Identifying "the Rock" of Matthew 16:18

[jcrichton]

I take it you disagree with Eastern Orthodox on that ? Eastern Orthodox does predate Roman Catholicism historically speaking. Eastern Orthodox on that have 44 church fathers for their position. Guess apostolic tradition is not being followed by Roman Catholicism but rather Eastern Orthodox , Old Catholics and Protestants.

…if you ask do I side with man in interpreting Christ’s Word or do I side with Christ in interpreting Christ’s Word I can only tell you that you are correct!

Christ did not make foolish gestures of grandeur… so if He tells Simon that he is the rock on which He will build His Community (Church), I, as well as every single person that claims to be Christ’s disciple (follower), must accept Him at His Word!

When theologeans and scholars study Scriptures and other fountains of knowledge and wisdom they sometimes err on the side of their personal prejudice… we find this very essence even at the earliest in Church history… man has to allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten him… sadly, humility and obedience are quite difficult to master… specially when pride sets in… if this were not to be so the Church would have never had experienced the first schisms (East-West) and the myriads that would follow (“protestant reformation”).

If Eastern Orthodoxy and the 44 Church Fathers reject Christ’s selection of Simon as the rock on which He would Build His Church then I must respectfully disagree with them both… if the issue is about who is the “Stone/Rock that the builders reject” or “the Corner Stone/Rock of our Faith (Christian),” then there’s no arguing that Christ is that Rock (same Rock that followed Israel in the desert and provided the Water that sustained them).

…I think that, as with the early Chruch schisms, these are the little pebbles that tend to stifle Christian Unity, Spiritual Development, and world-wide Conversions to Christ Jesus.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

They simply affirmed in their expositions that the rock was Peter’s confession of faith. The main point is they did not have the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Vatican I in 187ad has on it. Vatican I was a departure from the general position of the church fathers.

None of them held to it in the same sense as Vatican I. That is the issue here. In this Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants are right. There were about 6 to 8 church fathers who did hold that Peter was the Rock but not in the same sense as Vatican I held to. Their understanding was different of it. Over 44 chuch fathers I said held that the Rock was either Peter’s confession of faith or that it was Christ Himself as the Rock. That is in contradication to Vatican I’s view of Matthew 16:18. One intresting thing is that I notice was one church father at various different times held to different interpretations of it.

The issue is with respect to the Roman See which is only one branch of the Catholic Church. As the Catholic Church is never limited to only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is Roman Catholicism’s view at Vatican I in which rejected and contradicted the majority interpretation of Matthew 16:18 from that of the church fathers.

It was Vatican I that claimed to have followed the unanimous consent of the church fathers. That is where I find fault with them on. If they merely said hey this interpretation is what is correct and the other views are wrong that some church fahers held I would have no problem.** But when they claim to follow the unanimous consent of the church fathers they went beyond anything reasonable and departs from historical reality.** That is why Old Catholics separated from Roman Catholicism over Vatican I. As to my own personal view of John 3:5 I do not hold to their view of it as being baptismal regeneration. We have about 5 to 8 before 250ad as teaching that view. I disagree respectfully with them.At times some went to an extreme with it such as teaching those not baptized will end up in hell. Many today would disagree with that. I feel that these church fathers did not defend their specific interpretation of it and merely took for granted their view and not show why it was correct. My issue would be what specific doctrine of baptismal regeneration it would be if refering to if it is ? You see baptismal regeneration within it has variations of that doctrine. If we assume that baptismal regeneration is correct then I would say it is most close to that held by Lutherns and Anglicans rather than Roman Catholicism. Their own doctrine of baptismal regeneration are distinct from that of Roman Catholicism to be fair. A major area of concern is the use of anarchism by people when dealing with the church fathers. The church fathers must be read and understood within their historical context of which they lived and died. No need to turn this to a discussion of baptismal regeneration. When all is said and done it is the matter of Vatican I claiming the unianimous consent of the church fathers which is really very much overstated thing to say. I hope you understand what I am saying and see what I am saying.

…when these 44 Fathers and the others that you cite made their pronouncements was the Church splintered into hundreds and thousands of bodies of Christ?

…who introduced the Holy Trinity?

…who pronounced that Christ is both fully God and fully man?

…the Church is organic, respoding to the various heresies and schisms as they arise… it is quite possible that in the future many “Christians” will embrace homosexuality as, in the sixties and seventies, they embraced divorce and contraception… the Body of Christ must abstain from social evolution… however, the Church’s Doctrine must evolve to both support the Faith and reject error–Christ did not err as attested to by Acts:

Day by day the Lord added to their community those destined to be saved. (Acts 2:47b)

Hopscotch has evolved from obscurity to modern times–each region/culture adding or removing something… Christ’s Community was founded without such flexibilities, in spite of the many minds that would offer their genuine thoughts and exegesis… when the first Pope spoke ex cathedra none rejected his Teachings… However, as with the Jews, men tend to limit themselves to personal understanding and prejudice… it is only through constant vigilance, study, and consensus that Doctrinal Teachings arise… the fact that it takes an assault on the Faith for the Church to act only demonstrates that the Chuch seeks the favor of God not of man.

If we were to simply point out seeming errors or inconsistencies I can quote St. Peter seemingly supporting those who believe that Christ is not God–only seemingly!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

SwissGuard25;9447331:

There were another signs of Peter’s authority:[/qupte]

It is my view that Peter had the very same equal authority that all the other apostles had including the apostle Paul. I have the support of Eph 2:20 for that.The gift of apostleship was equal with them. There is a vast difference between calling Peter chief of the apostles and making a claim of being the visible head of the entire church on the earth. Peter himself says he is an Apostle and a fellow elder. Peter was an apostle to the Jews while the Apostle Paul was an apostle to the gentiles.

Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants would disagree with that claim.

…so when Jesus tells Peter that they all have been threatened by Satan and that He prayed for him (Peter) so that when he returned (reconciled himself to Christ) he would gather and strengthen the others… Jesus was in error or He mistakenly forgot to choose to pray for the Eleven (and Saul)?

…you seem to forget that Apostles must lead the Chruch not as human leaders, enforcing their wills upon the people, but by serving the Body of Christ (“Peter, do you Love Me?”); it was the will of Christ to leave a human at the center of His Ministry who would bind/bring others to the Faith… it is no mistake that Scriptures speak of Jesus paying only taxes for Himself and Peter and that Jesus would often use Peter’s home as His own!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is a question that is never answered.

…much like that ole anomaly… ‘but Jesus was not being literal…’ (St. John 6); it seems that more and more the Word is subjective–to be applied/ignored as the need arises.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

My issue is what Vatican I claimed. While I may personally agree with Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants I feel it is unimportant. I am just pointing out Vatican I made a much overstated claim when it is not true based on the church father writings themselves and I hold them to their own standards.

The reading back of present day concepts back to a prior priod of time when it did not exist.

So unianimous consent does not mean unianimous consent ? Lanuage loses it’s meaning when things get redefined like this. Words have meanings to them . Unianimous consent in it’s meaning IS an all hands vote of agreement on sometime. For example in a boxing match we have 3 judges .Each scores round by round and vote on the winner. Then all 3 different score cards are read and we see the winner on something or a draw. If a fighter wins on all 3 score cards from each of the Judges it is called a unanimous decision. Likewise when we read all the church fathers who spoke on Matthew 16:18 a majority of them held it out of the total number of church fathers who spoke on it held was either Peter’s confession of Faith or Christ Himself. Key word is unanimous consent. If we follow what you say words lose it’s meaning.

So Christ did not mean what He said?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Chafer DTS;9447427:

This is off topic but you keep mentioning that. Why throw protestants in there? Protestants have never had apostolic succession. They have never had valid teaching authority. None of their ministers are validly ordained. Doesn’t matter what sect they belong too, the teaching is incomplete at best or heretical at worst. Theologically, protestantism falls to pieces against the Truth of Scriptures and Oral tradition. You keep trying to slide protestant beliefs in there with apostolic churches as though it is somehow validated because it agrees on one issue. Agreeing on one issue does not negate the fact that protestants deny much of what Christ taught. Every ecclesiastic community they belong too is in schism with Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Christ preached unity. He created one Church. One system of beliefs. The 35,000 cherry picked, watered down, make it up as you go versions of protestantism are without substance. Since we were on the subject of the early church and early church teachings/beliefs I figured I’d point that out.

…that is exactly why it is important to have the Body of Christ have multitudes of layers and entrances–no one Apostolic lineage; no one head of the Church; no one Church of Christ… legitimacy is at the roots… they ignore that the book of Acts demonstrates that there is but One Faith, One Spirit, One Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I have 3 things to say about your post. 1 ) I hold Roman Catholicism to standards of which they set upon themselves which they say they follow. I dont place my own standards on them. That would not be a fair thing to do. I only showed they violated their standards and not mine. 2 ) Your post is evidently filled with anarchanism as a basic foundation for your statements. 3 ) I was explained and taught long ago what unaniamous consent of the church fathers means. I do not want it to be redefined just to avoid what I pointed out on the matter. Otherwise language loses it’s meaning when we say things such as " we follow the unianimous consent of the church fathers " and see differently when we read them for ourselves. There is no need for you to do that really. All you have to do is simply say you and Vatican I disagree with these 44 or so church fathers and that would be the end of that.

…since you are holding Vatican I (which is to say the Catholic Church) to its own set standards, could you quote the exact passage and give reference of both Vatican I and Catholic Teachings that demonstrates that Vatican I is wrong in its statement/s?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pablope]

LionHeart777;9447431:

I am saying they my disagree with you view. ** I reject baptismal regeneration in all forms. **

But that is irrelevent to the issue. The point is the claim of the unianimous consent of the church fathers. Vatican I claimed this while I never do.

Hm…and where do you get the authority to reject all forms of baptismal regeneration?

What are the different forms anyway? Is there more than one?

What then, to you is baptismal regeneration, the correct oen? Were you given the authority to define what is the correct one?

And when you define this correct one…why should I or any catholic or any protestant that disagree with you…believe you? Did jesus give you the keys to bind and loose?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Roman Catholicism would also disagree with Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics on this issue too. Protestants hold that the " Rock " as refering either to Peter’s confession of faith or that Jesus Himself is the " Rock " generally speaking. Over 44 church fathers held to this view too. Thus it was the majority view point historically speaking. The basic issue is over Vatican I on this issue. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics stand in contrast againist Roman Catholicism .

+++++

Fill’em up please

 

[LionHeart777]

Chafer DTS;9447444:

Hm…and where do you get the authority to reject all forms of baptismal regeneration?

What are the different forms anyway? Is there more than one?

What then, to you is baptismal regeneration, the correct oen? Were you given the authority to define what is the correct one?

And when you define this correct one…why should I or any catholic or any protestant that disagree with you…believe you? Did jesus give you the keys to bind and loose?

Yikes pablope… for some reason one may get the impression that those are my words in your post # 47 (not saying that’s your fault.) They are not. I am Catholic

edit: now it looks like your words are Chafer DTS’ maybe in this post

 

[pablope]

pablope;9455485:

Yikes pablope… for some reason one may get the impression that those are my words in your post # 47 (not saying that’s your fault.) They are not. I am Catholic

edit: now it looks like your words are Chafer DTS’ maybe in this post

Sorry, LionHeart…did not check that, Here is the corrected post:

quote=Chafer DTS;9447444]

I am saying they my disagree with you view. I reject baptismal regeneration in all forms. But that is irrelevent to the issue. The point is the claim of the unianimous consent of the church fathers. Vatican I claimed this while I never do.

Question for Chafer:

Hm…and where do you get the authority to reject all forms of baptismal regeneration?

What are the different forms anyway? Is there more than one?

What then, to you is baptismal regeneration, the correct one? Were you given the authority to define what is the correct one?

And when you define this correct one…why should I or any catholic or any protestant that disagree with you…believe you? Did Jesus give you the keys to bind and loose?

 

[57Bill]

Okay…can you explain how you can separate the changing of the name of Peter…to his confession of faith?

Can you demonstrate how Jesus would build the Church based on Peter’s confession of faith alone?

Well, one more thing…suppose it is indeed Peter’s confession…at least CC was founded on the faith of Peter…and now contrast this with how protestantism was founded…not on the confession of faith of Luther…but his rejection of authority and disobedience…so which one would you rather follow…based on a confession of faith? Or based on rejection of authority and disobedience?

Again apologies for not reading this entire thread before replying and also to this thread if an apology is needed.

I think the assumption from a Protestant point of view is not by the faith of Peter (not of his mouth), but by the Holy Spirit through Peter. Jesus has a wonderful plan for Peter. There had to be someone to lead. Jesus blessed anointed and appointed Peter. I think the “rock” is Peter AND his Confession. I think this even supports infallibility (one of the things I have yet to reconcile)

As far as Apostolic succession, yes some Protestants cringe at the thought. I don’t at all. Again this has to do with my belief that Sola is wrong.

 

[LionHeart777]

pablope,

no problem! not your fault I just wanted to clarify:thumbsup:

I think the same happened to me.

 

[jcrichton]

Again apologies for not reading this entire thread before replying and also to this thread if an apology is needed.

I think the assumption from a Protestant point of view is not by the faith of Peter (not of his mouth), but by the Holy Spirit through Peter. Jesus has a wonderful plan for Peter. There had to be someone to lead. Jesus blessed anointed and appointed Peter. I think the “rock” is Peter AND his Confession. I think this even supports infallibility (one of the things I have yet to reconcile)

As far as Apostolic succession, yes some Protestants cringe at the thought. I don’t at all. Again this has to do with my belief that Sola is wrong.

…but this is exactly the Catholic understanding… no man can stand alone; without Christ we are nothing!

It is Christ Himself that selects the Twelve and from the Twelve the One… this is understood by the Eleven as attested by the manner in which the Writers constantly make Cephas/Kepha stand out… while Jesus gives all of the Eleven a Commission, He entrusted the leadership to Kepha… interestingly enough, the one incident when there was an issue of temporal governorship amongst the Eleven was that one time when an outsider (the Mom) asked Jesus for a “favor” for her boys… Jesus quickly used the experience to Teach the Twelve that they were to emulate Him Who, though Being the Master, came to Serve!

…as far as infallibility… I think it goes to misunderstanding… infallibility (remember I’m quite pedestrian) is just a fancy word that means that Christ’s Delegate is Guided by the Holy Spirit when making pronouncements of Faith… this is found in Scriptures as the Apostles demonstrate their Authority to Preach the Gospel of Christ (both Oral and Written Gospels) and, to me, it is specially demonstrated by the silence to St. Peter’s pronouncements–specifically when he addresses the issue of Universal Salvation and Apostolic Writings (specifically that of St. Paul’s)… it is Peter that makes the profound assertation that the Apostolic Writings are Sacred Scriptures…

Consider too that almost every “Christian” (myself included) believes that the Holy Spirit guides him/her in our Path to God… how much more so would the person who Succeeds Christ’s Vicar, the ultimate Alter Christus, not be guided by the Holy Spirit, and most importantly in matters of Teachings the Faith?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

pablope,

no problem! not your fault I just wanted to clarify:thumbsup:

I think the same happened to me.

…sometimes while cutting/pasting one of the brackets is omitted and the quotation is fractured… I try to preview as much as possible to cut down on that particular problem!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rfournier103]

I love these debates!!! Matt 16:18 always seems to get people’s dander up, as it seems to be at the very center of the whole Protestant/Catholic debate. One thing I would love to know is where this debate was before the 1500s? Every few weeks someone comes on here and -]picks a fight over/-] debates the meaning of this passage.

Why change Simon’s name to Peter? Is not “Peter” “the Rock”??? I am going to take the Son of God Almighty at His word. If He did not wish to be taken literally, He would have said so (this also applies to Holy Communion, by the way).

In MY very humble, and respectful opinion, to NOT take Jesus’s words at their face value, since He CLEARLY wasn’t spinning a yarn for the Apostles’ amusement, is -]disgusting, revolting and shows contempt for/-] rather disrespectful of the Holy Words of Christ. Who are we to argue with the mightiest King who ever walked the earth? I can not, in good concience, disregard what is there in black and white; and I am shocked so many people try to twist this passage into something it isn’t.

I would like to reccomend John Salza’s The Biblical Basis for the Papacy. Quite well written and a very good read. It uses the oldest and most reliable texts available, and thoroughly explains Matt 16:18 far better than I ever could.

 

[LionHeart777]

…sometimes while cutting/pasting one of the brackets is omitted and the quotation is fractured… I try to preview as much as possible to cut down on that particular problem!

Maran atha!

Angel

thanks!!!

 

[adrift]

I love these debates!!! Matt 16:18 always seems to get people’s dander up, as it seems to be at the very center of the whole Protestant/Catholic debate. One thing I would love to know is where this debate was before the 1500s? Every few weeks someone comes on here and -]picks a fight over/-] debates the meaning of this passage.

Why change Simon’s name to Peter? Is not “Peter” “the Rock”??? I am going to take the Son of God Almighty at His word. If He did not wish to be taken literally, He would have said so (this also applies to Holy Communion, by the way).

In MY very humble, and respectful opinion, to NOT take Jesus’s words at their face value, since He CLEARLY wasn’t spinning a yarn for the Apostles’ amusement, is -]disgusting, revolting and shows contempt for/-] rather disrespectful of the Holy Words of Christ. Who are we to argue with the mightiest King who ever walked the earth? I can not, in good conscience, disregard what is there in black and white; and I am shocked so many people try to twist this passage into something it isn’t.

I would like to recommend John Salza’s The Biblical Basis for the Papacy. Quite well written and a very good read. It uses the oldest and most reliable texts available, and thoroughly explains Matt 16:18 far better than I ever could.

Never will they admit that it isn’t just the declaration that Peter is Rock but also the giving of him alone the keys. They address the rock and seem be implying that the keys and the name change goes away.

anarchy?

The reading back of present day concepts back to a prior priod of time when it did not exist.

Definition of ANARCHY
1a : absence of government

What you want is Anachronism. I have a dickens of the time spelling it too. I would disagree that there were any in his post. Your definition was inadequate
: an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other
He didn’t do this but it was an easy way to dismiss his post. You would be hard put to give evidence that any of it was a anachronism.

I am assuming that because you have not come back and supported your view of 44? Fathers of the Church it means you have no evidence. I am speculating that you really accepted as “gospel” someone elses opinions. You are now realizing that you have no evidence hence your non appearance here.

 

[jcrichton]

I love these debates!!! Matt 16:18 always seems to get people’s dander up, as it seems to be at the very center of the whole Protestant/Catholic debate. One thing I would love to know is where this debate was before the 1500s? Every few weeks someone comes on here and -]picks a fight over/-] debates the meaning of this passage.

Why change Simon’s name to Peter? Is not “Peter” “the Rock”??? I am going to take the Son of God Almighty at His word. If He did not wish to be taken literally, He would have said so (this also applies to Holy Communion, by the way).

In MY very humble, and respectful opinion, to NOT take Jesus’s words at their face value, since He CLEARLY wasn’t spinning a yarn for the Apostles’ amusement, is -]disgusting, revolting and shows contempt for/-] rather disrespectful of the Holy Words of Christ. Who are we to argue with the mightiest King who ever walked the earth? I can not, in good concience, disregard what is there in black and white; and I am shocked so many people try to twist this passage into something it isn’t.

I would like to reccomend John Salza’s The Biblical Basis for the Papacy. Quite well written and a very good read. It uses the oldest and most reliable texts available, and thoroughly explains Matt 16:18 far better than I ever could.

…the problem lies with Authority… either Christ did what He did and the Church is One Body under One Head (Christ) Who delegates to one representative or not; protestantism would cease to be valid if there is but One Body with One Head represented by one vicar!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

Roman Catholicism would also disagree with Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics on this issue too. Protestants hold that the " Rock " as refering either to Peter’s confession of faith or that Jesus Himself is the " Rock " generally speaking. Over 44 church fathers held to this view too. Thus it was the majority view point historically speaking. The basic issue is over Vatican I on this issue. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics stand in contrast againist Roman Catholicism .

Peter/rock is a play on the word for " rock " in both Aramaic and Greek ( petroslpetra ) . This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to " the faith of His confession " ( JohnChr ) . The true Rock is Christ Himself ( 1 Cor. 10:4 ) , and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ. ( The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1299, note on Matt. 16:18 )

So, are Apostolic Churches useful to you when you can use them against the evil ROMANNNNN Church? After bludgeoning the Catholic Church with our close cousins, the Orthodox, I note that you very quickly disagree with them about the Seven Sacraments, Apostolic succession, Church authority, the Deuterocanon, the Blessed Virgin Mary and nearly everything else. Is this consistent?

Our lifelong search for God’s revealed truth is not a contest between competing teams. It is not a democracy. It is not a bowl of cherries from which you may pick and choose.

It is a difficult journey which leads to an unpalatable truth about ourselves, and to Jesus Christ, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Orthodox and Old Catholics will both tell you that you are all messed up in relying on the bible alone. Choose your allies carefully.