Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[Anna_Elizabeth]

]

There are at least 30 OT references to Rock (capitalized). They never mean a profession of faith. They never mean an esoteric abstraction. In the Psalms they clearly mean God, on whom “I depend.” Peter is the Rock on whom Our Lord depends to be the foundation of His Church and to strengthen it

I like the reference to “common sense.” Look what happens when counsels, like those individuals to whom the Holy Spirit speaks, all disagree; moreover, look what happens when the Rock speaks and even the latter-day Apostles decide to find their own channel to the Spirit!

Vanity!

Pray always,

Anna

 

[Tim_Hayes]

MYRHH

We in the catholic Church follow the traditions of Christ through the teachings of men, we rely upon God ensuring that MANKIND, that is humans teaching the correct teaching.

We need God to ensure that mankind teaches correctly. We have only the sayings/traditon of Mankind to affirm anything that is taught.

There is no concrete evidence other than by what other humans say that Christianity has any validity at all. The only difference is that for us to affirm Christianity as TRUTH we have to affirm that God ensured his teachings are handed down and they are handed down correctly.

If we can not be sure that God has done this, then there can not be any surety at all about Christianity, any more so than any other belief system out there.

Myrhh, you say that Cathlolics hold to traditons of men that are at odds with the traditions of God. You can only base this upon your own personal interpretation of scripture, your positions on scripture are certainly no more valid than any one elses interpretation of scripture, who comes to a different conclusion than you.

I give you eg. Relatives of mine became Jehovas Witnesses, now they previously were Catholics of minimal practice/belief. The Jehovas Witness gave them what appeared to be concrete proof that Catholicism and Protestanism for that matter, was wrong. They were given the answers to God without any mystery, so there doubt was taken away. Now, they, like all humans like this, so they did not investigate the counter Christian claims seriously.

So of course now they are committed Jehovas witnesses, and won’t here anythng else.

You personally must affirm that the Jehovas Witness are as Christian as you and I becasue they base their beliefs on the same bible as you and me, it is just that their interpretation is different. You own personal intepretation tells you when Catholicism supposedly went corrupt in its teachings, yet the Jehovas witness certainly hold a different belief about that than you, so who is right, you or the Jehovas witness, and please tell me WHY, that is other than giving me scripture references and historical Christian Fathers etc, becasue any scripture you give can ultimately only be based on YOUR interpretation of the scripture itself or of the Fathers themselves, let alone whether those Fathers were Christians or not because it always come down to interpretation.

In Christ

Tim

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Hello Steve,

I said: Please, remember when you read the above [Ignatius to Rome]that St Ignatius of Antioch is known by all the Church and knows himself as successor to both Peter and Paul in Antioch.

Ignatius letters to all the Church’s, show that he doesn’t represent himself or his see as presiding. He reserves this distinction to only Rome.

Myhrr:

Christ makes the point that none of them should sit at the head of the table, they’re to be servants like him, …[snip for space]

How can you possibly claim that Jesus gave Peter authority over the others

The problem here is that James and John inserted themselves into the position. They weren’t invited to the position by Jesus. See the difference? Peter, on the other hand, didn’t ask to be given the keys, he didn’t ask to have his name changed to Rock, he didn’t presume to be given the lead role as chief apostle, he didn’t expect to sit next to Jesus at the table, etc etc etc. Jesus gave Peter everything he had without Peter asking, or expecting it from Jesus. See the difference?

After the resurrection Jesus again, with all His apostles assembled, Just like at Ceserea Phillipi Mt 16:18], asks Peter,

Do you love me more than these?

1. feed [bosko] my sheep
2. Rule [poimaino] my sheep
3. feed [bosko] my sheep

**Poimaino **means to tend AND it means to rule with a rod of iron. Jesus in front of all the apostles, is reminding Peter and the apostles, of His commission to Peter at Ceserea Phillipi Mt 16:18…]. Peter is the prime minister among all the other ministers, who He gave the keys of the kingdom to. Jesus, the chief architect, and corner stone, renamed Simon to Rock, and said He will build His Church upon Peter… Then told Peter to feed and rule His sheep.Jn 21:15…] The one who spoke in the beginning, and all things came into existence, said this. What more needs to be said?

Myhrr:

And the Church tradition from this first canon continued in the East and still exists.

What you mean to say is, the Church in the East came to understand it this way. Jesus thought otherwise.

Myhrr:

Antioch still calls itself the See of Peter, and the term they use is Peter’s Throne. It’s incumbent on you to prove Rome’s claim to sole Petrine succession .

antiochian.org/666

Due to space I’ll address this issue of primacy in another post

Myhrr:

I said: To the Church…*the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, *

Please try and*** see this in context without getting hung up on a word*** which fits your agenda.

I gave you all of the letters Ignatius wrote to the Church’s including to his own in Antioch, for context. Ignatius acknowledges only the Church of Rome as the one presiding.

Myhrr:

The Church was understood then as it is now as One Church in different places. Each bishop had Christ above him, no one else, and the bishop was ordained the servant, out of the laity to serve all (Christ’s Canon I). The bishop did not have authority over the other members of the Church of which he was only an equal member through baptism.

Not so. History shows Rome reinstated Eastern bishops who were unlawfully deposed by their own local bishops. Those deposed bishops didn’t go to the East for resolution, they went to Rome.

And did you miss the part of Clement’s letter for example, during apostolic times, lowering the boom on the Corinthian bishops and Church at Corinth?

 

[steve_b]

ricatholic:

If you look at the tenses of the binding and lossing, then Peter can only bind and loose that which was already done in heaven.

BTW,I think that is the NAB version.

But that makes sense since Jesus wouldn’t abdicate His power to humans by binding Him to their decisions.

Peace

Just some questions.

1. How would Peter know what has already been bound or loosed in heaven?
2. Why would Jesus do something redundant like give Peter the power to only bind what has already been bound, and loose what has already been loosed in heaven? That’s not power.

 

[Myhrr]

theodorro:

FATHERS KNOW BEST, I give you one Father, you can find more writing of Church Fathers who explain “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram edificabo Ecclesiam Meam” (You are Peter and uppon this rock…)

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church **4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (*Letters *48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Theodorro,

Do you know anything about Cyprian of Carthage? The Orthodox find it terribly offensive that the RCC take quotes of his out of context to “prove” that he espoused papal supremacy. The Anglicans aren’t any too pleased about it either.

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another (Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian).”

Don’t you think it would be far less confusing for all if we could have common understanding based on truth of the early fathers of the Church? Instead of throwing quotes at each other as if they were stones.

Duck!

continued

 

[Myhrr]

Continued to Theodorro

We neither do violence to, nor impose a law upon, any one, since each prelate has in the administration of the Church the exercise of his will free, as he shall give an account of his conduct to the Lord (Epistle 71.3).

And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole (The Unity of the Church, 5).
Some background information on Cyprian Of Carthage

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-23.htm

You should also be aware of the many forgeries used by various bishops in Rome to establish this idea of supremacy over other bishops, over the Church. These include interpolating into genuine texts so not always easy to spot if you believe the RCC is telling the truth about this.

This page is about one the famous ones:

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/doco.htm

The sad thing here is that the RCC magesterium and historians have acknowledged that these forgeries exist and know how these were used to falsify supremacy of Rome, but still refuse to face the problem. It’s rather a high position to fall from isn’t it?

If at times this false background was forgotten it has certainly been remembered since Abbe Guettee’s history on the rise of papal supremacy claims, a history he wasn’t expecting to find. The Jesuits asked him to re-check his findings, he was correct, the papacy as the RCC has it didn’t exist in the first three centuries.

 

[Myhrr]

Charbrah:

Hello Myhrr, what do you think about Steve B’s OT reference from Isaiah 22?

Hi Charbrah,

I’ve never really followed those discussions on the meaning of the key in Isaiah, seemed far to complicated, but as someone noted, there is only one key mentioned in that passage, taken away from a corrupt steward and given to another who will be a king like a father.

It’s one of those associations thrown into a list of apologetic responses which fails to make any connection with the plural keys, two, which were given to Peter which clearly represent the power to free or condemn and as Christ came to save lives not to condemn those keys should be understood and used wisely.

What follows is the beginning of Christ teaching the disciples about the coming Passion, hot head Peter blurts out his heart, of course, wouldn’t we all? Who wants to think of someone they love walking into certain suffering? Satan in Greek is known as the Adversary, a subtle opponent, tempting to divert to an easier course for example. As Christ was tempted in the desert he knew this enemy, not that Peter was evil, but that even love can be a temptation to take the easy way out.

They didn’t fully comprehend Christ then, in the long dark night of the soul before Golgotha Christ was alone not because they’d deserted him, but because they couldn’t stay awake to keep him company. They didn’t understand the importance of what was actually happening and why, the enormity of Christ’s mission was completely beyond them then. Christ knew that not until his ascendancy to the Father could they hope to understand, because only from the Father could Christ send the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth, to make sense of it. We can look back on their story and understand it, but it must have been so difficult for them especially when this wonder worker Messiah led them into a such a nightmare.

A last thought about the Isaiah key, the man’s a steward of the treasury, the subject matter is completely different to the context of the keys given to Peter.

What are you thoughts on this?

 

[Thomas2]

Hey there guys n gals! Here in Philly he ain’t just the Rock - he’s ROCKY!

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[Myhrr]

ricatholic:

If you look at the tenses of the binding and lossing, then Peter can only bind and loose that which was already done in heaven.

BTW,I think that is the NAB version.

But that makes sense since Jesus wouldn’t abdicate His power to humans by binding Him to their decisions.

Peace

I took a look at several versions c/o gospelcom.net

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Matt+16%3A19&NIV_version=yes&NASB_version=yes&MSG_version=yes&AMP_version=yes&NLT_version=yes&KJV_version=yes&NLV_version=yes&ESV_version=yes&CEV_version=yes&NKJV_version=yes&KJ21_version=yes&ASV_version=yes&WE_version=yes&YLT_version=yes&DARBY_version=yes&WYC_version=yes&NIRV_version=yes&NIV-UK_version=yes&language=english&x=14&y=4

Some footnotes show your point, this is the NIV’s

**Matthew 16
**19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be1] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be2] loosed in heaven."

Footnotes

1. 
   *]16:19 Or have been
   *]16:19 Or have been
   
   and this might be the one you were thinking of:
   
   Matthew 16:19 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
   
   **Matthew 16
   **19 “I will give you (1) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (2) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
   
   Reading through them all I thought of the phrase “it’s done already” as a reply to a request, “consider it done”, I wonder how a Greek speaker would understand it?
   
   When we say “consider it done” there’s a certain amount of optimism attached, we could still fail to carry it out, but Christ here is talking about a power of truth, so if something is bound on earth then it doesn’t mean that it’s in the process of being done, it’s done.
   
   If it’s not in the process of being done but done already then maybe it means that all the consequences of that act are already in place, in an instant a change of the future.
   
   That’s what I’m left with, one scary thought…

 

[Myhrr]

RBushlow:

Remember when this is happening. This is shortly before Jesus’ Assention into Heaven. So, he is designating Peter as his prime minister to guide his Church until he returns. Giving the keys is a euphamism for giving of Authority. The Lord even repeats it, saying “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven”. Clearly, when Jesus says you, he is speaking to the person of Peter. In other words “You are my vicar on earth, I give you have the power to bind and loose, declare valid or false, admit or shut out”. Not forgeting that they would all have understood this as Hebrews, as was the Hebrew custom this power would pass to Peters successors until Christ returns.

It was some time before the Ascension. The explanation of the Passion came next, then the Transfiguration and Jesus continued travelling around teaching before the Crucifixion, Resurrection and his return to teach for some time before the Ascension. I don’t think it likely that Peter made that association then, or later. The Mother of God was the focal point of the early Christians after Jesus’ Ascension. There’s also a story in tradition that after her death she returned to the disciples and told them she’d always be with them. I’ll have a look for it.

Peter called himself elder among the elders, presbyter among the presbyters, he didn’t vaunt himself above the others. Paul might have rubbed him up the wrong way, he argued with Peter’s father in law didn’t he? I think what saddens me most about this claim is that it really diminishes Peter, it’s not as if the RCC actually cares about him except as an excuse for power.

Anyway, the power to bind and loose was also given to the other Apostles when they came to Peter’s understanding and interesting as it might be to watch Rome slug it out with Antioch for primacy Antioch actually understands Petrine succession as did all those in the early Church. Antioch doesn’t ignore that Peter ordained bishops elsewhere apart from these two important centres and if Peter really did have power over other bishops they would have claimed it way before Rome.

Peter’s importance comes from his revelation from the Father and his steadfast confession of faith, give or take a few cockcrows. Petrine succession is part and parcel of the whole Apostolic Church’s confession, and that includes the women Equal-to-the-Apostles which the RCC also has to ignore as it does Paul’s equality. As it also ignores that James was bishop of Jerusalem for thirty years and had the final say at the first council. The Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox is from his work for the Church; Jesus came to him after the Resurrection and asked him to run it for Him.

BTW, here’s a great site for seeing it from the Hebrew viewpoint:
secondexodus.com/

Yours in Christ

I had a look for the Hebrew viewpoint, but couldn’t find it. Then I got distracted because I found something I was looking for the day before. It’s rather a large site, can you point me to the page you mean?

 

[Myhrr]

Tim Hayes:

MYRHH

We in the catholic Church follow the traditions of Christ through the teachings of men, we rely upon God ensuring that MANKIND, that is humans teaching the correct teaching.

We need God to ensure that mankind teaches correctly. We have only the sayings/traditon of Mankind to affirm anything that is taught.

There is no concrete evidence other than by what other humans say that Christianity has any validity at all. The only difference is that for us to affirm Christianity as TRUTH we have to affirm that God ensured his teachings are handed down and they are handed down correctly.

If we can not be sure that God has done this, then there can not be any surety at all about Christianity, any more so than any other belief system out there.

Goes even further back, how can the Jews be sure about Moses? They don’t have any evidence of his existence at all apart from the Bible and their oral tradition and even further back, nor of Abraham’s.

In that regard we’re a bit better off, we might not be able to prove directly that Christ existed in the form we teach about him, but no genuine historian disputes that he did exist and had a following.

There is more than enough material from that following that we can cross reference to show that Christianity in its form was established and taught throughout the known world. India has had a Church since St Thomas went there, tradition has it that he took with him the Gospel of St Matthew written in Hebrew it doesn’t make any difference to us if some scholars argue about which Gospel was written first, and even, create an idea of one, give it name, Q, and then use that to prove their arguments! There are other Churches still in place that remember their roots from the beginning, some we’ve lost, some are hanging on in such as the Church in Britain from Apostolic times.

As for the teaching, it’s everywhere, in the letters circulated around the Churches, in the various defences against un-orthodox teachings from those like Irenaeus closer to the Apostolic fathers and using the Gospels. He was taught by Polycarp who was taught by St John, growing up in John’s Christian influence. We have a wealth of information to show that the teachings were in place as Paul cautioned to hold to and these continued to be passed on.

The most important way it was passed on was in the liturgy, the work of the people. The Divine Liturgy of St James is still used, and in the liturgy is the whole of Christian teaching; the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is from that and they say that all Christian theology is contained in it; Alexandria still uses the liturgy that St Mark brought them. I think, I haven’t studied this, there may be slight variations between that and St James’ but not in the essential understanding of Christ as taught in Jerusalem in the first century by the Church there, by the Apostles and by the Church under James and his successors.

I’ve noticed in arguments from non-Christians and Jews that they think Christianity had lost its Jerusalem roots, but it hasn’t. There still remains of course the unprovable to another, one either believes in Christ or one doesn’t. The witnesses we have from the early Church believed it, so do we.

So what we’re arguing here is the detail, in this case was the tradition of papal supremacy something that existed from the beginning? I say no because my research, for my own interest, shows that the organisation was as Christ’s command, “it will not be so among you”.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued to Tim Hayes

All the letters, the councils, all the teachings of the very early Church, the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox confirm this. Without a doubt it was something that was changed in Rome and those changes can be traced from clear historical record, as well as the reasons for them. If you’re basing the whole of your belief in Christ on the words of a Church that says it teaches what was taught in Jerusalem but that teaches something different then you have a problem. I can only suggest what worked for me in the confusion of claims, believe in Christ first.
Tim Hayes:

Myrhh, you say that Cathlolics hold to traditons of men that are at odds with the traditions of God. You can only base this upon your own personal interpretation of scripture, your positions on scripture are certainly no more valid than any one elses interpretation of scripture, who comes to a different conclusion than you.

Not so, I believe in tradition as well as in Scripture, and where the tradition I was brought up in deviated from others was a problem for me, I explored it.
Tim Hayes:

I give you eg. Relatives of mine became Jehovas Witnesses, now they previously were Catholics of minimal practice/belief. The Jehovas Witness gave them what appeared to be concrete proof that Catholicism and Protestanism for that matter, was wrong. They were given the answers to God without any mystery, so there doubt was taken away. Now, they, like all humans like this, so they did not investigate the counter Christian claims seriously.

So of course now they are committed Jehovas witnesses, and won’t here anythng else.

You personally must affirm that the Jehovas Witness are as Christian as you and I becasue they base their beliefs on the same bible as you and me, it is just that their interpretation is different. You own personal intepretation tells you when Catholicism supposedly went corrupt in its teachings, yet the Jehovas witness certainly hold a different belief about that than you, so who is right, you or the Jehovas witness, and please tell me WHY, that is other than giving me scripture references and historical Christian Fathers etc, becasue any scripture you give can ultimately only be based on YOUR interpretation of the scripture itself or of the Fathers themselves, let alone whether those Fathers were Christians or not because it always come down to interpretation.

In Christ

Tim

The Church has already commented on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they’re Arian. I’m not arguing that there isn’t a clear continuation through tradition from the early Church, but arguing about the detail among those that believe it exists.

If there are those that choose to call themselves Christian I’m in no position to argue, Christ’s comments when the disciples complained of someone else healing in Christ’s name who wasn’t part of ‘the Church’ teach that it’s not for us to concern ourselves with. That doesn’t come under the heading of interpretation, it’s clear, anyone who can read can understand that.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

Continued to Tim Hayes

And talking about reading, another point of interest is that in the East the Divine Liturgy was always in the language of the populace, the Gospels have always been heard by them, from the beginning, as well the rest of the New Testament and much of the Old.

The Sola Scriptura argument came out of the West from its particular history that for many centuries most of the people couldn’t really tell if what was being taught differed from Scripture.

So yes, when the Bible became an open book in the West you can hardly be surprised that papal supremacy was rejected, Christ’s teachings forbid it. Now of course we find that in the East this supremacy claim could never have been accepted by the people because they all knew it wouldn’t be as taught in Holy Scripture.

If in the West many Christians rejected all tradition in reaction to understanding that papal claims were un-Scriptural by deciding that left them with the only thing they could trust from the early Church, Scripture itself, who can blame them?

 

[Thomas2]

I remember not long after I joined R.C.I.A. looking at a picture of John Paul II on television and watching him slowly consume the Sacred Host and how I felt at that particular moment. There wasn’t an inkling of any kind of arguement in my heart or mind like what’s going on here. I just remember feeling reeeeeeeeally special because **now I had a HOLY Father. **I still get that “special” feeling when I look at him or pray for him or whatever. I actually think it was a grace that allowed my mind and heart to bow to the Vicar of Christ on earth, even though at the time I hadn’t the notion of that as his role here on earth. I have a Holy Father and it means something to me.

Since then, I’ve tried to argue this point of his primacy with others, but until the assent of the will is made, it is like comparing apples to oranges. I’ll admit it had to have been pure grace because I am a very, very stubborn woman and if I’d had a head full of nonsensical misinformation about who Peter is or isn’t, it would have been harder I suppose. The best thing I can tell anyone who is one the fence over Peter’s Primacy and his successors as well, is forget the intellect for a few moments and rely on your heart and just take a bow to God’s Vicar. You surely won’t regret it. It feels wonderful to let go of all that bagage.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[reggie]

For all the great arguments in this thread and others like it, IMO, it all boils down to one simple thought. Christians who do not accept the authority of the Catholic Magesterium and the Pope have to dispel the tradition of Peter as the Temporal Head of the Church. This one stumbling block is huge, for if the Catholic Church is right about this, it follows that it must be right about the rest of its 2000 years. There are many compelling arguments against this teaching. There are many good debaters who can cast doubt on it. But, none of these is enough. We simply were not there, we don’t know, we must trust and have faith in the writings left us by the ECF and the teachings of the church over the course of the years. But even more than that, we must trust that God has not left us to founder for all this time. He has given to us a solid foundation and we are to build our houses on this foundation. Unlike many of the Protestant doctrines, ours has not been washed away by the waves of public opinion. We are fortunate to believe, but we have not merited it, it is a gift and we should be grateful and pray for those to whom the gift has not been given. The denominations outside the Church must try to crumble Peter our rock so that they can then feel comfortable in their rejection of Catholic doctrine. To admit, even for a second that the Petrine Succession is truth is to admit that the Catholic Church is truth. They cannot have it both ways and they do not want to give up their own authority. Submission is a Christian trait, but few want to practice it. They claim to submit to no one but Jesus, but even when His words are plain, they reject and do not want to turn their whole lives over to Him. Jesus taught absolute truths, and only the Catholic Church continues to teach the same. As Jesus said, it is a hard saying, who can follow it?
The road to heaven is narrow, the gate such that it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for some to enter.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

quote by MYRHH

“So yes, when the Bible became an open book in the West you can hardly be surprised that papal supremacy was rejected, Christ’s teachings forbid it. Now of course we find that in the East this supremacy claim could never have been accepted by the people because they all knew it wouldn’t be as taught in Holy Scripture”

Myrhh, the whole of Christianity is based on relativism according to you, the whole intrpretation thing, is a matter of interpretation. You and other people interpret scripture and history that supposedly shows that Peter beng the Rock etc is wrong, Many other people interpret as the catholic Church interprets it and says you are wrong.

You can not define who is wrong becasue both sides supposedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit say the other is wrong.

That is the whole point of this whole debate, UNLESS GOD HAS ENSURED THAT ONE SIDE IS RIGHT WITHOUT DOUBT THEN YOU CAN NEVER KNOW OBJECTIVELY WHEN GOD CHANGED HORSES, OR IN DEED HOW MANY TIMES HE HAS CHANGED HORSES DURING HE RACE. If he changes horses during the race and does not make it obvious obvious to us, then what hope of following him in the direction that he takes us.

Indeed from the moment the Apostles died one cannot know about anything being true in Christianity unless we accept that God has led us from start to finish.

IN Christ

Without there being definitively one right side in this Christianity thing then you cannot know

 

[MariaG]

Originally posted by Reggie

But even more than that, we must trust that God has not left us to founder for all this time.

My God is big enough and strong enough to hold the Church He established together!

 

[princz23]

it’s interesting to see that at least some protestant bible scholars agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on this subject! catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

Just wanted to point out that this web site is a FORMER Protestant that was in pursuit of the truth and discovered that the Catholic Church provided the closest thing to a direct interpretation of scripture. He converted because after you know and understand the truth, you cannot reject it or you risk losing your salvation. So anyone who is deep into history and trying to disprove Peter as “the rock”, watch out, you may be Catholic soon! If so, Welcome home!

 

[Myhrr]

Anna Elizabeth:

There are at least 30 OT references to Rock (capitalized). They never mean a profession of faith. They never mean an esoteric abstraction. In the Psalms they clearly mean God, on whom “I depend.” Peter is the Rock on whom Our Lord depends to be the foundation of His Church and to strengthen it

I like the reference to “common sense.” Look what happens when counsels, like those individuals to whom the Holy Spirit speaks, all disagree; moreover, look what happens when the Rock speaks and even the latter-day Apostles decide to find their own channel to the Spirit!

Vanity!

Pray always,

Anna

Let’s try a little common sense. :banghead:

As you say in the OT the Rock clearly means God, that’s it’s primary meaning in most of the quotes, wouldn’t Christ then have had that primary meaning in mind in 16:18? Or was he calling Simon, God?

The revelation, feminine in Greek, was that Christ was the Messiah, Son of the Living God. On that Rock Christ has built his Church.

Peter certainly had a prominent role in the early Church, the most forward of Christ’s disciples, but the RCC unhealthy usurpation of him goes against everything Christ taught about the ecclesiology of the Church and it was not held by any of the Christians anywhere else in the early Church.

The history of papal supremacy can be traced, it came from some bishops confusing the importance of Rome as the capital of the vast empire with their own importance. Every time it came to the notice of other bishops in the Church it was soundly condemned. These are facts, not interpretation.

Victor tried it on, the claim to sole petrine authority, when he wanted the Church to change to the Sunday Easter that was followed in Rome and Alexandria against the tradition followed by the rest, see Polycrates letter about this. He was finally ignored.

Stephen tried it on too in the arguments about re-baptism, and the Cyprian of Carthage quote above, from me, is the response of all the rest of the Church against such pretentions from Rome, a reiteration of the common understanding of the Church that no bishop had authority over any other, that the Church was One whole kept by each and every bishop, the meaning of Apostolic.

If you want to know just how strongly the other bishops of the Church felt about Stephen’s pretentions read the letter from Firmilian bishop of Caesarea to Pope Cyprian.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued to Anna Elizabeth

Firmilian compares him with Judas betrayer of Christ in disrupting the unity of the Church and he was thankful that Cyprian settled the matter once and for all.

“They who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles”.

“The folly of Stephen” is that he “boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter.”

“Contends”, not only was the whole Church unified in Christ’s command “it will not be so among you”, but Stephen, and Victor, both tried to claim sole authority from Peter, to do so they had to reject Paul completely. All the Church knew that both Peter and Paul helped to found the Church in rome so how could these pretentions have been taken seriously by them?

Rome was schismatic breaking away from unity of the Church here, and this claim kept returning over the following centuries until the Franks made it quite solid in their takeover of the Church in Rome and it continued to grow because of its entwinement with secular power, not for any spiritual reasons. And the claims grew more grandiose through the centuries until even successor of Peter wasn’t good enough, it became in place of Christ and then even more grandiose claims, that the Bishop of Rome was infallible. It was used as a club to beat other peoples, like the Lithuanians, and other Christians, as in Briton, into submission. It has no redeeming qualities, it’s built on a lie and it continues to create disharmony because of that. Reclaim your Church! Write to your bishops…