Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[Richard_Kastner]

33.Matthew 13:33
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
34.Matthew 13:44
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
35.Matthew 13:45
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
36.Matthew 13:47
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
37.Matthew 13:52
Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
38.Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
39.Matthew 18:1
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
40.Matthew 18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
41.Matthew 18:4
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
42.Matthew 18:23
Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
43.Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
44.Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
45.Matthew 19:23
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
46.Matthew 20:1
For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
47.Matthew 22:2
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
48.Matthew 23:13
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
49.Matthew 25:1
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
50.Matthew 25:14
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
51.Luke 11:2
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
52.2 Timothy 4:18
And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
53.Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
54.Revelation 12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

One of the reasons Jesus came to this earth was to tell us about the home that He has prepared for them that love Him. He also wants us to tell one another.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t understand my Protestant Brothers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say outright that Jesus is God or that there is a Trinity. Yet we all know that Jesus IS God and that there IS a Trinity. We find throughout the OT and NT “hints and clues” to “prove” these beliefs. This is accepted without any definite statement(s) of proof.

Now in the NT we have definite statements by Jesus that makes Peter the foundation of His Church by changing only Simon’s name to Cephas ( rock = Peter ), giving only Simon-Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, and putting Peter in charge of the Church by telling only Peter to "feed my lambs, feed my sheep " three times. With these definite statements I don’t see how they can be misconstrued to mean anything other than what they do.

Is it that if they accept what Jesus said as He said and meant it they would have to submit that the Catholic Church IS the One True Church and have to admit that they were wrong with “sola scriptura” all along?

( As for the Orthodox and Schismatic Churches, that is a different subject )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javl,

As one considering Anglicanism, Catholicism and EO; the Orthodox objections to the Catholic interpretation of the “primacy” of Peter, are really very compelling, at least at this point in my study; but I have a long way to go. And I’m certainly not ready to debate. I have many more books to get through from different viewpoints. However, I do have questions, and I’m following this thread closely.

Javl, at least you mentioned the Orthodox. I must ask your opinion regarding EO’s rejection of the Catholic view of Peter’s primacy. Catholics can’t use the “typical” accusations hurled at Protestants for disagreement with the CC. So, what do you see as EO’s obstacle to agreement with CC?

Better still, I hope to see Eastern Orthodox posts; since this thread is not addressed only to Protestants; but to “non-Catholics.”

As I look through all the arguments on this thread, it is clear that all positions rest upon interpretation regarding the meaning of the words Christ spoke to Peter; and interpretation of who was really in charge in the early Church, and interpretation of how authority was continued.

Gotta say, I’d like to see more source material (i.e.ECF’s,) and fewer insults.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

**Greetings again, Gandalf

How do you know I’m a Protestant? I just got back from St. Mary’s Catholic Church the
21st Sunday in Ordinary time if memory serves. Anyway, thanks for the rather arrogant and untactfully-put question. I’ll be glad to answer it. Do I arrogate the right of interpretation ONLY to myself? Yes, I’m the Pope and the Patriarch of California. (sarcasm) OF COURSE NOT!? But as a Catholic do you have a manual that tells you how to interpret EVERY single Scriptural passage? When you read every single line of the Bible, do you have a website or a red phone to the Vatican to ask them what their interpretation is? I know the Catholic Church is the ultimate judge of Scripture from a Catholic point of view and there are non-negotiables of course, but every single word of Scripture you don’t trust yourself to understand either? You have to look up and get approval on everything? What kind of question is that? I never said you proof-texted out of context or used circular logic You say that? LOL **

Peter deferred to James, James reproved him, Paul reproved him, he did not have a universal ordinary jurisdiction over James’ turf. I never sought to disprove Peter’s primacy. LIke your cohort, you’re not listening to the argument. All ECF’s and reasonable people, Orthodox, etc. know that Peter had a primacy. It’s a no-brainer and I said as much in several posts here. But what I’m proving he didn’t have was universal jurisdiction and infallible overlapping supremacy over all others. Primacy, in the Orthodox definition and in antiquity was understood in the context of a coryphaeus, a first amongst equals, the chairman and the descendent of Peter with great respect. Infallible and universally supreme? No. So before you use the term “primacy,” realize that the Roman definition of primacy and the definition understood by the Fathers and the East are not the same.

But I’m pretty much done posting on this thread. Nothing can be learned by people who are totally un-objective about history and the early fathers. People who are in an apologetics mode who simply proof-text a few scriptural references in a vacuum without context or having read the literature of the East, etc. are not going to get it. I’m done. So now let the nukes come down because I’m finished.

gurney,

I hate to see you leave. Your posts are so vital to the discussion. I just posted to Javl about the Orthodox position. At this point, I’m most inclined toward the Orthodox view. They make a good case, in considering Scripture and Tradition.

 

[mflorence]

FAREWELL AND NOTE OF APOLOGY:

Dear Fellow Posters:

I came to this website originally to share views on spirituality with people from all faiths. Many of you are faithfully doing that, but that wasn’t the case for me. Somehow, I ended up getting heated arguments with people over points of who was right and who was wrong about their beliefs or faiths. My contributions to those arguments and exchanges were entirely my own fault, and no one else. It never mattered whether I had a point or didn’t. What mattered is that I engaged in behavior that wasn’t a reflection of anyone’s faith, regardless of what their views are. While there were people in my own community who were sick or in need of my help, I squandered my time arguing with people here. There was many an hour I could have spent in prayer that I spent formulating my next reply on a blog. None of that was my original intent. My original intents were good, but that’s now how it turned out.

I have asked the moderators to remove some things I wrote because they violated the rules on fighting. I have left the rest as a monument to own foolishness. I apologize in particular to GreayPilgrim, Nicea325 whom I argued with most often. I saw you as anonymous screen names. While anonymous to me, behind those names were children of a God I professed to love. This was an incredible error on my part. If there is anyone else who would like a personal apology, let me know and I will send you one. Each of you are good people, evidenced by the fact that you are even on a website about religion.

This is my last post. I need to get back to my own spiritual journey, from which I have strayed a good deal of late with my arrogance and argumentativeness. The very best to all of you, and whatever you believe, God Bless You in every way.

This is my last post

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I received this private message from mflorence:

My apologies to you Jim Dandy for my strong and discourteous reply to your posting. My reply failed to recognize you as a child of God, deserving of my love and respect. Please accept if you will, my heartfelt apology.

God Bless you and keep you.

Jim Dandy

 

[david_ruiz]

The Gospels reveal PETER IS THE ONLY APOSTLE WHO WALKED ON WATER, the first to preach Christ crucified, raised the dead, prophecied about the death of a decieving couple, **healed **]the many with just his shadow,

** PETER IS THE ONLY ONE WHO RECIEVED THE VISION FROM GOD (HEAVEN) TO ALLOW THE GENTILES INTO THE CHURCH** and later **spoke in the first church council **in Jerusalem about the gentiles to practice without circumcision and all fell silent, just to mention a few things that Peter did apart from the apostles.

Yet it is true as you stated, All of them are commissioned, that is why the Pope is the Bishop of Rome from his unbroken Apostolic succession.

Peace be with you

Yes ,no one challenges that Peter was first among EQUALS.To say he was above in his office is wrong,in my opinion.You did not answer why the other apostles thought they could be above him.Yes , his testimony did silence the debate at the first council.It should have .God personally did reveal to go to the gentiles.He was a primary witness to gentiles being saved and baptized in the Holy Ghost.He also was two faced ,in spite of God’s revelations to him. When other Jews came around, he "left "the gentiles ,so as not to be seen with them. He was a primary problem, so when he finally repents and speaks out at the council. It was big, He was back on track with the God’s program. Paul also added big testimony that sealed the deal and a pronouncement soon followed by James at the council.This for me does not help believe in the office of pope.Jesus said it would be different,from earhtly need for a Leader.Hey ,I do not think Jews had a religious leader,why would the church ? When Jews did seek a king ,it was a bad thing ,for God was their king ,top dog ,just as today ,Christ holds the keys ,and His vicar is the Holy Spirit.

 

[elvisman]

Firstly, you are being angry again, and your use of continuously varying colors rather obfuscates your points, but that’s your choice I suppose.

Who’s** angry?? In the 6 years that I’ve been on this forum, I’ve found that the only people who attack my use of color are those who are**** frustrated**** with my arguments. They accuse me of being angry because I use color in my responses and they’re either ill-equipped to answer or have realized that they’ve been knocked senseless with the**** truth****.**

**So, in the end, I have found that all the ****color **in my posts does is to serve as an easy target for those who have nothingof substance to add to the conversation.

 

[elvisman]

What I have stated is historical fact. The existence of the Gnostics, and revisionist Jews and others is plainly known. I haven’t misstated any of that. You may research that for yourself, or if you like you may contact the department of Theology and Religious Studies at any Catholic university to get clarification on that. By quoting the writings of Ignatius, you have confirmed that prior to the Roman Church there was more than one variety of the faith, which was my point. The fact that the people Ignatius wrote about were violently driven to extinction by the followers of Ignatius has no bearing on who was right. Yes, one prevailed, however through the use of some very un-Christlike actions. Eventually, what you follow did develop from that primordial mix, but it was done through a process of selection, based on which iteration of the many available arguments your church fathers chose to adopt. You are also quoting scripture a good deal from your interpretation of it. I could one for one give you other perfectly good explanations as well for each.

WRONG**.**
What you have stated is revisionist history – not fact.

**You haven’t given any sources for your claim that the Catholic Church teaches there ****wasn’t ****a single defined faith or Church structure during the 1st century. Until you ****can **– your claim is bogus – simply lip service.

I, on the other hand, have shown you just the opposite – that there WAS a clearly defined Church. Every other sect (like the Gnostics) that popped up during that time was considered a heretical sect – NOT Christian.

 

[elvisman]

I haven’t offered any opinion as to what interpretation is right or which is wrong, so you have jumped the gun once again. That is the mark of a very defensive predisposition. Listen to me carefully. I didn’t say that the Gnotsics or revisionist Jews were right and you were wrong. I pointed out that your church developed through a process of evolution that involved selection of this gospel or that, this doctrine or the other and so on, in the same way that you noted that Protestants had. Your church fathers sorted through a variety of gospels and other writings that were either accepted or rejected, Whether they came to the right conclusions or the wrong ones is not my point. My point is that they went through the same process that you noted in regards to Protestants. Now if it turns out that your church is right and everyone else is wrong, then what do you care about what the rest might follow? In that scenario, you should be okay, should you not? I would caution you in one regard though, even though I am not a Catholic or Protestant, I am a spiritual person, and you can discount that in any way you like. My caution is that your arrogance and anger toward those who see God differently from you may end up being a huge impediment to your own attainment of Heaven, making all of your certainty on the minutia of detail, fact doctrine and dogma a tragic waste of time in the end. Again, that is your business.

Tell me – what is a “spiritual person”? Your profile claims: “I accept any faith that doesn’t claim to be the only one.”
All this tells me is that you are spiritually wishy-washy. This is not an insult – merely an observation.

As for your position on Church development and Catholic vs. Protestant – here are the simple historical facts:
Jesus Christ established ONE Church (Matt. 16:18) and appointed Peter as its first earthly leader (Matt. 16:19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15-19)

He prayed fervently for the unity of that ONE Church (John 17) – that they remain ONE.

That single Apostolic Church – with the authority given it by God himself (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23) - grew out of the 1st century and continued to spread through the centuries. It wrote the New Testament, compiled the books of what was to become the Bible and declared the canon of Scripture.

In the 11th century, the Orthodox split from the Church.

After 1500 years of proclaiming Christ’s truth to the world, flawed men, leaning on their own understanding instead of God’s (Proverbs 3:5), broke away and have succeeded in creating the tens of thousands of constantly-splintering sects that we have today which fall under the umbrella of Chrisrianity.

Them’s** the facts, buddy – and I have history to back it up. All you have given are opinions. ****Instead of constantly accusing me of being angry, you might find that it is incumbent upon you to to disprove history - not for me to prove it . . .

 

[Anna_Scott]

FAREWELL AND NOTE OF APOLOGY:

Dear Fellow Posters:

I came to this website originally to share views on spirituality with people from all faiths. Many of you are faithfully doing that, but that wasn’t the case for me. Somehow, I ended up getting heated arguments with people over points of who was right and who was wrong about their beliefs or faiths. My contributions to those arguments and exchanges were entirely my own fault, and no one else. It never mattered whether I had a point or didn’t. What mattered is that I engaged in behavior that wasn’t a reflection of anyone’s faith, regardless of what their views are. While there were people in my own community who were sick or in need of my help, I squandered my time arguing with people here. There was many an hour I could have spent in prayer that I spent formulating my next reply on a blog. None of that was my original intent. My original intents were good, but that’s now how it turned out.

I have asked the moderators to remove some things I wrote because they violated the rules on fighting. I have left the rest as a monument to own foolishness. I apologize in particular to GreayPilgrim, Nicea325 whom I argued with most often. I saw you as anonymous screen names. While anonymous to me, behind those names were children of a God I professed to love. This was an incredible error on my part. If there is anyone else who would like a personal apology, let me know and I will send you one. Each of you are good people, evidenced by the fact that you are even on a website about religion.

This is my last post. I need to get back to my own spiritual journey, from which I have strayed a good deal of late with my arrogance and argumentativeness. The very best to all of you, and whatever you believe, God Bless You in every way.

This is my last post

mflorence,

I really hate to see you go. There are a number of posts from other people, that were less than charitable. I’ve had more than one situation during my time on the forums, when I apologized for uncharitable comments.

Things can get out of hand quickly, especially when the topic is the primacy of Peter. Matthew 16 reveals a defining moment for the Christian Church. Great minds have debated the interpretation of this and related passages for centuries, and disagreement continues—not just between Catholics and Protestants; but between Catholics and Orthodox.

The Orthodox view of the primacy of Peter is very interesting to me, because they also rely on Tradition in the interpretation of Scripture.

As I said in a previous post, I’d like to see more source material and fewer insults in the discussion. I’m studying the issue of the “keys” and “primacy”, and would like to discuss more of what I am reading. Yet I hold back, because I know that if I disagree with either side of the debate, chances are I will get “pounded,” by someone. I can endure ridicule, insults, and “getting pounded”; but these are unnecessary diversions from the issues at hand.

At this point in study, I am looking for proof that Peter acted as Pope, with the same authority the Pope claims today; and proof that sole authority for the keys is only given through Apostolic Succession from Peter, and that this authority governs all Christians. So, those early years of the Church are very important as seen in Scripture and the writings of the ECF’s.

Anna

 

[Javl]

Peter deferred to James, James reproved him, Paul reproved him, he did not have a universal ordinary jurisdiction over James’ turf. I never sought to disprove Peter’s primacy. LIke your cohort, you’re not listening to the argument. All ECF’s and reasonable people, Orthodox, etc. know that Peter had a primacy. It’s a no-brainer and I said as much in several posts here. But what I’m proving he didn’t have was universal jurisdiction and infallible overlapping supremacy over all others. Primacy, in the Orthodox definition and in antiquity was understood in the context of a coryphaeus, a first amongst equals, the chairman and the descendent of Peter with great respect. Infallible and universally supreme? No. So before you use the term “primacy,” realize that the Roman definition of primacy and the definition understood by the Fathers and the East are not the same.

But I’m pretty much done posting on this thread. Nothing can be learned by people who are totally un-objective about history and the early fathers. People who are in an apologetics mode who simply proof-text a few scriptural references in a vacuum without context or having read the literature of the East, etc. are not going to get it. I’m done. So now let the nukes come down because I’m finished.

Who or what do you mean by “overall primacy”? Although there were individual Churches with Bishops at the time, they all looked to Peter. The only ones that did not were the Gnostics. Also, we all are not as stupid, dumb, or as ignorant as you make us out to be. Did it ever occur to you it would be the way or manner in which you submit your answers or make your statements?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Javl,

As one considering Anglicanism, Catholicism and EO; the Orthodox objections to the Catholic interpretation of the “primacy” of Peter, are really very compelling, at least at this point in my study; but I have a long way to go. And I’m certainly not ready to debate. I have many more books to get through from different viewpoints. However, I do have questions, and I’m following this thread closely.

Javl, at least you mentioned the Orthodox. I must ask your opinion regarding EO’s rejection of the Catholic view of Peter’s primacy. Catholics can’t use the “typical” accusations hurled at Protestants for disagreement with the CC. So, what do you see as EO’s obstacle to agreement with CC?

I really don’t know exactly what the Catholic position is today, all I can do is give you my opinion garnered from Church history and from conversations with some different Orthodox believers ( Greek, Russian, Coptic, etc. )

Basically I find the major difference to be political, and it had seemed to have been so until a bit after the Reformation. The objections that were given me by the Orthodox seem to reflect those, with minor variations, of Protestants. It all revolves around interpretation of Matthew 16:16-18.

Better still, I hope to see Eastern Orthodox posts; since this thread is not addressed only to Protestants; but to “non-Catholics.”

As I look through all the arguments on this thread, it is clear that all positions rest upon interpretation regarding the meaning of the words Christ spoke to Peter; and interpretation of who was really in charge in the early Church, and interpretation of how authority was continued.

Gotta say, I’d like to see more source material (i.e.ECF’s,) and fewer insults.

Anna

I agree with you, Anna. Refering to and in reading the differences between some Catholic Concordances I do find some variations in interpretation, but these seem to be minor since they all seem to say basically the same thing. I find the same with Protestant Concordances that I have read. But the difference between Protestant and Catholic Concordances in interpretation is like night and day, although there was one Anglican Concordance which was very close to the Catholic interpretation. ( I personally have only the “Jerome Bible Concordance”. The other Concordances that I have used and read were available in the Library at the University at Steubenville, Ohio ).

As for insults, again I agree, but this seems to be the standard ( normal ) reaction when one’s beliefs seem to be or are under attack. Somehow or other, unless biases and predjudices are put aside, I don’t think the question of exactly what Jesus said or meant will ever be agreed upon.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Haven’t a clue what you’re saying.

This refers to your post #185 where you mention calling out or rebuking the Pope. I meant to emphasise that line in your post but failed to do so. Apologies.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

And I guess when Jesus gives the keys and the power to bind and loose to the other apostles, I suppose that means nothing?

No, because Jesus was speaking to Peter alone. Matthew 16 ( besides the Book of Revelation ) is the most misunderstood and misinterpreted chapter and verse in the Bible. Jesus was speaking to Peter alone and in one statement he changed Simon bar Jonah to Peter and gave Peter a commission ( besides a mission ) and the authority to carry out that commission. If it were meant for all the Apostles He not only would have changed all their names but would have addressed them all in the same way as He had done in other instances.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Jim_Dandy]

At this point, I’m most inclined toward the Orthodox view. They make a good case, in considering Scripture and Tradition.

Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp

Why Be Catholic?
By Jimmy Akin
cin.org/users/james/files…e_Catholic.htm

I explored Orthodoxy before I became a Catholic. Briefly, I found that there is no “Orthodox Church,” rather, there are several separate, nationalistic, ethnic Orthodox Churches with no overarching principle. And, adding to the confusion, would I become an Oriental or an Eastern Orthodox? There is great animosity between the two groups, and they do not share communion. Even among the Eastern Orthodox there is conflict. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not allow Communion with other Russian Orthodox Churches and vice versa. There are (at least) three different Bibles among them – one for the Greeks, one for the Russians, and an entirely different one for the (Oriental) Ethiopian Orthodox. No one speaks for Orthodoxy in the public forum because there is no leader.

I also found that Orthodoxy has flip-flopped on moral issues. They taught for centuries that artificial birth control was forbidden and a serious sin, but now they permit it. Three marriages and two divorces are allowed. All Orthodoxy has caved in to society’s pressures. In short, I could not find the True Church in any of the Orthodox Churches, who have lost their identity (IMHO) and moral compass since the separation from Rome. They need a Pope.

Dave Armstrong, moderator of the forums at the Coming Home Network, is remarkably knowledgeable about Orthodoxy and has written extensively about it. You can find him at www.chnetwork.org, forums.

Just my :twocents:

God be with you on your journey,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Jim Dandy

 

[Javl]

Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp

Why Be Catholic?
By Jimmy Akin
cin.org/users/james/files…e_Catholic.htm

I explored Orthodoxy before I became a Catholic. Briefly, I found that there is no “Orthodox Church,” rather, there are several separate, nationalistic, ethnic Orthodox Churches with no overarching principle. And, adding to the confusion, would I become an Oriental or an Eastern Orthodox? There is great animosity between the two groups, and they do not share communion. Even among the Eastern Orthodox there is conflict. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not allow Communion with other Russian Orthodox Churches and vice versa. There are (at least) three different Bibles among them – one for the Greeks, one for the Russians, and an entirely different one for the (Oriental) Ethiopian Orthodox. No one speaks for Orthodoxy in the public forum because there is no leader.

I also found that Orthodoxy has flip-flopped on moral issues. They taught for centuries that artificial birth control was forbidden and a serious sin, but now they permit it. Three marriages and two divorces are allowed. All Orthodoxy has caved in to society’s pressures. In short, I could not find the True Church in any of the Orthodox Churches, who have lost their identity (IMHO) and moral compass since the separation from Rome. They need a Pope.

Dave Armstrong, moderator of the forums at the Coming Home Network, is remarkably knowledgeable about Orthodoxy and has written extensively about it. You can find him at www.chnetwork.org, forums.

Just my :twocents:

God be with you on your journey,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Jim Dandy

Jim Dandy:

Many, many thanks for your post and links. You have done what I not only failed to do, bu also neglected to do. I should know better. Thanks again and God be praised for your finding His One True Church. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .As for insults, again I agree, but this seems to be the standard ( normal ) reaction when one’s beliefs seem to be or are under attack. Somehow or other, unless biases and predjudices are put aside, I don’t think the question of exactly what Jesus said or meant will ever be agreed upon.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

The problem is that the insults drive people, like me, away. I’m looking for answers.You, see I am not here to prove anyone wrong. I’'m looking for proof that Catholics are right, or the Orthodox are right, or the Anglicans are right regarding the interpretation of the Keys and the primacy of Peter. IOW, I’m here on strictly a fact finding mission.

At this point, I think it is better for me to keep reading and studying. I appreciate resources that have been provided on this thread. They are never wasted on me.

I don’t think I will continue on this thread. At this point, I think my time would be better spent reading.

Anna

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Orthodox view of the primacy of Peter is very interesting to me, because they also rely on Tradition in the interpretation of Scripture.

I hope you’re saying that both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches (plural) rely on Tradition in the interpretation of Scripture.

The undivided Catholic Church is nearly 400 years older than the Bible. The Church did not read about the authority of the keys being given to Peter; it was part of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition that was later written down and was eventually judged by the Church to be “Scripture.” The Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. The New Testament is based on the undivided Catholic Church, not vice versa. But you probably already knew this.

At this point in study, I am looking for proof that Peter acted as Pope, with the same authority the Pope claims today; and proof that sole authority for the keys is only given through Apostolic Succession from Peter, and that this authority governs all Christians. So, those early years of the Church are very important as seen in Scripture and the writings of the ECF’s.

Anna

Have you read the First Letter of Clement, who was the third pope after St. Peter [Peter, Linus, Anacletus or Cletus, Clement I], asserting his authority over the unruly Corinthians while St. John was still living – in Asia Minor – much closer to Corinth than Rome?

Available at newadvent.org, under Fathers.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[Ignatias20]

Simon Bar Jona andhis brother Andrew went to meet Jesus. When Jesus saw Simon he said,“Simon Bar Jona you are Kephas ( meaning Rock in Aramaic language)”

It was Jewish custom to give a man a new name when he took an important new job. So Peter as we know him became The Rock. Rock in Greek is Petros. So when Jerome translated the Greek Bible into Latin Petros became Peter.

Just before Jesus ascended into heaven, Jeus told Peter this, "Peter you are the Rock and on this rock I shall build my Church. ( Matt 16: v 18 - 20) Go see.

Jesus’ church was built on the Rock Jesus had named pur Peter the “Rock”. So take your argument to Jesus, please.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Yes ,no one challenges that Peter was first among EQUALS.To say he was above in his office is wrong,in my opinion.You did not answer why the other apostles thought they could be above him.Yes , his testimony did silence the debate at the first council.It should have .God personally did reveal to go to the gentiles.He was a primary witness to gentiles being saved and baptized in the Holy Ghost.He also was two faced ,in spite of God’s revelations to him. When other Jews came around, he "left "the gentiles ,so as not to be seen with them. He was a primary problem, so when he finally repents and speaks out at the council. It was big, He was back on track with the God’s program. Paul also added big testimony that sealed the deal and a pronouncement soon followed by James at the council.This for me does not help believe in the office of pope.Jesus said it would be different,from earhtly need for a Leader.Hey ,I do not think Jews had a religious leader,why would the church ? When Jews did seek a king ,it was a bad thing ,for God was their king ,top dog ,just as today ,Christ holds the keys ,and His vicar is the Holy Spirit.

Isn’t the “first among equals” used to describe the head Orthodox Patriarch. I’ve always felt that this was somewhat semantical and that the Pope, being the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the “Bishop of Rome” was similar… They are both leaders, correct? There is nothing wrong with having leaders. Every denomination has a leader or leaders.