Matt 16:18 - I want more insight

[ltravis]

I am trying to get to an understanding of the reasoning behind what we believe that goes beyond the usual canned apologetic points we often use. There are plenty of well studied non-Catholics who are well aware of our typical apologetic assertions, but yet find a basis to disagree with them. Therefore, I am trying to go a little deeper. Let me just jump into it. We Catholics assert our identity as the one true original Church, holding the authority originally given to Peter. When pressed on it, we usually cite Matthew 16:18 -

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

However, simply taken on its own, this verse does not explicitly validate our belief. One could logically assert the church refers to all Christianity and the protection against the gates of hell simply meant Christianity would always survive and not be totally overcome by evil or other religions. Catholic scholars certainly must have had much deeper insight into this verse to affirm their interpretation of it. I would like some insight into that deeper level of study.

Thanks!
LT

 

[Fidelis]

However, simply taken on its own, this verse does not explicitly validate our belief. One could logically assert the church refers to all Christianity and the protection against the gates of hell simply meant Christianity would always survive and not be totally overcome by evil or other religions.

I don’t know of any Catholic apologist, practised or not, that would simply quote this verse and leave it at that, as if it were a self-contained, self-explanatory proof-text “taken on it’s own” for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. That would be either lazy or ignorant.

The key part of the passage that includes this verse is not so much that it mentions the Church, but that it relates the establishment of that Church in relation to Peter’s confession of faith. That is the bone of contention --*what does this passage, which relates the Church to Peter, taken in context mean? *The Catholic apologist would go on to explain just that connection, and not just state it like it explained everything.

As a good start to developing that argument, I’d start here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

 

[Genesis315]

There are plenty of well studied non-Catholics who are well aware of our typical apologetic assertions, but yet find a basis to disagree with them.

In 2 Tim. 3, St. Paul warns of men who are “7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.”

 

[NotWorthy]

You must also look into Jesus’ prayers to the Father that they would remain one in Jesus, as Jesus is one in you (the Father). The Early Church maintained this “oneness” by insuring that all churches were teaching the same thing, and resolving confusing issues when they were raised.

With the Reformation (and to a lesser degree the Schism) came about doctrines that directly conflicted with earlier teachings of the Church (Confession does not bring on forgiveness, Baptism does not save you, Assurance of Salvation, etc.). This does not reflect the one-ness that Jesus prayed for.

We see similar exhortations in Pauls letter to (I believe it’s) the Ephesians - We are one body, one baptism, … etc.

So what happens if you are teaching contradicting doctrines? Well, of course, at least one of them has to be wrong. If you are teaching a falsehood, then the gates of hell have obviously prevailed upon the Church, because that would mean the Holy Spirit is no longer guiding Her.

 

[catholicmessage]

I am trying to get to an understanding of the reasoning behind what we believe that goes beyond the usual canned apologetic points we often use. There are plenty of well studied non-Catholics who are well aware of our typical apologetic assertions, but yet find a basis to disagree with them. Therefore, I am trying to go a little deeper. Let me just jump into it. We Catholics assert our identity as the one true original Church, holding the authority originally given to Peter. When pressed on it, we usually cite Matthew 16:18 -

However, simply taken on its own, this verse does not explicitly validate our belief. One could logically assert the church refers to all Christianity and the protection against the gates of hell simply meant Christianity would always survive and not be totally overcome by evil or other religions. Catholic scholars certainly must have had much deeper insight into this verse to affirm their interpretation of it. I would like some insight into that deeper level of study.

Thanks!
LT

You should actually look at Mt. 16:13-19.

Jesus asks who people say that He is. The people get it wrong. They think He might be a prophet.

Jesus then asks who His disciples say He is. Peter gets it right.

Jesus tells Peter that he didn’t come up with the right answer on his own. The Holy Spirit guided him.

Jesus then tells Peter that He is the rock, that He would build His Church on Peter, and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it.

It is best to take this passage in its context so that you can get the full meaning of it. We see that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Truth is obscured, but that the Holy Spirit is working through Peter to help him know the Truth without doubt.

 

[NotWorthy]

Similarly, many of these religions reject the authority that Jesus gave Peter and the Church.

When Jesus continues to Peter, “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven”, he is bestowing a recognizable authority to Peter and the Church. The Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus had the authority to bind and loose. The Jewish Mishrash, I believe, could contradict earlier Scriptures, and Jews were bound to observe those laws over what had previously been ordered in Scripture.

So this was a real authority that Jesus bestowed on Peter and the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

We see that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Truth is obscured, but that the Holy Spirit is working through Peter to help him know the Truth without doubt.

Amen!!!:clapping:

Although I tried, I couldn’t have said it better!

 

[ltravis]

Thank you all so far. I am at work so I don’t have time to reply in detail right now, but I am going to consider your replies and respond on where I could use some more insight. I like what I am hearing so far, though.

LT

 

[maryj]

I am trying to get to an understanding of the reasoning behind what we believe that goes beyond the usual canned apologetic points we often use. There are plenty of well studied non-Catholics who are well aware of our typical apologetic assertions, but yet find a basis to disagree with them. Therefore, I am trying to go a little deeper. Let me just jump into it. We Catholics assert our identity as the one true original Church, holding the authority originally given to Peter. When pressed on it, we usually cite Matthew 16:18 -

However, simply taken on its own, this verse does not explicitly validate our belief. One could logically assert the church refers to all Christianity and the protection against the gates of hell simply meant Christianity would always survive and not be totally overcome by evil or other religions. Catholic scholars certainly must have had much deeper insight into this verse to affirm their interpretation of it. I would like some insight into that deeper level of study.

Thanks!
LT

I don’t believe that " protection against the gates of hell simply meant Christianity would always survive and not be totally overcome by evil or other religions" is the correct interpretation of “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. What is it that a gate does, what is it’s purpose. Is a gate not intended to keep people or things out??

 

[ltravis]

Okay, I can address the replies now. First off, let me say I am not doubting our beliefs, and am not disagreeing with any of you. I am just trying to play devil’s advocate and challege any presumptions we may assume stand on their own. Perhaps I am looking to take our apologetics to a deeper level and I hope you can bear with me and not get frustrated

Thanks for any enlightenment!
LT

The key part of the passage that includes this verse is not so much that it mentions the Church, but that it relates the establishment of that Church in relation to Peter’s confession of faith. That is the bone of contention --what does this passage, which relates the Church to Peter, taken in context mean? The Catholic apologist would go on to explain just that connection, and not just state it like it explained everything.

As a good start to developing that argument, I’d start here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

Thanks for the material. However, this part of the topic argues that Peter is the rock, but what I want to know is what the “church” is or what its protection specifically involves. Those aspects are what I am trying to drill into.

In 2 Tim. 3, St. Paul warns of men who are “7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.”

This is off my topic, but it is something I have thought of and where I think this discussion may eventually lead. Does this mean truth can’t be attained by facts alone, which of course would apply to Catholic as well as non-Catholic apologists? The question, then, is what is the criteria one can use to prove their assertion? Or…are there facts and logic supporting both viewpoints, but the correct view has more factual & logical proof then the other. If so, that is what my attempt at getting beyond presumptions is trying to find.

You must also look into Jesus’ prayers to the Father that they would remain one in Jesus, as Jesus is one in you (the Father). The Early Church maintained this “oneness” by insuring that all churches were teaching the same thing, and resolving confusing issues when they were raised.

With the Reformation (and to a lesser degree the Schism) came about doctrines that directly conflicted with earlier teachings of the Church (Confession does not bring on forgiveness, Baptism does not save you, Assurance of Salvation, etc.). This does not reflect the one-ness that Jesus prayed for.

The thing I am trying to dig into here is what “oneness” is. One might assert it means the entire body of Christianity, with the oneness being the belief in the Trinity and Christ being sent to die for our salvation. Sorry, I am not trying to be fussy, I just aim to take nothing for granted. So how do Catholic scholars dig deeper to specifically define “oneness” This is the kind of information I am really after.

So what happens if you are teaching contradicting doctrines? Well, of course, at least one of them has to be wrong. If you are teaching a falsehood, then the gates of hell have obviously prevailed upon the Church, because that would mean the Holy Spirit is no longer guiding Her.

Again, I want to dig into the presumption, convincing as the presumption may seem to us. How do Catholic scholars prove that this would be how the gates prevail? How do we know it doesn’t mean something else, such as Christianity being driven out of existence or go into total denial of the truth? See what I am driving at in this? I want to drill through anything that could be deemed a presumption, as I assume the magisterium did when recognizing and reasoning to the truth it proclaims.

It is best to take this passage in its context so that you can get the full meaning of it. We see that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Truth is obscured, but that the Holy Spirit is working through Peter to help him know the Truth without doubt.

Thanks, I definitely believe this. Of course a knowledgeable Protestant may claim the Spirit is now with Protestantism instead, or that truth is more general and still resides within all Christianity, protected by the Spirit. I dont at all agree with that, but I want to take nothing for granted when I defend my faith on an intellectual level.

 

[NotWorthy]

The thing I am trying to dig into here is what “oneness” is. One might assert it means the entire body of Christianity, with the oneness being the belief in the Trinity and Christ being sent to die for our salvation. Sorry, I am not trying to be fussy, I just aim to take nothing for granted. So how do Catholic scholars dig deeper to specifically define “oneness” This is the kind of information I am really after.

OK, “oneness”… Start with the ECF’s. What did they teach? Did they teach the same as we do today?

Did they always agree? We know that of course they didn’t always agree? How did they resolve their differences and why did they feel this was necessary.

Again, I want to dig into the presumption, convincing as the presumption may seem to us. How do Catholic scholars prove that this would be how the gates prevail? How do we know it doesn’t mean something else, such as Christianity being driven out of existence or go into total denial of the truth? See what I am driving at in this? I want to drill through anything that could be deemed a presumption, as I assume the magisterium did when recognizing and reasoning to the truth it proclaims.

Are you trying to re-invent the wheel? We can reconstruct only partially what the Magisterium used to come up with this, for over 90% of the documents written back then are hopelessly lost.

Or we can trust (it’s that faith thing, again) that the Magisterium is truly guided by the Holy Spirit when they teach us what the “gates of hell prevailing” would entail.

 

[ltravis]

Are you trying to re-invent the wheel? We can reconstruct only partially what the Magisterium used to come up with this, for over 90% of the documents written back then are hopelessly lost.

Or we can trust (it’s that faith thing, again) that the Magisterium is truly guided by the Holy Spirit when they teach us what the “gates of hell prevailing” would entail.

Alright, I can accept it all comes down to faith, which I am thankful I have. The frustrating thing is that I don’t know how apologetics are based on that. We can explain the evidence for the authenticity of our church, but we can never “prove” it on facts and history alone. I may assert something I am confident of through evidence that’s backed up with faith, and not be able to convince someone who is more learned as I am (and there are plenty!) and has faith his viewpoint is correct. I guess this is where I accept the gift of humility and just trust God, right?

Thanks so much!

LT

 

[NotWorthy]

Alright, I can accept it all comes down to faith, which I am thankful I have. The frustrating thing is that I don’t know how apologetics are based on that. We can explain the evidence for the authenticity of our church, but we can never “prove” it on facts and history alone. I may assert something I am confident of through evidence that’s backed up with faith, and not be able to convince someone who is more learned as I am (and there are plenty!) and has faith his viewpoint is correct. I guess this is where I accept the gift of humility and just trust God, right?

Thanks so much!

LT

Yes, but you do have history.

St. Clement’s letter in 90 AD. St. Ignatius’s letters in 110AD. Numerous others.

I think our Christian Brothers have to rely on Faith that these letters aren’t saying what the Church has claimed they are saying for 2000 years. Now that’s Faith that I hope to never have.

 

[Janet_S]

Consider the connection between Isiah 22, Matthew 16, and the book of Acts. When Jesus gives Peter the “keys” and the powers to “bind and loose” in Matthew 16, he is fulfilling the prophecy of Isiah 22. Then in the Book of Acts, Peter is clearly shown as the Church’s chief teacher (4:1-22), preacher (2:14-42), judge (5:1-11), healer (5:15), and administrator (1:15-26).

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
(Isiah 22:20-22)

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
(Matthew 16:17-19)

Here are some more scriptural commentaries:

Commentary on 21st Sunday in ordinary time, Cycle A
salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/homilyhelps/ordinary21_a.cfm

ECF commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew:
catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Matthew16.php

 

[NotWorthy]

Here’s what one of the ECF’s taught about unity.

From St. Cyprian

Christ carried within him the unity which exists on high, the unity of heaven and the Father; this unity can never be sundered by anyone who acquires or possesses it; rather, it always retains as its indivisible character all the solidity and stability of unity. No one who breaks and divides his Church can put on the garment of Christ. What happens is the opposite of what toook place at the death of Solomon, when his kingdom and his people were divided up.

At that time, the prophet Ahijah, on his way out to meet Jeroboam in the fields, tore his cloak into twelve parts, saying: ‘Take ten peices…’. Just as the tweleve tribes of Israel were separated, Ahijah tore his cloak.

But since the people of Christ cannot be divided, the Lord’s tunic, woven in a single piece without seam, was not torn up by those who fought to take possession of it: undivided, closeknit and united, the tunic is a symbol of the harmony that ought to exist among our people, we who have submitted ourselves to the service of Chirst. Chist prefigures the unity of the Church in the mystery and symbolism of his tunic" (De unitate Ecclesiae, 7)

 

[ltravis]

Janet & NotWorthy -

Thank you so much to taking the time to provide such insight. That was really kind of what I was needing - a taste of the deep intelligence of deeply holy people of our faith. I know there is much more such material should I take the time to dive in more deeply myself. However, it is ironic that I feel I don’t need to anymore. The more I demanded intellectual evidence the more it seemed I was expecting God’s ways to be lowered to my human, personal ways, and that’s asking for trouble. There is knowing, and then there is knowing, which comes from more than logic and textbooks. That’s the greatest thing I have come away from this thread with. Thanks!

LT

 

[NotWorthy]

God Bless you, LT. And never give up searching, no matter what the question!

 

[micas]

I am trying to get to an understanding of the reasoning behind what we believe that goes beyond the usual canned apologetic points we often use. There are plenty of well studied non-Catholics who are well aware of our typical apologetic assertions, but yet find a basis to disagree with them. Therefore, I am trying to go a little deeper. Let me just jump into it. We Catholics assert our identity as the one true original Church, holding the authority originally given to Peter. When pressed on it, we usually cite Matthew 16:18 -

However, simply taken on its own, this verse does not explicitly validate our belief. One could logically assert the church refers to all Christianity and the protection against the gates of hell simply meant Christianity would always survive and not be totally overcome by evil or other religions. Catholic scholars certainly must have had much deeper insight into this verse to affirm their interpretation of it. I would like some insight into that deeper level of study.

Thanks!
LT

Hi LT,first of all any debate that you have with Evangelicals etc.will have to be biblically sound.Especially the claim that the Catholic church and the supremacy of the Pope lay on this verse.Matt16:18.So was Peter the rock on which Christ would build His church.Or is it the confession that Peter made. You are the Christ the Son of the living God. The word Peter,Petros means a small stone. start by looking at John 1:42 .It says —And he brought him to Jesus .Now when Jesus looked at him,He said you are Simon the son of Jonah.You shall be called Cephas(which is translated A stone).If you want to continue let me know,and I will continue with you if not see you around.

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus then asks who His disciples say He is. Peter gets it right.

Jesus tells Peter that he didn’t come up with the right answer on his own. The Holy Spirit guided him.

Hi
Sorry, I would not agree with your assertion “The Holy Spirit guided him (Peter)”. There is no mention of any angel having descended on Peter to tell him the right answer. This must be you opinion only, I guess. Since Peter was properly trained by Jesus so he could answer the questions by himself, with the knowledge imaprted by Jesus to him. That makes Peter an intelligent and wise pupil, why deprive him of that. Please don’t mind. Peace
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi
Sorry, I would not agree with your assertion “The Holy Spirit guided him (Peter)”. There is no mention of any angel having descended on Peter to tell him the right answer. This must be you opinion only, I guess. Since Peter was properly trained by Jesus so he could answer the questions by himself, with the knowledge imaprted by Jesus to him. That makes Peter an intelligent and wise pupil, why deprive him of that. Please don’t mind. Peace
Thanks
Bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions

Holy Spirit equals angel??? I don’t think so!

What makes you say that Jesus imparted this knowledge? Even Jesus acknowledges divine guidance in Peter’s response:

Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.