Peter as the Rock

[guanophore]

“17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the Authority given to Peter by God. And most definately has nothing to do with you as an individual.

Peace

I think it does to the extent that one identifies the Church by the visible sign of unity, which is the successor of Peter. The Church did nothing without unity with Peter, and we know the true church by those who are in unity with his successor. So, if one wants to find the “church” to which the dispute should be taken, then one will look for the successors of the Apostles, and those under his authority, given by God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks a lot…great references. God bless.

Nicea 325 offered great scripture references regarding Peter’s supremacy over the Church.

I would like to introduce a scripture that gets overlooked in regards to Jesus placing Peter alone to himself, this mysterious scripture is the only one I have found that has Jesus attaching Himself to one apostle Peter in the “We” context. Jesus never spoke of another apostle as He did in the following scripture.

I would welcome any comments to this scripture revealing Jesus placing Peter and Himself in the “We” context. I found this scripture to be very interesting, when most of scripture always has Jesus speaking as the “Son of Man” or the “Son of God” and never attaching himself to one apostle as Jesus does with Peter here.

Matthew 17:24 When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax approached Peter and said, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” 25“Yes,” he said. When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?” 26 When he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the subjects are exempt. 27But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them **for me and for you.” **

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Perhaps, or perhaps your interpretation is too narrow to “justify” your position?

1. That’s a dodge if I ever saw one.
2. If Jesus didn’t convey primacy on Peter then how do you explain Peter’s actions, most notably at Pentecost and at the Council of Jerusalem? How do you explain Acts 15:7?

tskrobacz:

In any event we each are responsible for taking up our cross, individually, and following Jesus. Our actions in the world either bring light or they bring darkness.

That’s not at question here. What is at question is the real authority given by Christ to first Peter and then the other eleven. Authority as described in the book of Acts.

It’s obvious your contention is that the early Church never had such heirarchical structure, that is was just a bunch of autonomous local church’s, a “fellowship of all believers”. Sadly this is just not the case. The citations not only from the Bible but also the ECF’s are just too numerous to mention.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think it does to the extent that one identifies the Church by the visible sign of unity, which is the successor of Peter. The Church did nothing without unity with Peter, and we know the true church by those who are in unity with his successor. So, if one wants to find the “church” to which the dispute should be taken, then one will look for the successors of the Apostles, and those under his authority, given by God.

True, its a great elaboration. I’m sorry I should have elaborated a bit. So lets for a moment.

guanophore, lets go back to Isaiah 22 for a minute or two. Since its in my mind. Here’s my understanding…

This is the Key of David. Which gives David Prime Ministry over his followers. The Key to the House of David in Isaiah.

Now in Matthew the Key, is the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus when Matthew opens up he starts out with the Genealogy of Jesus. So Matthew takes us through the genealogy till he comes to King David. Up to just this point much could be said, however this isn’t the context of this thread. Now, whats been established here is Christ is the one in direct line with David.

OK, so we arrive at King David, who had the Keys, but as we see here this is the connection now to Jesus Christ. Does Jesus Christ need to keep these Keys? Of course not, He has them because He is in direct line of David and of human/Divine nature.

Jesus is not staying here, he don’t need the Keys, He needs to pass the Keys just as God the Father did.

However, David was human not Divine. He was Gods Prime Minister on earth which is why He held the Keys. He was chosen by God. Which of course now Jesus holds for a moment.

Jesus in 16:17-18 states to Peter the reason why Peter is chosen. I don’t “think” it is because he was the best Apostle qualified, however his faith as Jesus knows, could have only been revealed by God the Father as He states here at this point. This is the “why” to Peter obtaining the Keys. Which has absolutely nothing to do with earthly qualification here. We all have a date stamped on us, which we do not know. God certainly knew how the St. Peter story ended from his moment of Birth.

Ok, so now we reach the dialogue of “Rock” much has been gone over in here so there’s no need to rehash. However my point is 16:19…

Now Jesus holds right now at this moment the Keys, and this what He states…

I will entrust “YOU” [Peter] the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever “YOU” [Peter] declare bound on earth will be bound in Heaven. Whatever “YOU” [Peter] declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.

Ok…so Jesus specifically states [Three Times] “You” in direct referrence to “Peter”. There can be no-mistake here.

THEN…

He [Christ] orders “His Disciples” [NOW he is speaking to “ALL” the Disciples!] not to tell anyone He is the Messiah. Here as we see He was speaking to all the Apostles, before He was not. It was the “you” Peter [three-times].

Thus the Keys of David which is the Prime Ministry is picked up by Jesus, then given to Peter directly. Jesus has no need to hold this aspect of humanity/flesh. He desires a Prime Minister. And that my brother from my understanding is St Peter.

What is your understanding here? I could go on with “three” and Peter, however I just really wanted to bring to light this point for the moment.

Peace

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Indeed you have the free will to refuse to forgive. However in retaining a sin…refusing to forgive…you are binding up the other person. If the other person has come to make amends and you refuse then you are not using your authority responsibly. If the refusal to forgive is born in a discernment of God’s will for the situation, then so be it.

Matt 6:[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This is Jesus speaking to the “crouds”. Nowhere does Jesus give them such authority to “bind” as you are suggesting. We MUST forgive them, or we will NOT be forgiven by the Father. We do not have the authority, as laity, to “bind” anyone in unforgiveness.

The Church, the Bishops and the priests whom they ordain, are the ones who have the proper authority to “bind” or “loose”(Matt 16:15-19; 18:18; 1 Tim 3:15; Acts 15:28).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matt 6:[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This is Jesus speaking to the “crouds”. Nowhere does Jesus give them such authority to “bind” as you are suggesting. We MUST forgive them, or we will NOT be forgiven by the Father. We do not have the authority, as laity, to “bind” anyone in unforgiveness.

The Church, the Bishops and the priests whom they ordain, are the ones who have the proper authority to “bind” or “loose”(Matt 16:15-19; 18:18; 1 Tim 3:15; Acts 15:28).

Right its my understanding in this sense from Bible the Apostles all have this authority and is still handed down today in Apostolic Succession in the Catholic/Orthodox church’s. And they all have equal authority, in this sense. Then… the Priests are their elect who of course are ordained.

 

[ImportantKitty]

Yes, vent your spleen and turn tail and run. How admirable.
That screams : afraid of rebuttal

That’s all you can say cuz YOU dont have a rebuttal. Hi:thumbsup:

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

I’ve been trying to get off this website for a long time and they keep sending me emails. I will keep trying.

Thank you, Ron, for understanding and affirming the point I was trying to make. I am sorry it opened the floodgates against you.

 

[ron77nyc]

Thank you, Ron, for understanding and affirming the point I was trying to make. I am sorry it opened the floodgates against you.

I appreciate it. I have unsubscribed to the thread and I’ve requested my account to be cancelled but I keep getting emails. I think the moderators like having me around.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

When there was an issue over when to celebrate Easter, Polycarp went to the Bishop of Rome. Why?

When Clement of Alexandria was being persecuted by Arian bishops in the east he appealed to the Bishop of Rome, why?

Ignatius and Irenaeus both insisted that the Church in Rome has primacy. Why?

St Cyprian of Carthage rhetorically asked that if you do not hold to the Bishop of Rome, do you think that you are in the Church?

St Jerome said that he holds to the Chair of Peter(the Bishop of Rome) and that if you are not on that Ark(IOW if you do not hold to that Bishop) “you will perish when the flood prevails.”

These are all Bishops, from the East and the West, who testify to the Bishop of Rome’s primacy in the Church.

So either they were just misguided papists, or their actions prove a rule that was Universally known.

 

[guanophore]

Nicea 325 offered great scripture references regarding Peter’s supremacy over the Church.

I would like to introduce a scripture that gets overlooked in regards to Jesus placing Peter alone to himself, this mysterious scripture is the only one I have found that has Jesus attaching Himself to one apostle Peter in the “We” context. Jesus never spoke of another apostle as He did in the following scripture.

I would welcome any comments to this scripture revealing Jesus placing Peter and Himself in the “We” context. I found this scripture to be very interesting, when most of scripture always has Jesus speaking as the “Son of Man” or the “Son of God” and never attaching himself to one apostle as Jesus does with Peter here.

*Matthew 17:24 When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax approached Peter and said, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” 25“Yes,” he said. When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?” 26 When he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the subjects are exempt. **27But that we *may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.”

This is a very good one.

Another that is often overlooked is when Jesus tells the Apostles that Satan wants to “sift” them.

He says to Peter “but I have prayed for YOU, that your faith fail not”. This is stated in the singular, to Peter only. That is why, if one wants their faith to prevail, they better get in on the prayer for Peter.

 

[guanophore]

I appreciate it. I have unsubscribed to the thread and I’ve requested my account to be cancelled but I keep getting emails. I think the moderators like having me around.

Now you are just making excuses. You can go to your own profile, and change your own affiliation. You are choosing to put yourself out as “Catholic” when you reject the teachings of the faith.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s all you can say cuz YOU dont have a rebuttal. Hi:thumbsup:

My dear, if this is what you have taken out of this thread, then you missed all the points, and the Truth. The error in your thinking was only confirmed by more error. Which is very, very sad.

However, we are talking about Peter the Rock, would you like to share with us? Or is this your contribution?

Peace

 

[KathleenGee]

I really am beginning to see now these concepts certain modern non denominational protestants have been indoctrinated with – is actually a form of prejudice.

You can say all you want…as long as they have these filters, it is impossible…I try to pray for them…you don’t see hardly any such a thought in Europe because of their roots…they atleast historically know better…

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Now closed it is.