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

  • Thread starter Thread starter GladTidings
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O my goodness. How you got that I’m denying that Peter had a leadership role is to deny scripture, is ludecrus. If a name change meant that Peter was to forsake his role as an apostle and in 42 ad would take on a new and different role, one that is taught nowhere in the entire NT, to be the head of the entire church around the world while Christ is taught by Paul to be the only head of the church, then let the witnesses of holy Spirit inspired scripture, teach it. Sorry for the run-on sentences. Peter did not have the keys to heaven, he was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom and heaven itself are not synonamous terms. The kingdom is God’s way of doing things. Peter WAS! a great leader and apostle, one of many.
 
The Isaiah passage says many things about the the new servant, including that he will open doors that no man can open and close doors no man can close, a direct reference to Christ.
How are you seeing this verse, in Isaiah 22, as a direct reference to Christ?
22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
This is one continuous thought. The one who places the key is God and the one who’s shoulder it is placed upon is the servant of the King. It goes on to say he (the servant) it doesn’t say I (the King).

How can this be a direct reference to Christ here without making Jesus the servant of the King, when I am sure we both agree that Jesus is the One true King of the House of David?
It is here that the CC connected a dot to Peter by forcing into the Isaiah and Matthew passages what in essesnce Isaiah 22 was saying prophetically.
I don’t know tg, I’m just reading the words on the page, to me it sure seems you are the one trying to force Christ into the position of servant instead of King.
The problem for me is that no Bible witness supports or even acknowledges the “two head” approach invented many years after the apostles came and went. Every gospel writer also has no supportive narrative.
I’m not sure what you are talking about in regards to the “two head approach”. Catholics believe Jesus is the King and the Pope is the chief steward, exactly as it has always been in every Kingdom and still is to this day.

To be quite honest to me the “two head approach” sounds to me like a term that someone would use for Sola Scriptura. You have the true head, God, who gave us His word. Then you have the second head the one who claims he has the authority to interpret God’s Word on his own. That sounds more like a two head (just me and Jesus) approach to me.
Every gospel writer also has no supportive narrative.
I know the narrative you speak of here is the “two head” approach. However, if you are willing to drop that mindset, since as I pointed out this is not what us Catholics see it as, you would be able approach scripture from a different angle like you accused @hope (overriding tradition) and you would be able to see that many of the inspired writers do support Peter as the first authority among the Apostles. If they didn’t believe it why were they always writing about him?

God Bless
 
O my goodness. How you got that I’m denying that Peter had a leadership role is to deny scripture, is ludecrus.
Really! Are you denying that scripture supports Peter as a leader of the Apostles?
If a name change meant that Peter was to forsake his role as an apostle and in 42 ad would take on a new and different role, one that is taught nowhere in the entire NT,
No this is not taught. It is a straw man. He did not forsake his role as an apostle but that he would be like a Stewart who acts in his masters stead. It is the role that Jesus gave him when Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. I don’t see your distinction between kingdom of heaven and just heaven perhaps you can explain it?
 
Last edited:
Reconciliation works because when I sin by myself, I sin as a representative of my Church, so I go back there to make it right by expressing sorry, asking forgiveness, and seeing how to make it right.
 
I’m not sure what you are talking about in regards to the “two head approach”. Catholics believe Jesus is the King and the Pope is the chief steward,
MT… good afternoon. The reality of the CC is that you have Christ on earth as a substitute, and Christ in heaven. The Christ on earth is the vicar. Why go for the word steward?
vicarius, =vicar. Aren’t’ we all here instead of Christ who alone sits on the thrown? if you believe there is only one vicar, then how could you believe that we all represent Christ as ambassadors? No one is kissing my ring or bowing to me in the way they bow to the pope.
 
. I don’t see your distinction between kingdom of heaven and just heaven perhaps you can explain it?
Okay… heaven is a place, literally. The kingdom is a WAY. It is God’s way of doing things. It is his domain of rule. His ways.
 
MT… good afternoon. The reality of the CC is that you have Christ on earth as a substitute, and Christ in heaven.
Well all I can say to this is you might see it that way but we don’t. I think it comes down to how you want to define things, and Catholics and Protestants have different definitions.

I think the difference might be we, as Catholics don’t see the Pope as a substitute for Christ on earth, because we already have Christ on earth everyday at mass in the Eucharist. From your point of view my guess would be you left the Catholic Church and no longer have Christ in the Eucharist, so now that you no longer have Jesus with you here on earth, you see the Pope as the substitute.

Not trying to bash you just pointing out the difference. Does that kind of make sense?
The Christ on earth is the vicar. Why go for the word steward?
Could you further explain please? From my understanding vicar means representative of Christ? A steward is also a representative who supervises? I’m not sure what your point is here?
Aren’t’ we all here instead of Christ who alone sits on the thrown?
Not sure where you are going with this. Just because we are all vicars of Christ doesn’t prove there isn’t a difference in our roles as vicars.
if you believe there is only one vicar, then how could you believe that we all represent Christ as ambassadors?
Not sure who told you we believe there is only one vicar? As I already said we are all vicars just as we are all priests. Us being vicars in no way diminishes the Pope role as the Vicar of Christ just like us being priests in no way diminishes Christ being the High Priest.
No one is kissing my ring or bowing to me in the way they bow to the pope.
Well maybe it’s because you, just like myself, aren’t worthy of that honor.

Romans 13:7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I mean no disrespect with what I am about to say but I find it very sad that we have fallen so far in the past 500 years. We have forgot what it means to truly worship God. Instead of sacrifice, which is true worship, we now see a kiss, which is a simple sign of respect, or a bow, which is a simple sign of honor, to be signs of worship.

Using this mind set aren’t you accusing all English people, half of whom I believe are protestant, who bow to the Queen of England to being idolaters as well?

I’m 48 years old and never say goodbye to my father, even in a crowded public place, without giving him a kiss on the check. Respect and honor to whom it is due.

God Bless
 
I think the difference might be we, as Catholics don’t see the Pope as a substitute for Christ on earth, because we already have Christ on earth everyday at mass in the Eucharist. From your point of view my guess would be you left the Catholic Church and no longer have Christ in the Eucharist, so now that you no longer have Jesus with you here on earth, you see the Pope as the substitute.
We do not need Christ to be in a wafer. Why not? Because He dwells in our hearts eternally. We do not need to receive Him again and again and again. We received Him one time forever and He refuses to leave. And now His Spirit bears witness with ours, that we are the Children of God. Every moment is a Eucharist meal, my brother.

Blessings to you
 
We do not need Christ to be in a wafer. Why not? Because He dwells in our hearts eternally. We do not need to receive Him again and again and again. We received Him one time forever and He refuses to leave. And now His Spirit bears witness with ours, that we are the Children of God. Every moment is a Eucharist meal, my brother.
I’m not going to keep going from argument to argument with you Tg. We never get anywhere cause we can’t stay on one topic. Which it seems that accusing Catholics of being wrong and starting arguments is all you enjoy doing here.

All I pointed out is that yes I understand that is what you see. However, I pointed out, from a Catholic point of view, why what you said does not make sense. All I asked you is if the reasoning made sense. I never said I was right and you were wrong. Why you needed to go off on a rant about the Eucharist, and how Catholics are wrong, is beyond me.

So let’s take a step back, forget about who is right and who is wrong about the Eucharist being the Body of Christ. Just look at the Catholic reasoning and apply it to your accusation that Catholics believe the Pope is a substitute Christ on earth. Using this line of reasoning does it make sense to accusing Catholics of believing the Pope is Christ on earth?

Also, how about the rest of my post? I asked you for further explanation and you ignored my request. I gave you further Biblical reasoning and you gave no response? What’s the deal? Do you want to discuss this topic civilly? or do you just want to keep telling me I’m wrong and start more arguments? One of these is productive the other is not.

God Bless
 
MT - I really appreciate the way in which you winsomely represent your Catholic faith, and your love for our King. You always respond in a kind, but firm and well reasoned manner. We may disagree on some theological matters, but I can tell that we agree on what St. Paul says about love - that among other things, it’s patient, kind, not insisting on it’s own way. I look forward to the day when we can discuss these things together with our great and shared Lord and Savior.
 

It is talking about the power of the keys, which were given to Peter and every other Apostle and to the church as a whole. This is essentially the right of Christians to proclaim the word of God, by which we open and shut the kingdom of heaven. This would also be the theological basis for church discipline as well (binding and loosing), see Matthew 18:15-18.
In addition to the power of the keys is the office of Peter as the rock on which the Church is founded. St. Augustine commentaries are that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter not to all members but to the priesthood.
 
I’m not going to keep going from argument to argument with you Tg
MT. I don’t know if you’ve noticed by I am not spending the time I used to on this site anymore because I am not interested in going on from argument to argument as you say. You think I come here to “accuse” Catholics of this or that. No.

I originally came on this site to defend all of the “we are superior to you, attitudes” against the non-Catholics, you call them Protestants. I believe the Catholic v’s Protestant fight has been over for years, at least from the circle I hang out with. But my last post was not done in some kind of mean-spirited attitude. I would rather not come on if I come on to be nasty with people. Secondly, via internet conversations, especially, theological ones, are always going to be misunderstood for various reasons. Voice inflections, and attitudes are not conveyed.

I apologies if I have hurt your feelings MT.
Have a blessed day.
 
Last edited:
We disagree here. Probably in degrees because I believe the Kingdom of Heave has many layers one of which is what we are trying to attain at the end of our lives. Thank you for your explanation. I will keep this in mind in conversing with you.
 
We do not need Christ to be in a wafer. Why not? Because He dwells in our hearts eternally. We do not need to receive Him again and again and again. We received Him one time forever and He refuses to leave. And now His Spirit bears witness with ours, that we are the Children of God. Every moment is a Eucharist meal, my brother.

Blessings to you
You do not take into consideration that Jesus commanded this. “Do This in remembrance of me” So obviously Jesus felt it was needed. Jesus is not in a wafer. I find the way you termed it to be insulting. I don’t believe you meant it that way but please be more respectful in the future.
Is the wafer at communion called a host?Ye s it is. Preferably, after it has been consecrated, it would be better to use the term Body of Christ.
To say He is in the wafer is a misstatement of our beliefs.
There is no other change exactly like transubstantiation. In transubstantiation only the substance is converted into another substance, while the accidents remain the same. At Cana substance was changed into substance, but the accidents of water were changed also into the accidents of wine.
Transubstantiation for Beginners
 
Last edited:
You always respond in a kind, but firm and well reasoned manner.
Thank you for your kind words. Your reassurance, that I am being charitable, is exactly what I needed right now.
We may disagree on some theological matters, but I can tell that we agree on what St. Paul says about love - that among other things, it’s patient, kind, not insisting on it’s own way.
Your post blew my mind when I read this.

Last Sundays Gospel was Mark 12…
29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
The Priest said during his homily…
Faith isn’t intellectual ascent we don’t have faith just because we say we have faith.
Faith isn’t based on our knowledge and what we know, it isn’t how much of the Bible we understand or how much we have memorized.
Faith is being tethered to Christ in Love, in all things. Without Love we can’t have faith.

For some reason this right away got me asking myself if I am tethered to Christ in Love when I discuss my faith with others. I started thinking about CAF and wondering if I am truly tethered to Christ when I share my faith? or am I just trying to prove that I am right and they are wrong?

Your words have reassured me I am on the right path. My Priest’s homily is guiding me to be cautious that I don’t step off that path.
I look forward to the day when we can discuss these things together with our great and shared Lord and Savior.
As do I. Although I’m curious how much actual discussion we will be doing? I have a feeling we might be sitting there with our eyes wide open just absorbing all of His Love and Knowledge.

God Bless
 
The Priest said during his homily…
Faith isn’t intellectual ascent we don’t have faith just because we say we have faith.
Faith isn’t based on our knowledge and what we know, it isn’t how much of the Bible we understand or how much we have memorized.
Faith is being tethered to Christ in Love, in all things. Without Love we can’t have faith.
Wow, that is a beautiful definition of faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top