If the Rock is Peter's faith

[Bookcat]

Peter is the rock on which Christ built his Church and yes also on Peters confession of Faith.

Both.

See below - read slowly

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

also read Pope Benedict XVI

zenit.org/article-32983?l=english

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20100629_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20080629_en.html

 

[guanophore]

In Isaiah 22:22 we see a key to be given to the Prime Minister who will have authority under David. 22 ***I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open***. This key is in the possession of Jesus at the time of John's Revelation 3:7 “***To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.***

This is good, you got the keys connected accurately.

So this authority and the role of Prime Minister isn’t given to anyone else besides Jesus in the new kingdom.

This is a false dichotomy. The fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys does not mean He is not the owner, the Head, the Founder. No one would suggest that the Prime Minister having the keys would somehow deny the King any perogative over them.

Through the course of this thread, it has been shown how Peter opened, and no one shut. God used him to show that Gentiles were meant be included in the Church, and did not need to be converted/circumcised.

This is also how the Church understood this up until the time of the Reformation. This is why history depicts Peter standing at the gates of heaven with keys.

What is the significance of Peter's keys? I am not sure. I have seen many different ideas on their meaning.

The question is, what if what the Church has taught and believed about Peter is really true? what if Jesus did make him a prime minister? What if Jesus meant for that authority to be passed to his successors? How might that change your life?

Certainly Peter stood out and did remarkable things in Acts. But, did the other apostles call Peter "Abba" or "Papa?" Did Peter lead and direct the other apostles?

We know that people fell down in front of him and he had to make them get up. But your questions are irrelevant. What Peter was called changes nothing of the role Jesus gave him. What matters most is that Jesus called him Cephas!

Jesus was clear that he wanted no bossy, arrogant leaders. Peter led by example,a nd by persuasion. His leadership and direction were humble, and the Church followed his lead because of the promises of Christ.

Did the theologians in the early centuries express a clear understanding of a special role that was passed from one Bishop of Rome to another?

This is also a good question, and another goes with it. If indeed the Aposltes meant for the Bishops to carry forth their ministry and leadership, passing the authority, how does that impact your life?

St. Ignatius

• “Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, and they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ].” -Epistle to the Philippians Chapter III 107 AD

“In like manner let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the Apostles.” -Epistle to the Trallians Chapter III 107AD

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” -Epistle to the newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm Chapter VIII 107AD

These letters were written only shortly after the writings of John the Apostle. How is it that the followers of the Apostles got off track so fast? Do you think the powerful image of Jesus we see guiding His Chuch in the letters of Revelation got the flu? He was no longer able to steer the Church in the right direction?*

 

[susanlo]

This is good, you got the keys connected accurately.

This is a false dichotomy. The fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys does not mean He is not the owner, the Head, the Founder. No one would suggest that the Prime Minister having the keys would somehow deny the King any perogative over them.

Through the course of this thread, it has been shown how Peter opened, and no one shut. God used him to show that Gentiles were meant be included in the Church, and did not need to be converted/circumcised.

This is also how the Church understood this up until the time of the Reformation. This is why history depicts Peter standing at the gates of heaven with keys.

Are you stating that Peter’s keys are the key of David? This website has a list of all of the references of the early centuries to Matthew 16:18, as well as some that are related to this concept. It is compiled by a protestant, but this page is just a list of early quotes. - christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html - I don’t see anyone calling it the key of David. They speak of the keys in various ways with multiple understandings.
Do you have any references for Peter or a successor being called a Prime Minister?

The question is, what if what the Church has taught and believed about Peter is really true? what if Jesus did make him a prime minister? What if Jesus meant for that authority to be passed to his successors? How might that change your life?

I don’t know how to answer this. It is hard for me to imagine. If you can convince me that it is true, I would be able to answer this.

We know that people fell down in front of him and he had to make them get up. But your questions are irrelevant. What Peter was called changes nothing of the role Jesus gave him. What matters most is that Jesus called him Cephas!

Jesus was clear that he wanted no bossy, arrogant leaders. Peter led by example,a nd by persuasion. His leadership and direction were humble, and the Church followed his lead because of the promises of Christ.

Cornelius did fall in front of his feet and Peter corrected him. I don’t think I recall any apostles or disciples bowing at his feet.
How do we know the other apostles thought Peter was their leader?

This is also a good question, and another goes with it. If indeed the Aposltes meant for the Bishops to carry forth their ministry and leadership, passing the authority, how does that impact your life?

St. Ignatius

• “Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, and they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ].” -Epistle to the Philippians Chapter III 107 AD

“In like manner let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the Apostles.” -Epistle to the Trallians Chapter III 107AD

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” -Epistle to the newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm* Chapter VIII 107AD

These letters were written only shortly after the writings of John the Apostle. How is it that the followers of the Apostles got off track so fast? Do you think the powerful image of Jesus we see guiding His Chuch in the letters of Revelation got the flu? He was no longer able to steer the Church in the right direction?
I am not sure what you are asking here. Is the authority what you are referring to? Ignatius letters are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and are not meant to be instructive through all generations as inspired Scripture. They can be used to learn from, but they aren’t on the same level as the Biblical epistles. Even his 7 accepted epistles have questions as to their authenticity and to which of the various versions of each of the epistles is the authentic one. But, I don’t think any Christian would say that it is wrong to obey the leaders appointed within the church.

Paul and Peter teach us to obey government authorities. (Romans 13:1-2, 1 Peter 2:13-17). However both men were imprisoned and executed for disobeying government authorities. This does not mean that their instructions about obeying earthly authorities are invalid. We should strive to obey our governing authorities in all ways. There may, however, be a time when following God’s authority could lead us to civil disobedience - as it did for Peter and Paul. I realize this is government authority and not a bishop as in Ignatius’ example. I do think that we should be careful to follow earthly church leaders when doing so does not conflict with following God and Scripture.

 

[YADA]

In Isaiah 22:22 …
So this authority and the role of Prime Minister isn’t given to anyone else besides Jesus in the new kingdom.

What is the significance of Peter’s keys? I am not sure. I have seen many different ideas on their meaning.

Certainly Peter stood out and did remarkable things in Acts. But, did the other apostles call Peter “Abba” or “Papa?” Did Peter lead and direct the other apostles? Did the theologians in the early centuries express a clear understanding of a special role that was passed from one Bishop of Rome to another?

So you are demoting the King (Jesus) to the mere role of Prime Minister …

Jesus Himself gave the Keys to Heaven to Peter with the name change of Simon to Peter …a significant event. That coupled with the quote giving Peter the authority to open the gates of heaven and close the gates that others cannot close or open after him … clearly indicates Peter is the successor to the Prime Minister and I doubt you would argue that Jesus is not the successor to the Davidic Kingdom - Davidic Heir.

Jesus like David never relinquished their Kingly “Keys” nor their Sovereign Authority when they gave keys and authority to their Seconds. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Peter’s authority is derived from and subject to Jesus our King of Kings.

Remember it’s Jesus who built His ( Jesus’ Church) on Peter …Peter doesn’t build Peter’s Church on Jesus. The passage in Isaiah is clearly linked.

 

[Cathoholic]

Susanlo. You asked:

Are . . . Peter’s keys are the key of David?

Remember. Jesus is the new Solomon (“and a greater than Solomon is here” - Luke 11:31), Jesus is the new Moses, Jesus is the new Adam (Romans 5) and among other things, Jesus is the new David.

Something GREATER than David is here.

Just as Jesus is fulfilling David (and many others) in His coming, “the keys” likewise represent a fulfillment too.

So in a sense these are the “keys of David on steroids” proverbially speaking.

They don’t just represent “opening and shutting” of an eartly kingdom (as in Isaiah), but they represent authority so that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.”

Since Jesus is not going to sit at the right hand of the Father and ratify sin and error, this MUST show protection against error (at least in certain circumstances. The Church teaches about these infallible circumstances elsewhere in Tradition).

 

[benhur]

Hello benhur. In post 9 you mentioned . . .

QUOTE:
“But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” Gal.2:11

I’m not sure what the conclusion was that you were trying to make here.

But some people (I’m not saying YOU are doing this) try to use the verse to undermine St. Peter’s authority in the area of teaching infallibly.

But that does’t work.

Galatians 2 can actually be seen to affirm Petrine teaching protection (at least in this instance).

Here are a couple of links why (here and here) and steve b (here) brings out the historical affirmation of this interpretation as well.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Hi C,

Not sure if I made any point , only posted for Abu the verse being mentioned by other posts, as he had asked.

We would all probably agree as to the context of the verse, that is the “story” of it.

Beyond that, any secondary understandings, I think it is in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks for sharing your view.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Are you stating that Peter’s keys are the key of David? This website has a list of all of the references of the early centuries to Matthew 16:18, as well as some that are related to this concept. It is compiled by a protestant, but this page is just a list of early quotes. - christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html - I don’t see anyone calling it the key of David. They speak of the keys in various ways with multiple understandings.

No, Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Do you have any references for Peter or a successor being called a Prime Minister?

He was most often called the Prince of the Apostles, among many other titles.

I don't know how to answer this. It is hard for me to imagine. If you can convince me that it is true, I would be able to answer this.

Don’t be silly, it is a hypothetical question! Are you telling me that you can’t answer a hypothetical about any topic?

Cornelius did fall in front of his feet and Peter corrected him. I don't think I recall any apostles or disciples bowing at his feet.

My point being that this was not the kind of leadership he exercised. Most Kings and rulers of the day expected bowing, prostration, and any number of such gestures which he did not.

How do we know the other apostles thought Peter was their leader?

Would there be some other reason they would defer to him? Why was he always the one that “stood up among them and said…”?

Do you think the other Apostles did not know Jesus asked him to strengthen his brethren, or feed and care for His flock?

I am not sure what you are asking here. Is the authority what you are referring to?

Yes.

Ignatius letters are not inspired by the Holy Spirit and are not meant to be instructive through all generations as inspired Scripture.

Any text of history is instructive through the generations, as long as one is willing to learn from history. You asked for evidence that the office of Bishop was given the authority by the Apostles. These references demonstrate that it was. No, they are not Scripture.

They can be used to learn from, but they aren’t on the same level as the Biblical epistles.

Ok, so what can we learn from the writings of Ignatius about the role of the Bishop inthe early Church?

 But, I don't think any Christian would say that it is wrong to obey the leaders appointed within the church.

But they did, and they do! This was the whole focus of the Reformation, to throw off the authority/leaders that had been appointed in the Church.

. We should strive to obey our governing authorities in all ways.

These references were to secular authorities. Ignatius is writing about persons appointed by God.

There may, however,  be a time when following God's authority could lead us to civil disobedience - as it did for Peter and Paul.  I do think that we should be careful to follow earthly church leaders when doing so does not conflict with following God and Scripture.

The Reformers decided to jettison the line of Bishops from the Apostles, and form their own self appointed authorities. They did this because they believed the authorities that were ordained were not following God and Scripture.

I think the Reformers were not following God and Scripture. So where does that leave us? Instead of One Church founded by Christ, we have a lot of scattered sheep.

 

[susanlo]

So you are demoting the King (Jesus) to the mere role of Prime Minister …

Jesus Himself gave the Keys to Heaven to Peter with the name change of Simon to Peter …a significant event. That coupled with the quote giving Peter the authority to open the gates of heaven and close the gates that others cannot close or open after him … clearly indicates Peter is the successor to the Prime Minister and I doubt you would argue that Jesus is not the successor to the Davidic Kingdom - Davidic Heir.

Jesus like David never relinquished their Kingly “Keys” nor their Sovereign Authority when they gave keys and authority to their Seconds. That is not a hard concept to grasp. Peter’s authority is derived from and subject to Jesus our King of Kings.

Remember it’s Jesus who built His ( Jesus’ Church) on Peter …Peter doesn’t build Peter’s Church on Jesus. The passage in Isaiah is clearly linked.

I guess I wouldn’t say that Jesus is demoted to Prime Minister, but that the omnipotent Jesus does not need a Prime Minister. The Holy Spirit guides us on Earth, but no man assists Jesus with his authority.

When did the comparison between the Key of David in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 begin to be compared to Matthew 16:19? Was this done in the early centuries? Or did this idea come about later? I haven’t noticed this concept in the early writings.

 

[Abu]

susanlo #63
How do we know the other apostles thought Peter was their leader?

A study of the New Testament shows the overwhelming evidence.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Christ gave no one else the authority that He gave to St Peter alone. Having built His Church on St Peter He promised the Holy Spirit’s guidance to “all truth”:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
CHAPTER III
22.
“For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156)”
Note:
156 Cf. Mt. 16.18-19.

We need nothing more.

 

[benhur]

Since Jesus is not going to sit at the right hand of the Father and ratify sin and error, this MUST show protection against error (at least in certain circumstances. The Church teaches about these infallible circumstances elsewhere in Tradition).

Hi C,

So Jesus sitting at the right hand is the same as sitting in Peter’s chair. OK that is the CC stand. Of course then error free but only in faith and morals (not personhood wise that is, ). So when Jesus incarnates it must be only in a perfect, immaculate Mary, but not so when He rests in a pope. So a pope can be rotten to the core yet if he speaks on faith and morals, God’s Shekinah glory “MUST” be in them. OK . That is what the CC seems to be saying.

What others seem to be saying is that yes Jesus has His perfect guiding hand on the “church”, but the church or its offices are not "perfect’’ in themselves, and it is conditional to rest in His dictates. It is totally possible that the church be error free, but it is not a “MUST”, as in infallible every last utterance on faith and morals, by the bishop of Rome.

All believe Peter was error free in His gospel message and “his” Writ. But he was in error for a time, having a bad practice with the Gentiles, nullifying God’s message to Peter on the matter (in essence going against God’s doctrine on the matter). Now Jesus corrected Peter thru Paul, and Peter pacified all by repenting.

Finally, Jesus appointed Peter, gave him keys, maybe even referred to him as the “petra”. I think the CC presumes not only infallibility in what the chair says, but that she “MUST” also infallible in appointing perfectly to that chair as Jesus did in Peter.

One too many “Musts”, in my opinion.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

A study of the New Testament shows the overwhelming evidence.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Christ gave no one else the authority that He gave to St Peter alone. Having built His Church on St Peter He promised the Holy Spirit’s guidance to “all truth”:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
CHAPTER III
22.
“For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156)”
Note:
156 Cf. Mt. 16.18-19.

We need nothing more.

Hi Abu,

Actually Paul is mentioned more than all. Furthermore, Paul seems to be the replacement for Judas, and not what Peter led others to do (draw lots).

Your evidence can just as easily be seen for Peter, not being supreme over the others, but “first amongst equals”, as they say in some traditions.

Blessings

PS- Did Peter really inflict punishment on Ananias ? Was he not a witness to the judgement of the Holy Spirit on Ananias ? For sure Peter then declared, prophesied Saphira’s death next. Quite “in tune” and authoritative, agree.

 

[Abu]

The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs
by Dave Armstrong
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=81
“Peter’s name is found 191 times in the Gospels; even St. John is only mentioned 48 times! In short, Christ clearly gave Peter the distinct role of being the first Pope to lead the Church.”

 

[YADA]

I guess I wouldn’t say that Jesus is demoted to Prime Minister, but that the omnipotent Jesus does not need a Prime Minister. The Holy Spirit guides us on Earth, but no man assists Jesus with his authority.

When did the comparison between the Key of David in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 begin to be compared to Matthew 16:19? Was this done in the early centuries? Or did this idea come about later? I haven’t noticed this concept in the early writings.

Jesus does not need the Prime Minister - we do … just as in King David [and his successors] was not always present for the people - Jesus is not here int he flesh visible to His people - this Peter and the the successors of the Petrine Office are here visibly on earth … and Yes - God is present everywhere but not in a way that speaks to all people clearly in a way that prevents division. Just look at how various people can interpret the Holy Scriptures - and cause divisions …

Jesus specifically quoted Isaiah instituting an office. Jesus clearly changed Peter’s name. Jesus clearly stated He was building His Church on the Rock [Peter] and gave that Rock [Peter] the Keys that signified his office. What do those keys fit? The very Gates of Heaven … and what do those keys do in Peter’s hand … they shut what no one can open and open what no one can close. … Jesus did not need to do this at all -

If those apostles and disciples present with Jesus needed someone to be a leader - as Jesus commanded Peter to strengthen his brethren and to feed His [Jesus’] lambs and to care for His [Jesus’] sheep … why would we some 2000 years later not need that same leadership? Jesus was already resurrected at this point thus Omnipotent - he did not need Peter to feed or care for … he would have done it Himself … but He commanded Peter to do so

Also - again I will harken back to Isaiah - how did the people know the Prime Minister? - by his possession of the Keys … and what did the people call the Prime Minister" - they called him Abba which is Father, Daddy… Papa, Pope … they all invoke the same father figure.

As for any clear reference - the Hebrew Texts do not refer to the seat of Moses - but Jesus makes that reference … early church Father’s refer to the Chair of Peter … a clear reference to his leadership role and Peter is always depicted as holding the keys and keys are mention …

Here is a point for you to consider - most of the early Christians writings and even much of the New Testament - especially the writings of St Paul deal with the areas that were in dispute or that needed clarification and or correction - this reference to Isaiah is so clear - much more direct and clear than many parallels between the Hebrew Texts and the New Testament - IMHO there would be no reason to write extensively on it …

 

[guanophore]

… the omnipotent Jesus does not need a Prime Minister. The Holy Spirit guides us on Earth, but no man assists Jesus with his authority.

I agree with you. Jesus does not “need” anything in creation, but chose to create, and to give this authority to human beings.

I agree that the HS guides us on earth. Jesus decided this guidance would occur through His One Body, the Church.

I am not sure what it means for “man to assist Jesus with his authority”. Jesus has chosen to work His authority through those He has gifted and appointed for that purpose.

When did the comparison between the Key of David in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 begin to be compared to Matthew 16:19? Was this done in the early centuries? Or did this idea come about later? I haven’t noticed this concept in the early writings.

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num16.htm

 

[guanophore]

 So when Jesus incarnates it must be only in a perfect, immaculate Mary, but not so when He rests in a pope.

I have never heard of Jesus “resting in a pope”. Did you invent that yourself?

Jesus promised that His One Church would prevail against the gates of Hell. He never promised that the fallible human beings who are part of her would be impeccable.

He chose Peter and commissioned him knowing Peter would deny Him. God has never made human perfection a requirement for the HS to work in people. Did you invent that yourself? It seems like a strawman.

   God can speak through So a pope can be rotten to the core yet  if  he speaks on faith and morals, God's  Shekinah glory "MUST" be in them. OK . That is what the CC seems to be saying.

The glory of God is in His infallible Word. His Word never goes out void, but always accomplishes it’s purpose (Isa. 55:11). Even the High Priest prophesied that God’s will. God can speak through the mouth of a donkey, why not a rotten person? What we are saying is that God can make His will effectual without restriction by the shortcomings of man.

I would think that this would be a basic point where we agree?

What others seem to be saying is that yes Jesus has His perfect guiding hand on the “church”, but the church or its offices are not "perfect’’ in themselves, and it is conditional to rest in His dictates.

The promises were made to the Church, not individual members thereof. Just as Jesus directed that the people should listen to and obey the Sanhedrin, for they sat on Moses’ seat, so many Popes have sat on Moses’ seat that were not any better examples than the rulers in Jesus’ day. God is able to protect His Word. Men are always in need of reform. Jesus’ teaching is not.

  It is totally possible that the church be error free, but it is not a "MUST", as in infallible every last utterance on faith and morals, by the bishop of Rome.

Members of the Church are not error free, but the teachings must be. Errors in Teaching will cause the flock to pass through the Gates of Hell. Jesus’ promise to lead the Church into “all Truth” ensures that His Word is protected.

Finally, Jesus appointed Peter, gave him keys, maybe even referred to him as the “petra”. I think the CC presumes not only infallibility in what the chair says, but that she “MUST” also infallible in appointing perfectly to that chair as Jesus did in Peter.

Probably not. Jesus and Peter spoke Aramaic, so Jesus called him Cephas.

This practice stuck, and this is why we see it through the NT and the early Church. Do you honestly believe that Jesus would rename someone, then not use the new name?

The infallibility refers to the teaching, whether it comes from the Pope or the Magesterium, or the council. I don’t know what you are saying about “appointing perfectly to that chair”. Jesus never promised that people would not become bishops who ought not to be. He is able to draw straight with crooked lines. The CC has never asserted that 1) all the successors of Peter were models of the faith or that 2) any of them were “perfectly appointed” to that role. I am not sure if that is what you are saying.

 

[guanophore]

Actually Paul is mentioned more than all.

Yes. It would be a mistake to equate any person’s specific role with the frequency of their mention.

Furthermore, Paul seems to be the replacement for Judas, and not what Peter led others to do (draw lots).

This is often a modern interpolation. It is an assertion that Jesus could not, and did not guide the Church into all Truth, as He promised. It is an assertion that the traditional method of lots, given by God to His people, was not effective or appropriate.

Paul enters the story as much as 20 years after the lots were drawn. There were many Apostles besides the 12 before that time. Clearly Paul also had a special role given to HIm by Christ. That does not make what Christ gave to Peter less, just different.

 Your evidence can just as easily be seen for Peter, not being supreme over the others,  but "first amongst equals", as they say in some traditions.

I personally have a great dislike for the term “supreme”. It does not reflect Jesus’ teaching about leadership. Peter’s role was unique and authorative, but he did not “Lord it over” anyone.

 PS- Did Peter really inflict punishment on Ananias ? Was he not  a witness to the judgement of the Holy Spirit on Ananias ? For sure Peter then declared, prophesied Saphira's death next. Quite "in tune" and authoritative, agree.

I see it this way too. It is a good illustration of the kind of leadership that should be seen in the successors of Peter. Not all of them have had their ears pressed to the lips of God as those have in the last century.

 

[Cathoholic]

In post 33 I discussed Galatians 2:11.

Here is what I referred to:

---

St. Paul writes about how he opposed St. Peter to his face for leaving table fellowship with the Gentiles so as not to scandalize the Judaizers or “circumcision party”.

GALATIANS 2:11 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Does this do away with St. Peter’s authority (and subsequently his successors, the Popes) to teach in a divinely protected manner? No. Why not?

To be able to answer that you must know there are times when St. Peter (or the Popes) teach in an authoritative manner and times when they do not teach authoritatively.

How they behave in their personal life is NOT a time of protected official teaching.

If it were, the Gospel of Mark (composed by St. Peter but written by St. Mark) and 1st and 2nd Peter would not be Sacred Scripture.

After all, if Galatians 2 invalidates St. Peter’s teaching authority, why accept St. Peter’s Scripture writings as inspired?

GALATIANS 2:11-14 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

These verses actually assert St. Peter as teaching truth here.

Possibly not living out truth here, but don’t rule that out from these verses either.

The objection is, if St. Peter is giving “bad example” he MUST be “teaching incorrectly”. Yet St. Paul’s correction and writings assert quite the opposite. How? Let’s look.

The people opposed to Papal infallibility wished Galatians 2:11 said:

NOT GALATIANS 2:11?? (Phantom verse) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because when he removed himself from table fellowship with the Gentiles on account of the “circumcision party”, Cephas officially taught incorrect doctrine.

Objection: But Peter IS teaching here! He’s teaching by example—a bad example.

Answer: Then you misunderstand what infallibility is and isn’t.

St. Peter is still not teaching anything in his official capacity.

St. Paul corrected St. Peter for how Peter “stood” not “teached” (taught)!

The Church has always taught Popes are NOT impeccable in the way they live (“When you turn again [after your fall Simon and your thrice denials before the cock crows], strengthen the brethren”—see Luke 22:32).

They are infallible when they teach in an infallible manner (see elsewhere for specifics of this).

Galatians 2:11-14 implicitly affirms Peter was teaching correctly but possibly (and only possibly) BEHAVING incorrectly. Why?

The word for “insincerely” above in Galatians 2 also means “hypocrisy”. That’s why even the NIV Protestant translation explicitly uses the word “hypocrisy” here.

Objector: That’s right. Peter’s “hypocrisy” disqualifies him from teaching infallibly.

Answer: No it doesn’t disqualify St. Peter from teaching infallibly. Let’s look at it.

GALATIANS 2:13 (NIV) 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

“Hypocrisy” means saying one thing (teaching) and doing another.

If St. Peter is carrying out a wrong action here in Galatians . . . . yet he is committing “hypocrisy” . . . . what would that mean Peter was teaching . . . (what)?

It would mean St. Peter is TEACHING one thing (affirming full fellowship with Jewish and Gentile Christians) and DOING the opposite thing (leaving table fellowship with Gentile Christians because of some of the Jewish Christian “circumcision party” showing up).
​

---

Benhur. You stated in reply on post 66:

QUOTE:
I think it is in the eye of the beholder.

I disagree.

Why?

Because we are not just talking about “the eye of the beholder” regarding interpretation of the Bible verses here.

We are ALSO discussing Catholic catechesis in the objection.

And the objection assumes WRONG Catholic catechesis.

So this is not JUST a Bible verse interpretation.

The objection against St. Peter is that if Cephas sets a bad example by removing himself from table fellowship with Gentile Christians . . . . it shows he cannot be shown as infallible.

That’s NOT Catholic teaching.

And I am saying that objection DISTORTS Catholic teaching.

Assuming St. Peter was wrong for excusing himself from this table fellowship this would still not contradict the Catholic teaching concerning infallibility.

The whole objection is irrelevant to what the Catholic Church teaches concerning infallibility.

So the exegesis of the verse per se MAY be “in the eye of the beholder”, but tacking on how this somehow disproves the papacy is wrong.

By the way. Concerning Galatians 2:11, St. Peter MAY have been correct in removal from table fellowship and St. Paul is the one who may have been wrong criticizing him (see here).

 

[Darryl_B]

Actually Paul is mentioned more than all. Furthermore, Paul seems to be the replacement for Judas, and not what Peter led others to do (draw lots)

Saul cannot be a replacement of Judas among the 12. I know that is a very protestant theory, and it has become a somewhat unwarranted competition. It is an “I am of Peter I am of Paul” argument, it is unfortunately very very wrong. Being able to write is a great privilege, having the time to write is a greater privilege.

The requirement of the 12 was that they absolutely must have been a follower of Jesus Christ through his entire ministry. As Jesus Christ chose the twelve, and Judas failed, Jesus Christ did not assign a new twelfth man. That was Peter’s first job. Filling roles.

 

[Darryl_B]

I guess I wouldn’t say that Jesus is demoted to Prime Minister, but that the omnipotent Jesus does not need a Prime Minister.

The question is not whether Jesus Christ needs a “prime minister”, the question is whether we do, and whether He knows we do.

Jesus Christ the height of wisdom knowledge and understanding, did what He did, assigned Peter, because without that it is just every man for himself dysfunctional protestantism, which history has shown to fail.

 

[susanlo]

I agree with you. Jesus does not “need” anything in creation, but chose to create, and to give this authority to human beings.

I agree that the HS guides us on earth. Jesus decided this guidance would occur through His One Body, the Church.

I am not sure what it means for “man to assist Jesus with his authority”. Jesus has chosen to work His authority through those He has gifted and appointed for that purpose.

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num16.htm

I don’t see any ancient explanations in here connecting the key of David in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 to the keyS in Matthew 16:19. I think that is a modern day idea. Or maybe you can prove me wrong.

I read your links. I am always skeptical when I see a list of brief quotes with “…” in them. I see a lot of people identifying Peter as rock. Of course as we have seen earlier in the thread, Tertullian stated the church was built on Peter, but denied the fact that there was any succession. I would wonder if we could read the whole chapter of each of the books quoted if they would confirm that the papacy was initiated when the church was built on Peter himself. (How many foundations can you build in one building?)

This quote is in your second link:
J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

Here is the link to the actual book for this one: archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n423/mode/2up
I do think that reading the whole chapter paints a different hue then is depicted in the selected phrases pulled out. Page 417 where the last quote is taken from begins a section where JND Kelly explains the formation of the papacy in approximately the 5th century.