Matthew 16:22-23

[Stylteralmaldo]

MT 16:22-23:

Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Could you all help me explain this passage to my Protestant friend? She’s a great lady who loves the written Word of God. She seems to think that this passage that is referenced shortly after Matthew 16:18 (…upon this Rock passage…) seems to indicate that Peter was NOT infallible in matters of faith and morals. She is well-versed in the greek texts, so an explanation as to the meaning of words would be helpful.

 

[bones_IV]

Hello there,
Since the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramiac, Kepha which is Aramiac for Rock has only one meaning, Rock! Not little rock or big rock just Rock. Peter of course turns around and rebukes our Lord, this shows that while Peter had infallibly declared Jesus the Son of God he had an imperfect understanding of the messiah. It also shows that Peter had not yet sloughed off his pagan self, if you wanted to call it that. Notice that Jesus says, “Opun this rock I will build my church”, Jesus is saying that this a promise that he will bestow opun Peter at a later time. Jesus, after resurrection, gave Peter the promise of the Primacy. Jesus’ promise that he would build his church upon Peter is a promise that is irrevocable! God would not make a promise like that and then revoke it. I would highly recommend the book Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. Its a great one.

Padre Pio “The Rosary is the weapon.”

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thank you for the explanation. However, the retort is that we Catholics believe that the Church teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals.

Peter’s rebuke seems to fly in the face of that infallibility. Could this be due to the Church not being founded really until Pentacost? Is there evidence to support my assertion if I’m heading down the right path in my thinking here?

 

[otm]

Stylteralmaldo:

Thank you for the explanation. However, the retort is that we Catholics believe that the Church teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals.

Peter’s rebuke seems to fly in the face of that infallibility. Could this be due to the Church not being founded really until Pentacost? Is there evidence to support my assertion if I’m heading down the right path in my thinking here?

I think you are more likely to find it in an understanding of what infallibility is all about.

The Church holds that the pope (and the bishops, when acting in union with him) are guided by the Holy Spirit, and protected from error when making a declaration concerning faith and/or morals. Peter’s statement was neither of those. An issue of faith would be, for example, that Christ was both God and man. Morals would be, for example, that birth control is intrinsically wrong.

Some will try to turn the statement of Peter into a doctrinal issue. It simply is not. It is an utterance that sounds more in “We won’t ever let that happen to You” than anything. But even if it was interpreted to be a prophetic utternace, the issue of infallibility is not to future prophetic utterances of events to come. It is to faith and morals.

Protestants ( and others, including some Catholics) take infallibility to mean that any statement that the Pope mkes is infallible. Infallitility is narrowly defined, however. For example, the Pope’s statement that the Irac war was wrong, and not falling within the guidelines of the just war theory, was not an infallible statement, but a prudential judgement; Catholics must pay heed, and give great weight to the statement, but are not bound by it.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I think you are on to it. She is (conveniently?) forgetting that this episode is before Pentecost. The Popes are not infallible in and of themselves, but through the Holy Spirit that Christ promised will lead His Church in all truth. The evidence is that Christ promises the advocate, and that advocate descends at Pentecost.

When dealing with Catholic detractors, establish the need for authority rather than infallibility.

Scott

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thanks again!

Trying to get Protestants to agree that the authority of Peter is necessary can be tricky…I’ll continue to pray for unity of faith. You are right Scott that we should concentrate on the issue of authority moreso than infallibility. But I am finding that agreeing that Peter is that authority (ordained by Christ) is most difficult to get across because of rejection of the infallibility issue.

OTM, what you say about the scripture not being an issue of faith I will pray on that. It does seem that Peter was not meaning to bind the Church particularly since the Church didn’t form until Pentacost.

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

She is well-versed in the greek texts, so an explanation as to the meaning of words would be helpful.

If I had 5 cents for every Protestant I know that claims to be able to read the original greek text…

I’d have like 50 cents.

Tell her that Peter didn’t want Jesus to die, what friend wants to see another die? Jesus “rebuked” him because Jesus saw through Peters feelings & realized that He (Jesus) was being tempted through Peter.

If she insists on literal translation tell her to ready the passage where Jesus tells us chop our hands off if they lead us to sin, or to gouge out our eye. I have yet to meet a Protestant that is willing to take that passage literal word for word. :nope:

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

She does admit that Peter has a special role amoungst the apostles.

She claims the Bible is clear when Christ uses metaphor and when Christ meant a passage to be literal. The “chopping off” passage I am sure she would take as metaphor.

Are you saying that in the passage I listed above, Christ was using metaphor?

 

[awalt]

I can help with this verse(s) - this was JUST on EWTN in the Bible study program last weekend!

Prior to this, was the story of the blind man that Jesus rubbed spittle in his eyes, yet he could only partially see – “I see men walking around but they look like trees”. Jesus touched him again, and he could see clearly. This is a precurosr to the jounrey we and the apostles are taking, in that we don’t quite get there right away.

Now fast forward to verses 22-23. What happens prior, is Jesus has just asked Peter who he is, and he says the Messiah. They are going to Jerusalem. The apostles are speaking amongst themselves, still under the false i pression that Jesus is going to take over and become secular king, and they are all jockeying for jobs!

So then here, Jesus says that he wil lsuffer and die, and Peter rebukes because he is sayin No Jesus! You are king - you are going to take over in Jerusalem and we are all going to be rich (my paraphrasing obviously but you get the idea). Like the blind man, Peter sees but not yet completely. So then Jesus says “Get behind me Satan” (because Peter you are still a secular so and so and you just don’t get it).

I really enjoyed this passage, I never understood all these nuances before!

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thank you awalt!

I guess it does come down to be able to trust in the authority as to who has it and can help us interpret scripture.

The debates in scripture should be concentrating on how the Magistirium’s teaching is brought forth through scripture instead of finding something contained within that is contrary to the Magisterium’s teaching.

The Holy Spirit can bring my Protestant friend home if it is His will. Perhaps you could all pray for her journey towards Christ’s Church. Thanks!

 

[dano]

I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something.

Aside from the aspects of your friend not understanding the difference between infallibility and impectable and that he can still sin and make wrong judgements and is subject to human emotions - At this time in the Gospel, Peter is not yet “the Pope” not yet infallable.?? He has yet to deny Christ 3 times.

I try and keep things simple if I can.

Dano