Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[zdon011]

Are you assuming that every statement in every “tract” left in a Catholic Church is the authentic teaching of the Church? Look to authentic sources to find the authentic teachings.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Documents of Vatican II, the Decrees of the Council of Trent – and others – there you will find the authentic teaching of the Church. Unless the “Tract” quotes a source of authentic Catholic teaching, it’s questionable.

Bear in mind always when reading the New Testament that the Catholic Church wrote it.
Any interpretation that is not in agreement with what the Church teaches is in error.

Peace, Jim Dandy

Jim Dandy, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: everything I’ve posted on this topic, including the material from that tract, is in support of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. Yes, of course, if it’s not infallibly defined one can never be absolutely certain it’s true. I hope you actually read the posts you are responding to, without any preconception that I would be trying to refute Catholic doctrine.

Pax, zdon

 

[Ignatias20]

Ignatius, I’m supporting the Catholic interpretation, just in case you’re unclear about where I’m coming from That ‘Aramaic kepha’ argument straight from a Catholic tract at a local Catholic church, so I don’t know why you call it ‘something a Protestant would say’. It supports the Catholic interpretation, because it destroys the Protestant argument that Christ used separate words to refer to ‘Petros’ and the ‘petra’.

Blessings,
zdon

…
First you say you are quoting a Catholic “TRACT”. I have more confidence in the teaching of Notre Dame’s Holy Cross Fathers and The Bishop of Brownsville, Texas than a “tract”. I do not know what a tract is… we use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Holy Scriptures and CCD rextbooks prepared by the Marynist Fathers for our CCD and RCIA.
I think a “tract” is a Protestant word.

Your words were not exacctly clear to me. When Jesus first named Simon Bar Jona “kepha”, He , Jesus was using the old Jewish custom of giving a man a new name when that man was appointed to an important position. Andrew was there when Jesus did this. “Kepha or kephas” means a Rock" NOT a tiny peble! Imagine what Simon was thinking. He was wondering what will my job be!

Now the word cepha or kephas or kepha was Aramaic. It was translated into Greek
…Then St Jerome before 400 A.D. translated the Greek into Latin. The best Latin word for stone was coined by Jerome - you see the Greeek word was Petros. Petros = Rock.
So Jerome used Peter for Petros. We say St. PETER now.

In all my Catholic studies, at St. Thomas University and one stint at Notre Dame, and in all my experience I have Never read nor heard a Catholic Priest or Bishop discuss this
“Petra vs Petros idea” I do not think it is derived from Catholic thinking.

** Private Interpretation : Protestants do not enjoy Apostolic Succesion. They just popped up out of nowhere. Who is to interpret Scripture? Jesus told Peter just before His ascension, “Peter you are the Rock and n this Rock I shall build my chirch …and what you loose on earth, ot shall be loosed in heaven …I will give you the key to to the kingdom of heavem”. Today all the Bishops and Priests have had hands laid upon them Bishop by Bishop all the way back to Peter - giving these Bishops of today the same gifts that Jesus gave to Peter.
Peter warns us in 2ed Peter: ch1, v 20…“Understand this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is made by Private Interpretation.” What? It means that the Magesterium, all the Bishops + the Pope together, will interpret Scripture. When Archbishop Ratzinger wrote the modern Catechism it had to be approved by the Magesterium!!
Therefore, if a group of well-meaning non-Catholics interpret Scripture - - It has no meaning for me or our Catholic church. So, the “petra-petros discussion” is meaningless.**
It is a Protestant thing. Peter WAS THE ROCK upon which Jesus built His church!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

…
First you say you are quoting a Catholic “TRACT”. I have more confidence in the teaching of Notre Dame’s Holy Cross Fathers and The Bishop of Brownsville, Texas than a “tract”. I do not know what a tract is… we use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Holy Scriptures and CCD rextbooks prepared by the Marynist Fathers for our CCD and RCIA.
I think a “tract” is a Protestant word.

First, “tract” is an English word. I don’t think it has any religious affiliation. Second, You give all these supposedly impressive credentials in order to refute the IDEA of “tract” the idea of which zdon011 states “supports the Catholic interpretation, because it destroys the Protestant argument that Christ used separate words to refer to ‘Petros’ and the ‘petra’.” So, your intent appears to be the claim of more credability of your impressive credentials over the IDEA of “tract” even though your impressive credentials basicly agree with what zdon011’s “tract” is saying. This to me appears arrogant and rather supurfluous.

Your words were not exacctly clear to me. When Jesus first named Simon Bar Jona “kepha”, He , Jesus was using the old Jewish custom of giving a man a new name when that man was appointed to an important position. Andrew was there when Jesus did this. “Kepha or kephas” means a Rock" NOT a tiny peble! Imagine what Simon was thinking. He was wondering what will my job be!

Matt.16
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And 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.

In Matt.16:17,18 Simon’s name is changed from Simon to Peter. The translation that I have and every other translation that I am aware of translates the bible from Greek, NOT ARAMAIC. There is no indication that the gospel of Matt. was ever written for distribution in anything other than Greek. Peter which is translated Petros from the Greek is the word that is used throughout the bible to indicate Peter. The word means Peter. However when Jesus talks about the one upon which He will built His church, He uses the word petra which is NEVER used to refer to Peter. Now the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic is actually irrelavent. Because the translation we have is from Greek and that translation uses two words for rock. The one to indicate Peter, Petros, is ONLY used to indicate Peter, and not just any Peter, Peter the apostle. The other, petra, when not used to indicate a large rock is used to indicate God (Jesus). This is further brought out in
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).
If rock was translated from Aramaic, what purpose would this verse serve?

Now the word cepha or kephas or kepha was Aramaic. It was translated into Greek

There is no indication of this.

Then St Jerome before 400 A.D. translated the Greek into Latin. The best Latin word for stone was coined by Jerome

What would that word be?

you see the Greeek word was Petros. Petros = Rock.

Petros was A Greek word for rock, not THE Greek word.

So Jerome used Peter for Petros. We say St. PETER now.

Actually he uses the word Petros for Peter.

In all my Catholic studies, at St. Thomas University and one stint at Notre Dame, and in all my experience I have Never read nor heard a Catholic Priest or Bishop discuss this
“Petra vs Petros idea”

I do not think it is derived from Catholic thinking.

Of coarse they don’t. Because it destroys the idea of “Apostolis Succession” and papal infalability

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

First, “tract” is an English word. I don’t think it has any religious affiliation. Second, You give all these supposedly impressive credentials in order to refute the IDEA of “tract” the idea of which zdon011 states “supports the Catholic interpretation, because it destroys the Protestant argument that Christ used separate words to refer to ‘Petros’ and the ‘petra’.” So, your intent appears to be the claim of more credability of your impressive credentials over the IDEA of “tract” even though your impressive credentials basicly agree with what zdon011’s “tract” is saying. This to me appears arrogant and rather supurfluous.

Matt.16
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And 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.

In Matt.16:17,18 Simon’s name is changed from Simon to Peter. The translation that I have and every other translation that I am aware of translates the bible from Greek, NOT ARAMAIC. There is no indication that the gospel of Matt. was ever written for distribution in anything other than Greek. Peter which is translated Petros from the Greek is the word that is used throughout the bible to indicate Peter. The word means Peter. However when Jesus talks about the one upon which He will built His church, He uses the word petra which is NEVER used to refer to Peter. Now the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic is actually irrelavent. Because the translation we have is from Greek and that translation uses two words for rock. The one to indicate Peter, Petros, is ONLY used to indicate Peter, and not just any Peter, Peter the apostle. The other, petra, when not used to indicate a large rock is used to indicate God (Jesus). This is further brought out in
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).
If rock was translated from Aramaic, what purpose would this verse serve?

There is no indication of this.

What would that word be?

Petros was A Greek word for rock, not THE Greek word.

Actually he uses the word Petros for Peter.

Of coarse they don’t. Because it destroys the idea of “Apostolis Succession” and papal infalability

If what you say is true, Kastner, then the GREEK speaking ECF’s should support your assertion. Bottom line is that they don’t; they understood exactly what was intended in the passage and use it over and over to support, not reject, Peter’s primacy. Hence your assertion is moot.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Private Interpretation : Protestants do not enjoy Apostolic Succesion.

According to the Catholic definition, neither do Catholics.

They just popped up out of nowhere.

What in the world does this mean?

Who is to interpret Scripture?

Jesus told Peter just before His ascension, “Peter you are the Rock and n this Rock I shall build my chirch …and what you loose on earth, ot shall be loosed in heaven …I will give you the key to to the kingdom of heavem”. Today all the Bishops and Priests have had hands laid upon them Bishop by Bishop all the way back to Peter - giving these Bishops of today the same gifts that Jesus gave to Peter.

Ok, a couple ofthings here. Jesus told Peter upon this PETRA I will buid my church. This word when not used to talk about a large literal rock is used to refer to GOD. It is NEVER used to refer to Peter. The keys to the kingdom of heaven are the WORDS that Jesus spoke. THEY inform us as to what the kingdom of heaven is and how we can attain it. You say “Today all the Bishops and Priests have had hands laid upon them Bishop by Bishop all the way back to Peter - giving these Bishops of today the same gifts that Jesus gave to Peter”. Perhaps I’m wrong but I thought theCC taught that these Gifts were given to Peter exclusively and supposedly the pope who supposedly is the successor of Peter is the only one who enjoyed the “gifts that Jesus gave to Peter” You however seem to think that “all the Bishops and Priests” enjoy these gifts. So, let me ask you. Do you believe that all priests, bishops, cardinals are infallible? And didn’t Jesus say “whatsoever” you will bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven? So, doesn’t that make everything they say infallable?

Peter warns us in 2ed Peter: ch1, v 20…“Understand this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is made by Private Interpretation.” What? It means that the Magesterium, all the Bishops + the Pope together, will interpret Scripture.

This is what you and your church says. But it is not what it means.

When Archbishop Ratzinger wrote the modern Catechism it had to be approved by the Magesterium!!

Why? Doesn’t the CC teach that the power to bind and loose was given exclusively to Peter and doesn’t it further teach that the pope is the direct decendant of Peter through "Apostolic succession? So, why is he subject to committee approval?

Therefore, if a group of well-meaning non-Catholics interpret Scripture - - It has no meaning for me or our Catholic church.** So, the “petra-petros discussion” is meaningless.**
It is a Protestant thing. Peter WAS THE ROCK upon which Jesus built His church!

It is meaningless to you only when you ignore what the bible clearly says and wrest scripture to make it say what you want.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

If what you say is true, Kastner, then the GREEK speaking ECF’s should support your assertion.

Why would the validity of any argument have to rely on whether or not the ECF (and I’m assuming that by ECF you mean (early CATHOLIC church fathers) agree with it or not. Clearly they would be biased.

Bottom line is that they don’t; they understood exactly what was intended in the passage and use it over and over to support, not reject, Peter’s primacy. Hence your assertion is moot.

Who cares if they don’t? The proof is in the word of God. Not in what ANY man says.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Why would the validity of any argument have to rely on whether or not the ECF (and I’m assuming that by ECF you mean (early CATHOLIC church fathers) agree with it or not. Clearly they would be biased.

Who cares if they don’t? The proof is in the word of God. Not in what ANY man says.

The “Word of God” is Jesus Christ-the Bible as “the Word of God” is only a secondary meaning.

As far as “proof” you should read 1 John 4:
2.[6] We are of God.** Whoever knows God listens to us**, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

John says that we know the difference between truth and error by listening to those who God has entrusted as Bishops.

The Bible says that the Church, not the Bible, is the “pillar and bulwark”(or the upholder and defender) of the Truth.

So, yes, their words carry much weight, especially when the Bible says so.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Peter warns us in 2ed Peter: ch1, v 20…“Understand this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is made by Private Interpretation.” What? It means that the Magesterium, all the Bishops + the Pope together, will interpret Scripture.

This is what you and your church says. But it is not what it means.

And your church says something totally different and the church down street also says something different than your church and so goes the Protestant merry-go-around.
Precisely why it is nearly impossible to discern which Protestant church truly teaches the full deposit of faith.

Quote:
When Archbishop Ratzinger wrote the modern Catechism it had to be approved by the Magesterium!!

Why? Doesn’t the CC teach that the power to bind and loose was given exclusively to Peter and doesn’t it further teach that the pope is the direct decendant of Peter through "Apostolic succession? So, why is he subject to committee approval?

The pope is a bishop,not a king that is why.

Quote:
Therefore, if a group of well-meaning non-Catholics interpret Scripture - - It has no meaning for me or our Catholic church. So, the “petra-petros discussion” is meaningless.
It is a Protestant thing. Peter WAS THE ROCK upon which Jesus built His church!

It is meaningless to you only when you ignore what the bible clearly says and wrest scripture to make it say what you want.

And the Bible clearly does not say a lot what so many Protestants teach and practice,another man-made error due to the Bible-Alone doctrine.

 

[Nicea325]

Why would the validity of any argument have to rely on whether or not the ECF (and I’m assuming that by ECF you mean (early CATHOLIC church fathers) agree with it or not. Clearly they would be biased.

Who cares if they don’t? The proof is in the word of God. Not in what ANY man says.

If the proof is the Word of God,then I am curious as to where Jesus’ gave mere mortals the authority to go found their own churches teaching conflicting things? That is what MAN says,not Jesus. I am still waiting for that importance piece of information,so I too can be a Protestant and start my own church.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The “Word of God” is Jesus Christ-the Bible as “the Word of God” is only a secondary meaning.

Well, I’m not sure what your point is here. In my post I say “word of God” What you say I say is “Word of God”. You can see this for yourself in the part of the post which you yourself posted. Here it is again.

Who cares if they don’t? The proof is in the word of God. Not in what ANY man says.

So, clearly I was refering to the word of God or scripture. Not the Word made flesh or Jesus Jn.1:14. So, I can only assume that this is a diversion on your part from what my original intention was.

As far as “proof” you should read 1 John 4:
2.[6] We are of God.** Whoever knows God listens to us**, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

John says that we know the difference between truth and error by listening to those who God has entrusted as Bishops.

Ya, that’s not at all what he is saying. Here it is in context.

1Jn.4
2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

John here is talking about the difference between those that are of God and the antichrist
He says v.2 “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:” and in verse 6 he says "We are of God: (meaning all that confess that Christ is come in the flesh) he that knoweth God heareth us;(again the “us” refers to “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”) he that is not of God heareth not us. Again the “us” refers to “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” This is not some reference to bishops, or priests, or some church magestarium, but to **all **people that confess faith in Jesus Christ.

The Bible says that the Church, not the Bible, is the “pillar and bulwark”(or the upholder and defender) of the Truth.

So, yes, their words carry much weight, especially when the Bible says so.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This doesn’t say anything about the CC. And if you would, explain to me how “pillar and ground of the truth” is not refering to God and is refering to the church

 

[Richard_Kastner]

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Why would the validity of any argument have to rely on whether or not the ECF (and I’m assuming that by ECF you mean (early CATHOLIC church fathers) agree with it or not. Clearly they would be biased.

Who cares if they don’t? The proof is in the word of God. Not in what ANY man says.

If the proof is the Word of God,then I am curious as to where Jesus’ gave mere mortals the authority to go found their own churches teaching conflicting things? That is what MAN says,not Jesus. I am still waiting for that importance piece of information,so I too can be a Protestant and start my own church.

I don’t know where you get the idea that I am advocating either in this post or in any of my posts the founding of many churches. I see this as just another diversion from the substance of what I have posted. There is only one true church and that is **any **church that is according to Rev.12: 17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. a remnant or small church which “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t know where you get the idea that I am advocating either in this post or in any of my posts the founding of many churches. I see this as just another diversion from the substance of what I have posted. There is only one true church and that is **any **church that is according to Rev.12: 17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. a remnant or small church which “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

And I do not know where you assume I made a claim you are advocating founding new churches? .But the facts are Richard you follow a church with no historical connections to Jesus or the Apostles,whether you care to admit or not. Now if you and other Protestants claim to keep the Commandments of God so closely,then why is my question such a delicate issue for you and so many Protestants? Because you know what I am telling you is the truth?

Now since you stated the only proof is the Word of God,then where did Jesus give any human the authority to found thousands of different churches,other than the ONE he already founded 2,000 years ago?

I thought the Bible is the only and final authority,so back it up.

 

[Dokimas]

Stick to the topic at hand . . .

Anytime you’re condescending it’s the topic.

 

[Dokimas]

1beleevr took the conversation there. If you have a problem with it - talk to him . . .

So if he jumped off a bridge you’d follow?

Don’t tell me to get on topic and be off topic yourself. That’s plain WRONG.

 

[Dokimas]

You are absolutely right - his truth is not subject to your imagination.

As a matter of fact - only TWO entities in all of Scripture are referred to as the TRUTH:
1. God (John 14:6).
2. The Catholic Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

And it’s not subject to your imagination either, nor your understanding.

I’m trying to find the Catholic Church in 1 Timothy 3:15.

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I can’t find Catholic anywhere. BTW, its the pillar and ground of, but NOT THE TRUTH.

 

[Dokimas]

Non sequitur.

God built the nation of Israel on a sinner(s), Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses. If the Church is the New Israel(Gal 6:16), why is it so hard to imagine? Our sinfulness does not negate God’s truth, nor does it negate God’s grace upon those through whom He uses as intruments to transmit His grace to others.

Could you find verses that says the nation of Israel was built ON Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and/or Moses.

Gal 6:
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

I’m not sure how you get the church is the new Israel. Paul (Romans 9, 11) make it clear and so does John (the Book of Revelation) that Israel is not the church.

 

[NicholasD]

Actually, if you read my post, I did not mention praying for the dead, in conjunction with 1 Cor 3:13-15, I was saying that this is the verse you guys use to justify purgatory! Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour’s words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once."

 

[elvisman]

So if he jumped off a bridge you’d follow?

Don’t tell me to get on topic and be off topic yourself. That’s plain WRONG.

Stick to the topic, Doki. You do this every time you have nothing to say . . .

 

[Dokimas]

Stick to the topic, Doki. You do this every time you have nothing to say . . .

Bla, bla, bla, bla bla.

 

[NicholasD]

Ignatias, I’m supporting the Catholic interpretation, just in case you’re unclear about where I’m coming from That ‘Aramaic kepha’ argument straight from a Catholic tract at a local Catholic church, so I don’t know why you call it ‘something a Protestant would say’. It supports the Catholic interpretation, because it destroys the Protestant argument that Christ used separate words to refer to ‘Petros’ and the ‘petra’.

Blessings,
zdon

But its believed by some scholars that most Jewish teachers taught in Hebrew. Catholic apologist Joseph Fitzmyer refuted the kepha kepha he once defended based on the fact that it does not account for the greek play on words. Like Petros -petra, there is an obvious difference, but kepha - kepha there isn’t. Like the words Bare - Bear … its even possible based on some ancient greek writings that Jew used Greek names and there has been examples of jews using greek names for thier pets too. Kind of like in america we can name our child Hannah, which is jewish or call our pet chiuaua “paco” .Not necessarily american names but adopted from other nationalities present in america.