Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[The_GreyPilgrim]

As for the keys, where does it say Peter passed on the keys to the CC. We are told by the CC that the CC has them. Don’t the Mormons think they have them?

2 Peter 1:[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15]** And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things."

So what did peter do?

He left someone behind whom he trusted…

Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.

Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.

The Mormons can assert all they want, it doesn’t make it true.**

 

[Dokimas]

2 Peter 1:[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15]** And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things."

So what did peter do?

He left someone behind whom he trusted…

Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.

Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.

The Mormons can assert all they want, it doesn’t make it true.**

Any indication that Peter thought he was the ‘leader’ of the church?

Your comment to or about the Mormon church fits ALL of us including the CC.

 

[Dokimas]

To my Protestant Brothers;

Please read and understand.:

Jesus is the one who, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, “entered the heavenly sanctuary” (cf. 9:24) through his sacrifice. He possesses its keys and opens its gates. Jesus handed these keys over to Peter, who thus received power over the kingdom, power which he will exercise in Christ’s name, as his steward and the head of the Church, the house which gathers together those who believe in Christ, the children of God.

Shalom Aleichem

Jesus turned the keys over to Peter before He 'entered the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:24). Makes no sense, does it?

Who Jesus is seems to be the key to Heaven. When we witness of Jesus we use the keys, don’t we?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

In this case what was asserted with reason was denied without reason,

Which you have done much of. You have yet to “prove” anything to substantiate your claims except to deflect and try to denegrate me as some crazy imbecile.

so there is no point to continue. Anyway, my sources on history are published academic sources, which you probably wouldn’t recognize as having any relevance anyway.

If they are published then post them! Although historical academia of late, because of personal and political leanings, have gone to great lengths to change the meaning of history to suit their sensibilities. I will appraoch them objectively as I approached the bible when I came from atheism back to theism.

Yours were church fathers with a particular agenda (If you have quoted some source other than these, let me know). Aside from that, a scriptural piece here and there, all of which can be viewed in numerous ways each. Their assertions in my view being largely discredited by the outcomes they produced over time. Fortunately this day in age, the rantings of such zealots is confined mostly to websites, where they can’t do as much harm as in the past. A bit annoying but of little harm - innocuous.

Scripture can be viewed in numerous ways, hence St Peter says in his letter that " no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…" Jesus left us an authority to lead His people to the truth, not “truths”. “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism”. Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. This is not arrogance, and they are not our claims but His. The word “authority” means author’s rights. It would be arrogant to believe that we have the right to change what he said because it merely offends our sensibilities.

If by “agenda” you mean protecting the Truth from fallacy, then yes, they had an agenda. (I’m sure you are leading into some rant about the Inquisition, being an atheist I am well familiar with such objections).

The second part of the Church being “dicredited” is merely your opinion. With over a billion Catholics in the world in communion with the Pope it seems that your opinion would be in the minority. You would proably simply dismiss them as ignorant, which says more about you than it does about them.

Despite what you may assume about me, I have done my homework on the history of the Church. Be it the crusades or the Inquisition such failiures of certain men to live up to the witness of Christ does not negate the truth of His Church. Neither Christ nor the Church ever claimed impeccability; the Church has always and will always have wheat and chaff mixed together. The Church is a hospital for sinners.

And yes, you are still missing the point.

I have asked you three times now to enlighten me, and you have refused. Is your position so nuanced that even you can’t even explain it?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Any indication that Peter thought he was the ‘leader’ of the church?

Your comment to or about the Mormon church fits ALL of us including the CC.

The book of Acts bears witness to Peter’s primacy. He was the first to preach, the first to heal, the first to undergo trial. He was the one who initiated the restoration of the Twelve by indicating “another must take his office”(referring to Judas). He was the first to whom Jesus revealed that the gentiles were to be included in the Church.

His name is mentioned far and above more times than any other apostle in the NT. How many times does scripture refer to “Peter and the others”? How many times does Peter speak for the other disciples? Peter was the one chosen by God the Father to declare the infallible truth of Chirst’s divine sonship.

Indications abound when you actually look for them.

As far as the second, as I recall the Mormon church didn’t exist until the 19th century.

The historicity of the Catholic Church is well attested for those willing to set aside their theological prejudices. As a former atheist learning history it was easy for me to approach it without the clouded lense of theological preference and simply see what Church was my worst enemy and what “churches” were merely offshoots of it. My prior assumption being that their differences were merely marginal.

So, historically speaking, no the assertion does not fit with the Church as it does with Mormonism or the rest of Protestantism

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Makes sense.

Where in the bible does it say that “everyone can have the keys to heaven”?

 

[Nicea325]

Where in the bible does it say that “everyone can have the keys to heaven”?

No where! This is the first time I have heard of such a belief. It is amazing what 2,000 years of separation from Christ Church can cause so many man-made churches to teach as truth.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’m off for now, I have to lector as Mass this morning…I will return when I can God willing.

 

[mskejj]

-Revisionist Jews describes early Christians, many of whom remained connected with the Temple in the first 80 or so years. Not all of them but a good number of them. I don’t think they have or are known by any particular formal name. Point was that they existed. Gnostics were indeed hunted down, as have numberless others through the course of history. Very unlike the ways of the Christ I know.

I am confused…what Temple? The Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD along with millions of Jewish men, women and children. The Jewish Christian sect had fled to the hills (after recognizing the signs from the Olivert Discourse, Daniel etc) according to the Jewish historian, Josephus in his writings.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

First to do this and first to do that, however, doesn’t necessarily prove an infallible primal universally supreme jurisdiction. James headed the council, not Peter. And Paul determined that Peter was wrong about table fellowship with Gentiles and called him out on it bigtime. If we’re trying to compare accomplishments and firsts to prove something, look at Paul. Paul out-evangelized Peter and wrote most of the NT epistles. He shaped our theology and understandings of grace and faith and even ecclesiology and christology through his contributions to Scripture far more than Peter and he co-founded Rome with Peter and both died there. Firsts are great and meaningful but not necessarily proof of anything. It’s fascinating to me how James led the Jerusalem council as well.

The book of Acts bears witness to Peter’s primacy. He was the first to preach, the first to heal, the first to undergo trial. He was the one who initiated the restoration of the Twelve by indicating “another must take his office”(referring to Judas). He was the first to whom Jesus revealed that the gentiles were to be included in the Church.

His name is mentioned far and above more times than any other apostle in the NT. How many times does scripture refer to “Peter and the others”? How many times does Peter speak for the other disciples? Peter was the one chosen by God the Father to declare the infallible truth of Chirst’s divine sonship.

Indications abound when you actually look for them.

As far as the second, as I recall the Mormon church didn’t exist until the 19th century.

The historicity of the Catholic Church is well attested for those willing to set aside their theological prejudices. As a former atheist learning history it was easy for me to approach it without the clouded lense of theological preference and simply see what Church was my worst enemy and what “churches” were merely offshoots of it. My prior assumption being that their differences were merely marginal.

So, historically speaking, no the assertion does not fit with the Church as it does with Mormonism or the rest of Protestantism

 

[Soldier_X]

It’s fascinating to me how James led the Jerusalem council as well.

Same here!

 

[Nicea325]

First to do this and first to do that, however, doesn’t necessarily prove an infallible primal universally supreme jurisdiction. James headed the council, not Peter. And Paul determined that Peter was wrong about table fellowship with Gentiles and called him out on it bigtime. If we’re trying to compare accomplishments and firsts to prove something, look at Paul. Paul out-evangelized Peter and wrote most of the NT epistles. He shaped our theology and understandings of grace and faith and even ecclesiology and christology through his contributions to Scripture far more than Peter and he co-founded Rome with Peter and both died there. Firsts are great and meaningful but not necessarily proof of anything. It’s fascinating to me how James led the Jerusalem council as well.

First of all,Paul was not questioning or challenging Peter’s primacy or authority.,Second, if James, and not Peter, held the primacy as some would have us believe, then why is he not mentioned even once by a single Church Father or early writer as holding that office?

It’s fascinating to me how James led the Jerusalem council as well.

And more amazing how the ECF’s snuffed him,if he was truly the one with the primacy

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did I say James had a primacy? Please tell me where I did say that and I’d be happy to recant such craziness. James held the office of bishop over Jerusalem. That’s a well-documented fact. ECF’s do point to James in fact. James was master of his domain in Jerusalem and the fact that Peter didn’t usurp him at that council and preside at the head of the table shows that his jurisdiction was not universal and supreme. If he had the papal powers of today, he’d be at the table and James would’ve yielded sitting elsewhere. That’s my point. I never said James was pope. That’s ludicrous. And the Orthodox, from what I’ve read, have great respect for James and see him as the first Patriarch of Jerusalem, no?

First of all,Paul was not questioning or challenging Peter’s primacy or authority.,Second, if James, and not Peter, held the primacy as some would have us believe, then why is he not mentioned even once by a single Church Father or early writer as holding that office?

And more amazing how the ECF’s snuffed him,if he was truly the one with the primacy

 

[Soldier_X]

Gurney’s not claiming that James had primacy. Gurney IS mentioning some interesting facts about another apostle and the first bishop of Jerusalem. No harm in doing so, right? These are simply facts, after all!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. Some facts scare people though LOL I always wonder why Peter, as an ‘infallible, universal jurisdiction’ Pope didn’t sit in James’ seat and lead the meeting as he would in 2010. It’s weird how James banged the gavel, Paul shot Peter’s opinions down, and Paul’s argument won the day and James ratified it.

Gurney’s not claiming that James had primacy. Gurney IS mentioning some interesting facts about another apostle and the first bishop of Jerusalem. No harm in doing so, right? These are simply facts, after all!

 

[Soldier_X]

Agreed. Some facts scare people though LOL I always wonder why Peter, as an ‘infallible, universal jurisdiction’ Pope didn’t sit in James’ seat and lead the meeting as he would in 2010. It’s weird how James banged the gavel, Paul shot Peter’s opinions down, and Paul’s argument won the day and James ratified it.

Someone will probably tell us that no one can properly understand these things apart from the teachings of the Magisterium. [/tongue in cheek, no offense meant to anybody ]

 

[Dokimas]

Where in the bible does it say that “everyone can have the keys to heaven”?

If the keys to Heaven is the ‘Gospel of Jesus’ (that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God), then anytime we share that fact, we are using the keys.

 

[Nicea325]

Did I say James had a primacy? Please tell me where I did say that and I’d be happy to recant such craziness. James held the office of bishop over Jerusalem. That’s a well-documented fact. ECF’s do point to James in fact. James was master of his domain in Jerusalem and the fact that Peter didn’t usurp him at that council and preside at the head of the table shows that his jurisdiction was not universal and supreme. If he had the papal powers of today, he’d be at the table and James would’ve yielded sitting elsewhere. That’s my point. I never said James was pope. That’s ludicrous. And the Orthodox, from what I’ve read, have great respect for James and see him as the first Patriarch of Jerusalem, no?

Did I say you said it? No! But you are trying to present a smoking gun and it is weak. The RCC has known James was a bishop over Jerusalem and just as Peter held it at Antioch before moving on. And?

ECF’s do point to James in fact

In regards to what? As the HEAD Apostle? Show us all…

James was master of his domain in Jerusalem and the fact that Peter didn’t usurp him at that council and preside at the head of the table shows that his jurisdiction was not universal and supreme. If he had the papal powers of today, he’d be at the table and James would’ve yielded sitting elsewhere.

Because Peter said nothing is proof he had no jurisdiction? Sorry,but that is not emprical proof.

 

[Dokimas]

No where! This is the first time I have heard of such a belief. It is amazing what 2,000 years of separation from Christ Church can cause so many man-made churches to teach as truth.

I maybe old but 2000 yrs???

 

[Dokimas]

The book of Acts bears witness to Peter’s primacy. He was the first to preach, the first to heal, the first to undergo trial. He was the one who initiated the restoration of the Twelve by indicating “another must take his office”(referring to Judas). He was the first to whom Jesus revealed that the gentiles were to be included in the Church.

His name is mentioned far and above more times than any other apostle in the NT. How many times does scripture refer to “Peter and the others”? How many times does Peter speak for the other disciples? Peter was the one chosen by God the Father to declare the infallible truth of Chirst’s divine sonship.

Indications abound when you actually look for them.

As far as the second, as I recall the Mormon church didn’t exist until the 19th century.

The historicity of the Catholic Church is well attested for those willing to set aside their theological prejudices. As a former atheist learning history it was easy for me to approach it without the clouded lense of theological preference and simply see what Church was my worst enemy and what “churches” were merely offshoots of it. My prior assumption being that their differences were merely marginal.

So, historically speaking, no the assertion does not fit with the Church as it does with Mormonism or the rest of Protestantism

As I read Acts and Paul, James seems to be the leader of the early church.

If one looks at written documentation (the NT), Paul is the leader.