem to come off as confusing?

No, I know I realize I never read it carefully enough!

 

[GLam1761]

@Wannano This is from a Anglican convert
to Catholic Priest, he KNEW what the Catholic
Church teaches, yet he said THAT!(He is a
senior priest of the Parish).

 

[Wannano]

@Wannano This is from a Anglican convert
to Catholic Priest, he KNEW what the Catholic
Church teaches, yet he said THAT!(He is a
senior priest of the Parish).

So you have a senior priest who is from the pulpit espousing teaching that contradicts the 2000 year old teaching of the Church.

What recourse does the laity at the parish have in a situation like that?

 

[MT1926]

So you have a senior priest who is from the pulpit espousing teaching that contradicts the 2000 year old teaching of the Church.

Where are you seeing that the Priest contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church?

@GLam1761 stated The Priest said…

… it is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God!

There is no problem here. The Catholic Church does not give definitive interpretations of every single verse of scripture. As Catholics we are free to read and interpret the Bible in a way it speaks to us. However, as Catholics we need to keep in mind that although we do have this freedom, the Church does define doctrines for us, and our personal interpretations need to not contradict these defined doctrines.

The Priest gave his personal opinion on a verse of scripture, that is not fully defined by the Catholic Church. I see no problem with his opinion because the point he was trying to make in this homily was…

There are many
other verses which can affirm the Catholic
position that Christ chose Peter to be the
Vicar of Christ on earth. Jn 21 Acts 2 And
Many other Gospel accounts of how he
spoke out on behalf of all the other Apostles!

Which is right in line with the defined doctrine of the Catholic Church.

What recourse does the laity at the parish have in a situation like that?

As Catholic we are to follow the teachings of our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17.

If we misunderstood his homily and took offense we are to approach him first and discuss his homily. If we are unsatisfied with his explanation (not sure how in this situation but lets say we are) we go and discuss it with a few fellow, well respected parishioners. If they agree with me, we go back to the Priest and represent our argument and why we fear it might cause division. If we are still not satisfied, since he was a senior priest we can go to the Bishop next.

Basically, be a Christian give the Priest the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain, instead of jumping over his head. There might just be a chance that we are the ones not understanding what he really said.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

So you have a senior priest who is from the pulpit espousing teaching that contradicts the 2000 year old teaching of the Church.

Where are you seeing that the Priest contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church?

@GLam1761 stated The Priest said…

… it is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God!

There is no problem here. The Catholic Church does not give definitive interpretations of every single verse of scripture. As Catholics we are free to read and interpret the Bible in a way it speaks to us. However, as Catholics we need to keep in mind that although we do have this freedom, the Church does define doctrines for us, and our personal interpretations need to not contradict these defined doctrines.

The Priest gave his personal opinion on a verse of scripture, that is not fully defined by the Catholic Church. I see no problem with his opinion because the point he was trying to make in this homily was…

There are many
other verses which can affirm the Catholic
position that Christ chose Peter to be the
Vicar of Christ on earth. Jn 21 Acts 2 And
Many other Gospel accounts of how he
spoke out on behalf of all the other Apostles!

Which is right in line with the defined doctrine of the Catholic Church.

What recourse does the laity at the parish have in a situation like that?

As Catholic we are to follow the teachings of our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17.

If we misunderstood his homily and took offense we are to approach him first and discuss his homily. If we are unsatisfied with his explanation (not sure how in this situation but lets say we are) we go and discuss it with a few fellow, well respected parishioners. If they agree with me, we go back to the Priest and represent our argument and why we fear it might cause division. If we are still not satisfied, since he was a senior priest we can go to the Bishop next.

Basically, be a Christian give the Priest the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain, instead of jumping over his head. There might just be a chance that we are the ones not understanding what he really said.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

Thanks that is interesting …really not so different than in a Protestant church when needing clarification from the Pastor.

I actually thought that the way Glam responded to me indicated that he felt the Priest was out of line. …“Yet he said THAT!”

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

So you have a senior priest who is from the pulpit espousing teaching that contradicts the 2000 year old teaching of the Church.

Where are you seeing that the Priest contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church?

@GLam1761 stated The Priest said…

… it is Okay to interpret that the “rock” means
the affirmation that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the Living God!

There is no problem here. The Catholic Church does not give definitive interpretations of every single verse of scripture. As Catholics we are free to read and interpret the Bible in a way it speaks to us. However, as Catholics we need to keep in mind that although we do have this freedom, the Church does define doctrines for us, and our personal interpretations need to not contradict these defined doctrines.

The Priest gave his personal opinion on a verse of scripture, that is not fully defined by the Catholic Church. I see no problem with his opinion because the point he was trying to make in this homily was…

There are many
other verses which can affirm the Catholic
position that Christ chose Peter to be the
Vicar of Christ on earth. Jn 21 Acts 2 And
Many other Gospel accounts of how he
spoke out on behalf of all the other Apostles!

Which is right in line with the defined doctrine of the Catholic Church.

What recourse does the laity at the parish have in a situation like that?

As Catholic we are to follow the teachings of our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17.

If we misunderstood his homily and took offense we are to approach him first and discuss his homily. If we are unsatisfied with his explanation (not sure how in this situation but lets say we are) we go and discuss it with a few fellow, well respected parishioners. If they agree with me, we go back to the Priest and represent our argument and why we fear it might cause division. If we are still not satisfied, since he was a senior priest we can go to the Bishop next.

Basically, be a Christian give the Priest the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain, instead of jumping over his head. There might just be a chance that we are the ones not understanding what he really said.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

While thinking on this more I realize I could ask more direct questions. Does the CC not teach that Jesus meant that He would build his Church upon the man Peter/rock based on that verse? Do other verses that substantiate that Peter was definitely a leader mean that the Church of God was built upon Peter?

 

[MT1926]

While thinking on this more I realize I could ask more direct questions. Does the CC not teach that Jesus meant that He would build his Church upon the man Peter/rock based on that verse?

I think the import thing that we are to keep in mind is that Jesus said “He would build His Church”.

Jesus is the one to build the Church, we don’t deny that here. I’m wondering if this is the hang up. We fully believe Jesus built His Church. But when we get down to the nitty gritty how exactly did Jesus perform this miracle? Did He just snap His fingers and say here’s the Church? or Did He build it on the blood, sweat and tears of the Apostles and all the Christian Martyrs throughout the world, whom (as you asked) yes many other verses of scripture make it definitively evident, that St. Peter was their visible leader still present here on earth.

If I had more time right now I would be happy to go through the many verses that make it so obvious that Jesus set St. Peter apart from the other Apostles for something very important.

On a final note, it is common sense to me, I know of no organization that has survived without a visible leader.

I would love to discuss this more if you have any further questions.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Some have written that this verse was first interpreted to mean Peter and in defense of papacy in 3rd century, and has been used ever since…of course there are other verses now used, and one could debate if they rest upon “rock” text as foundation historically speaking.

 

[mcq72]

Did the early Christians have to repent (which would be a form of confession) to the Apostles prior to Baptism or not?

repentance of a non believer for salvation is not what I have been referring to, but the sacrament of reconciliation, or "confession’’…

St. James tells us… Let him call for the elders of the church,…if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

do not see this as auricular confession…it is a call for physical healing, and that a clean conscience is a gift to that end…confess your faults one to another…this can be a priest(elder) to the lay person(s) and vice versa…nothing about a priest declaring absolution and a penance.

this does not line up with your claim that the Apostles never heard any confessions.

never made claim that they never heard confession…it would be ludicrous to think that a pastor or spiritual overseer would not have been confessed to…but again, as to what end , for absolution from pastor or declaration of Christ’s faithfulness to forgive those who really confess to Him?

I was careful to say the apostles did not hear confessions as would later be the custom (on set periods of time and on certain days, or as a matter of confessing venial or mortal sin to be prepared for communion, and of giving penance, to say three Our Fathers or so many Hail Mary’s for example)

Sure I would agree that “confession” has gone through development over time

yes, that is what I was referring to, that whatever the apostles did in this regard does not match the much later developed practices…on this development could be much discussion and common ground of understanding,

Just look in the OT confession

yes confession was there, sometimes generically, sometimes as a nation, sometimes for unknown sins, sometimes to the person you offended, and confession made before the required sacrifice for an individual…not sure the priest had to "absolve, but assisted in slaying the animal, placing the offender’s hand on the animal…the blood be the medium for forgiveness. …so , all Christians can still confess at one time or another , but not sacramentally and to a heirus preist, as if Melchizadek (in us or others) were not better than Levi priest.

nd notice it is the priest that shall make atonement for the sinner.

yes , what Christ has done once and for all…both priest and sacrifice.

 

[GLam1761]

There are other Scriptures which support the
“Rock” interpretation as being Peter.
“I follow Cephas(or Peter)” 1 Cor. 1
“All things are yours, whether Paul…
or Cephas, or the world” 1 Cor. 3
Peter was also the One who opened
the door to the Samaritans, Acts 8
to the Gentiles, Acts 10 and Church
History indicates Peter was in Rome
leading the Church.

 

[MT1926]

repentance …but the sacrament of reconciliation, or "confession’’…

From my point of view I am not seeing a difference here? I realize you are talking about the sacrament of confession. But the point I was trying to make is, doesn’t repenting of your sins include confession? I am just having a hard time seeing how someone can repentant (turn away) from something that they don’t admit they have or did?

this can be a priest(elder) to the lay person(s)

Sure you could argue this, however in context it is pretty clear that St. James is talking about the priest (elder) here, seeing that he didn’t say call upon one another (priest or lat person). This is one continuous thought. It is the priest who is to pray over the sick person in verse 14. It continues to verse 15 and tells us that the prayer, of the priest, will save the sick man and from this prayer the Lord will raise him up and if he has committed sin, from the priest’s prayer, because the Lord wills it, the man’s sins will be forgiven. All of this is occurring through the prayer of the priest. It is in this context that we read verse 16.

never made claim that they never heard confession

Sorry about that if you would have added everything you put in parentheses to the first post I would have known what you were talking about. Don’t really feel a need to defend this. If you are claiming everything we do and believe had to be written is stone, in some instruction manual (which the Bible is not) and performed by the Apostles before they died then the entire Christian faith falls apart.

for absolution from pastor or declaration of Christ’s faithfulness to forgive those who really confess to Him?

I take Jesus words at face value.

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Did the Father send Jesus to forgive sins? I say Yes

Does Jesus here say I am sending you to do what I do? I say Yes

Does Jesus say if YOU forgive they are forgiven? I say Yes.

So when you ask does the absolution come from the Pastor? I say Yes. Because of the power given them by Jesus in this very verse.

How do you interpret this verse?

Also, how can you ever know if you are forgiven? Other than your gut feeling what evidence do you have that you “REALLY” confess Christ?

yes , what Christ has done once and for all…both priest and sacrifice.

Not sure where you are going with this. I was discussing the OT. Why does it say in the OT that the priest shall make atonement for the sinner. Christ wasn’t even born yet let alone sacrificed?

Thanks for the response,

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

There are other Scriptures which support the
“Rock” interpretation as being Peter.
“I follow Cephas(or Peter)” 1 Cor. 1
“All things are yours, whether Paul…
or Cephas, or the world” 1 Cor. 3
Peter was also the One who opened
the door to the Samaritans, Acts 8
to the Gentiles, Acts 10 and Church
History indicates Peter was in Rome
leading the Church.

Sorry Glam, I read the Corinthian chapters and do not see anywhere that it instructs us to follow Peter. In fact as I read it, he is instructing us to NOT follow a man, not him or Apollos nor Peter. That is the source of division within the Church. I am not sure what version you are reading from.