Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[zdon011]

In the argument given by some Non Catholic Christians, they state that Peter was called Petros by Jesus and his church was built on Petra (not Peter).

Christ and the Apostles talked in Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, Christ would have used the word ‘kepha’ to refer to both St Peter and ‘the rock’. So that argument is moot.

Firstly, the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to all of the Apostles (see Matthew 18:18).

True, to a certain extent; in the 6th century St Gildas speaks of all Apostolic bishops ‘holding the keys’. The Apostles exercized authority over local churches in their particular ‘mission fields’, e.g. St James in Jerusalem, St John in Ephesus, St Peter at Rome and Antioch, and St Paul as a roving ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’.

We believe that the early Christian Church lost the keys when it went into Apostasy before the end of the first century, and the keys were restored to the LDS Church by the ministration of angels shortly after the Church was organized in 1830.

This notion, that the Church apostasized after the first century, implies that the Canon of Scripture and the doctrines of the Trinity, Fall, nature of Christ, and sacraments were defined without the guidance of the Holy Ghost. That would mean that whatever LDS has inherited from the Church, such as the KJV and traditional Christian moral teaching, are devoid of divine authority, and that she has no link to Christ as a historical figure.

This contradicts Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church he established on St Peter and the Apostles’ authority. For, during the 1700 year apostasy, where were the Mormons to preserve the Faith? What presumption! We are asked to believe that Rome is in error, Constantinople is in error, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are in error: but that Joe Smith of Kirtland, Ohio, holds the keys to Heaven?

 

[1beleevr]

To my Protestant Brothers;

Please read and understand.:

***The evangelist Matthew records another metaphor which Jesus used to explain to Simon Peter, and to the other apostles, what he wanted to do with him: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). Here too we immediately note that, according to biblical tradition, the Messiah possesses the keys of the kingdom. The Book of Revelation repeats the expressions of the prophet Isaiah and presents Christ as “the holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open” (Rev 3:7). The text of Isaiah (22:22) which concerns a certain Eliakim was seen as a prophetic expression of the messianic age when the “key” would not be for opening or closing the house of David (as a building or as a dynasty), but for opening the “kingdom of heaven,” this new, transcendent reality proclaimed and ushered in by Jesus.

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.

Jesus indeed said to Peter: “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” (Mt 16:19). This is another simile Jesus used to show his will to confer on Simon Peter a universal and complete power guaranteed and authenticated by heavenly approval. This does not mean only the power to formulate points of doctrine or general norms of action. According to Jesus, it is the power of “binding and loosing,” that is, of doing whatever is necessary for the life and development of the Church. The opposing terms “binding-loosing” serve to show the totality of the power.

It should be immediately added, however, that the aim of this power is to open the entrance to the kingdom, not to close it: “open,” that is, to make it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven and not to place obstacles that would be equivalent to “closing” it. This is the proper purpose of the Petrine ministry, rooted in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ who came to save and to be the gate and shepherd of all in the communion of the one fold (cf. Jn 10:7, 11, 16). Through his sacrifice Christ became “the gate for the sheep,” the symbol of which was that built by Eliashib, the high priest, who with his priestly brothers worked to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century before Christ (cf. Neh 3:1). The Messiah is the true gate of the New Jerusalem built through his blood shed upon the cross. He entrusted the keys of this gate to Peter so that he might be the minister of his saving power in the Church.

This Authority and Power did not cease to be with the deaths of Peter and the Apostles, but was, and is, passed on to their successors by the Holy Spirit by means of the laying on of hands.***

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

So, any man, called and ordained by God, can hold the keys?

 

[1beleevr]

And I guess Jesus telling Peter alone to “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep” three times means nothing?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Truth be told, we should ALL(all of us who are in Christ) feed His sheep!

 

[1beleevr]

:banghead: Twisting words to score cheap argument points will always prove that your position in untenable. Such abuse of the Bible is what lead me away from Protestantism to atheism.

I don’t read scripture in a vacuum as you do. His primacy is evident in all four gospels, Acts, and beyond. Spiral logic, not circular.

Paul, within the 23 years of his missionary journeys went to Jerusalem THREE times. “Always” presumes too much. It seems that Peter was hardly ever in Jerusalem and that he spent at least a great majority of time in Antioch.

That Peter reported to the elders of Jerusalem begs the question, I find no scripture that Peter reported what he did to Jerusalem. You got Biblical verses to back this up?

You’re absolutely right, its not a prooftext. Next.

There is NOTHING that the Church teaches that is contradicted by the Bible. There is plenty that Protestantism teaches that is.

But you have still not provided the scripture that says that “everything that needs to be believed can only be found in the BIble.”

My experience with Protestantism shows that much is to be ignored in the Bible to justify Protestantism because its essential first premise is to protest, i.e. “I don’t believe”.

The logic is Spiral. The Bible is true because the Church says it is, the Church is true because God instituted a Church(1 Tim 3:15). But that is for another thread.

And yet, the catholics put forth the idea that John 20:20-23, justifies going to a mortal man for confession; and 1Corinthians 3:13-15 justifies purgatory!

 

[NicholasD]

You questioned my agreement to a post. That was my answer.

The context of the keys is Peter’s confession of who Jesus is. Who Jesus is is the center of the Gospel of Jesus.

Eastern Orthodox hold that position as well.

 

[elvisman]

Truth be told, we should ALL(all of us who are in Christ) feed His sheep!

But that’s not what Jesus said.
WE are the lambs - WE are the sheep that must be fed. Peter was being asked to feed US with the word of God. Remember - there was NO Bible at the time Jesus said this. Peter and the others hadn’t even started writing it yet.

 

[elvisman]

So, any man, called and ordained by God, can hold the keys?

One thing you need to remember is that Jesus didn’t always speak to you and me in the New Testament. Sometimes, he spoke only to the person(s) that are mentioned.

A rule of thumb is that when he spoke to the crowds, he was speaking to us. When he spoke to the Apostles and gave them instructions and authority, he was speaking to the Church leaders. Sometimes, he spoke only to Peter or another person.

The Apostles handed down those instructions and authority to their successors, who then handed it down to THEIR successors and so on. A priest answers to his bishop and the bishop answers to the pope. That is the way the Apostles set it up from the beginning.

 

[Nicea325]

And yet, the catholics put forth the idea that John 20:20-23, justifies going to a mortal man for confession; and 1Corinthians 3:13-15 justifies purgatory!

And what certitude do you have your sins are forgiven,minus a mortal man hearing your sins?

If at some point the doctrine of Purgatory was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first—so where are the records of protests? Non-Catholics believe it is false and one reason is due to the fact most Protestant Bibles lack the 2nd Book of Maccabees. (2 Macc. 12:43–45).

Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. It was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.

 

[elvisman]

You questioned my agreement to a post. That was my answer.

The context of the keys is Peter’s confession of who Jesus is. Who Jesus is is the center of the Gospel of Jesus.

Eastern Orthodox hold that position as well.

For once, I would like sombody to explain this to me.
Many Protestants say the it is Peter’s confession - not Peter himself.

Please break this down for me and show me how this is possible. After all - the onus is on the non-Catholic to prove this - not the Catholic. We take the text at face value.

 

[1beleevr]

But that’s not what Jesus said.
WE are the lambs - WE are the sheep that must be fed. Peter was being asked to feed US with the word of God. Remember - there was NO Bible at the time Jesus said this. Peter and the others hadn’t even started writing it yet.

But what of those lambs that are outside the fence, looking for food? Those of us who are well-fed, need to share ours with the lost and hurting! Do you share your faith with believers and non-believers?

 

[1beleevr]

And what certitude do you have your sins are forgiven,minus a mortal man hearing your sins?

If at some point the doctrine of Purgatory was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first—so where are the records of protests? Non-Catholics believe it is false and one reason is due to the fact most Protestant Bibles lack the 2nd Book of Maccabees. (2 Macc. 12:43–45).

Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. It was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.

Why, the same certitude you have that yours are forgiven plus a mortal man For starters, 1John 1:9. God will forgive me of my sins and cleanse me of all unrighteousness, if I confess my sins to Him! And 1Corinthians 3:13-15, is your(or the early church fathers) interpretation, used to explain purgatory! Why should we pray for the dead? Religion: Man’s attempt to get back to God, Christianity: A relationship with God through Jesus Christ!

 

[1beleevr]

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

I would agree with you about the insults, except Jesus told me to “turn the other cheek!” That allows me to stay in the game!

 

[Ignatias20]

FIRST: I AM A BIT SURPRISED THAT SOME WHO SAY THEY ARE CATHOLICS SEEM TO RIDICULE THE CONCEPT OF PURGATORY.
Peter warns of Private Interpretation in 2edPeter Ch, v 20. To say purgatory was pulled out of a hat needs an explanation.
For one person to look at one verse and then make a blanket statement I think is shallow
if not silly. Aren’t we taught that the Bible Scriptures do not contradict themselves. A person could say that the immaculate heart of Mary or her ascension into heaven is non–scriptural. But the Fathers of the Church who spent their entire lives in Scriptural studies
have found so many supporting verses that I say, “Who are we to contradict men who are much better prepared than we are to make a spiritual statement”.

A word about Purgatory: Is it written that nothing unclean shall enter heaven? Any theologian will tell you our body and soul has a propensity for earthly things. Don’t you think that God would provide a place for us to get cleaned up before we enter into the heavenly presence. It is both logical and Scriptural that we need to rid ourselves of the propensity for earthly things. Thanks.

Zdon011 seems to tell us this,“Christ and the Apostles talked in Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, Christ would have used the word ‘kepha’ to refer to both St Peter and ‘the rock’. So that argument is moot.”

That is something a Protestant would say. They say Jesus is the Rock. Jesus gave Simon Bar Jona the name Kephas which means Rock. Just before Jesus ascension into heaven. Jesus was addressing Peter. He said, “Peter you are the Rock and on this Rock I shall build my Church”. To whom was Jesus speaking? Did Jesus himself say that Peter was the Rock? Did Jesus say He was the Rock. Who was the Rock upon which Jesus said that He would build his church?

 

[elvisman]

But what of those lambs that are outside the fence, looking for food? Those of us who are well-fed, need to share ours with the lost and hurting! Do you share your faith with believers and non-believers?

**Yes, but that’s not what Jesus was telling Peter in John 21.
He was reminding him of the authority he gave him in Matt. 16:16-19 and Luke 22:31-32.

 

[elvisman]

Why, the same certitude you have that yours are forgiven plus a mortal man For starters, 1John 1:9. God will forgive me of my sins and cleanse me of all unrighteousness, if I confess my sins to Him! And 1Corinthians 3:13-15, is your(or the early church fathers) interpretation, used to explain purgatory! Why should we pray for the dead? Religion: Man’s attempt to get back to God, Christianity: A relationship with God through Jesus Christ!

**First of all - that’s not what 1 John 1:19 says. It says nothing about confessing directly to God and not to a priest who has been given the authority to bind and loose. **In 2 Cor. 5:18-20, Paul speaks of this ministry:

“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
In 2 Cor. 2:10, he states, “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ”

Secondly, do you actually believe that if you were to drop dead right now, you would be holy enough to enter heaven?

Remember that Rev. 21:27 tells us that NOTHING even remotely unclean can enter the purity of heaven - not even a snow-covered dunghill, like Luther proposed . . .

 

[1beleevr]

FIRST: I AM A BIT SURPRISED THAT SOME WHO SAY THEY ARE CATHOLICS SEEM TO RIDICULE THE CONCEPT OF PURGATORY.
Peter warns of Private Interpretation in 2edPeter Ch, v 20. To say purgatory was pulled out of a hat needs an explanation.
For one person to look at one verse and then make a blanket statement I think is shallow
if not silly. Aren’t we taught that the Bible Scriptures do not contradict themselves. A person could say that the immaculate heart of Mary or her ascension into heaven is non–scriptural. But the Fathers of the Church who spent their entire lives in Scriptural studies
have found so many supporting verses that I say, “Who are we to contradict men who are much better prepared than we are to make a spiritual statement”.

A word about Purgatory: Is it written that nothing unclean shall enter heaven? Any theologian will tell you our body and soul has a propensity for earthly things. Don’t you think that God would provide a place for us to get cleaned up before we enter into the heavenly presence. It is both logical and Scriptural that we need to rid ourselves of the propensity for earthly things. Thanks.

Zdon011 seems to tell us this,“Christ and the Apostles talked in Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, Christ would have used the word ‘kepha’ to refer to both St Peter and ‘the rock’. So that argument is moot.”

That is something a Protestant would say. They say Jesus is the Rock. Jesus gave Simon Bar Jona the name Kephas which means Rock. Just before Jesus ascension into heaven. Jesus was addressing Peter. He said, “Peter you are the Rock and on this Rock I shall build my Church”. To whom was Jesus speaking? Did Jesus himself say that Peter was the Rock? Did Jesus say He was the Rock. Who was the Rock upon which Jesus said that He would build his church?

Bottom line is:1Cor 3:13-15, is the catholic interpretation of purgatory; no one else’s! Does this make it right if the Bible does not speak of purging? And who the Rock is(not Dwayne Johnson) is still up for debate! And He changed Peter’s name early on, didn’t He, or did He do it twice? And it ws actually before the crucifixion!

 

[elvisman]

Bottom line is:1Cor 3:13-15, is the catholic interpretation of purgatory; no one else’s! Does this make it right if the Bible does not speak of purging? And who the Rock is(not Dwayne Johnson) is still up for debate! And He changed Peter’s name early on, didn’t He, or did He do it twice? And it ws actually before the crucifixion!

**Actually - Nicea325 already pointed out to you in Post 223 that prayers for the purification of the dead go all the way back to the OT and this is still practiced by Orthodox Jews today. **

For you to keep insisting that we onlly get this belief from 1 Cor 3:13-15 is totally bogus and is a blatant misrepresentation of our beliefs.

 

[Javl]

And yet, the catholics put forth the idea that John 20:20-23, justifies going to a mortal man for confession; and 1Corinthians 3:13-15 justifies purgatory!

Then according to you and the majority of Protestants Jesus’ words in John 20:21-23 mean absolutely nothing? I was under the impression that it was a part of Jesus’ commission to the Apostles. You should read the Didache.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The ECF’s are the histroical witness to the primacy of Peter and those who succeeded him(all before 300 a.d.)

from newadvent.org

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say **“Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. **
[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

St. Cyprian
In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to “the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter” (Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3).

Firmilian of Caesarea
**Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Epistle 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor. **

Tertullian
In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.

St. Clement
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his “Epistle to the Corinthians”, written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. “If any man”, he says, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger” (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them “render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit”. The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as “the first step towards papal domination” (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

Ignatius-letter to the Romans(c 107)
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.*

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

St. Cyprian wrote the most on the Primacy of the Pope due to the Novatian scism:

It is in this copy of the “De Unitate” that Cyprian appears most probably to have added in the margin an alternative version of the fourth chapter. The original passage, as found in most manuscripts and as printed in Hartel’s edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say 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; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.’ Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: ‘As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained’, yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. **The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. **This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?

The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep’. **And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart.

He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church? **