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

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

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.

The steward deposed and the one elevated, in Is 22:22 , are not kings. But they speak and operate for the king, and the king backs them up.

Myhrr:

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.

The connection is crystal clear.

1. Whose kingdom is being spoken of in*** Is 22:22***? It’s the Davidic kingdom
2. There is a changing of authority, represented by the giving of the keys to the kingdom.

In the NT, Jesus, son of God, and son of David, is removing the authority to lead from the Pharisees who sit on Moses seat, and placing full authority on Peter.

Myhrr:

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?

OT prototypes are types and shadows of NT fulfillments. In The Beginning, The one who spoke and all things came into being, abd through whom all things are made, gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The one who recieves these keys receives prime minister status among all the other ministers. And to verify this to the apostles again, and to all of humanity, Jesus tells Peter after the resurrection, in front of all His apostles, that Peter was to feed and rule His sheep. And to deal the deal, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to His apostles.

 

[ricatholic]

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.

Why does it follow that if Peter was the first leader of the temporal church, that all of the last 2000 years must be right?

We have no evidence that Peter acted as a leader in a manner that was unlike the manner of Jesus.

But since no reign of any pope that is documented, shows much resemblence to how Jesus taught or lived, how do we know that what the pope has become is what Jesus wished?

Peter being the first is not evidence that the rest have followed in his footsteps.

Peace

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

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.

Ignatius was known by ALL the Church as successor to Peter in the first See of Peter.

You’re simply misreading it. He says the Church which presides in the land of those called Romans, not any other place.

Tell me exactly how you claim Rome to be sole successor to Peter.

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?

Peter was one of those complaining about it, and immediately Christ teaches all of them that they are not to have superiority over the others - what’s not clear about this?

The Church Christ is organising is a spiritual Church, not a secular organisation as has been created in Rome.

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?

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

Please don’t put words in my mouth, I’m quite capable of speaking for myself.

And how did Peter rule? His own words in the NT make it clear that he reminded everyone that “it will not be so among you”. An elder among elders, etc.

Why do you reject Peter’s rule?

continued

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

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

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.

See above, St Ignatius was successor to Peter in Antioch, well known, respected and a great teacher. Try reading him without wearing supremacy spectacles, he makes a lot more sense.

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.

History shows that:
Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451)
Ruled that the bishops of Constantinople and Rome were equals, enjoying the “same”
ecclesiastical honors *(canon 28; Mansi 6, 1229). *Pope Leo

The 4th Council ruled that Constantinople had equal status with Rome. Are you saying the RCC rejects this council?

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?

Clement wrote: "From the Church in Rome to the Church ***in ***Corinth.

One Church in different places, each bishop equal.

However, Clement was not yet bishop of Rome according to the dates you have for him, 87, the letter was written before the destruction of the Temple and he wrote it because of his previous involvement with the Corinthians with Paul, he knew them, he was the most qualified to pastor them.

What you don’t have in your apologetics is any direct, genuine, reference from anyone addressing the Church in Rome as anything but another Church no different from the others. Honestly, papal supremacy is an invention of rome’s over many, many centuries.

When Constantinople became the new capital of the Roman Empire, Rome itself declined, descriptions of it are that it was little more than a village, all the pomp and grandeur that was Rome went to Constantinople. There was a power vacuum in Rome which the Popes began to fill aligning themselves with the secular powers which arose in the West.

Thank God Christ is the Rock on which the Church is built.

 

[Myhrr]

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

Hello Thomas2,

I think Pope John Paul II is special in many ways, I’ve heard he has a charismatic presence, and if you believe that he is God’s Vicar then that’s your belief, but the RCC dogma on this is that it claims it has the divine right to impose that belief on everyone.

If that didn’t exist I wouldn’t bother arguing about this.

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

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.

The OT type is really very clear. It is representative of one being fired by the king, and another being named in the place of authority representing the king.

That person is not a king, but the prime minister over all the other ministers and subjects of the king.

In Peter’s case, he is Jesus’ prime minister, over the other ministers, and the entire Church, the kingdom of God.

Myhrr:

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.

The keys also represent authority of government. The kingdom is one, not many. The prime minister has the authority to bind what other ministers bind, but can bind what they loose, and loose what they bind.

Myhrr:

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.

It’s popular in so many circles to portray Peter as an open mouth insert foot kinda guy. Personally, I’ve never seen it that way.

Myhrr:

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.

Agreed

Myhrr:

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?

OT types are just that, types and shadows of the coming fullfillment to all these OT types in the NT.

The Pharisees were deposed by Jesus, and He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Myhrr]

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

So all the Orthodox Church who have Apostolic succession are wrong?

Have you read the Encyclical from Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem in reply to Pope Pius IX’s?: Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns”
esphigmenou.com/text%20documents/Encyclical%201848%20Esphigmenou.htm

Christ sent the Holy Spirit from the Father equally on all gathered there, in baptism we’re sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost was sent to lead us into all truth. There is ample proof that the sole petrine succession claim from Rome is not the truth.

Who do you trust? God or man?

 

[Charbrah]

Myrrh mentioned that all of the apostles were subsequently given the power to bind and loose, as Peter was first given power. However, Myhhr did not mention that although all of the apostles were given the power to bind and loose, only Peter among the apostles was given the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

OT types are just that, types and shadows of the coming fullfillment to all these OT types in the NT.

The Pharisees were deposed by Jesus, and He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

There were several different sects around at the time, the Pharisees were one of them. Christ called them hypocrites, he didn’t say they were without authority, in the seat of Moses.

 

[Myhrr]

Charbrah:

Myrrh mentioned that all of the apostles were subsequently given the power to bind and loose, as Peter was first given power. However, Myhhr did not mention that although all of the apostles were given the power to bind and loose, only Peter among the apostles was given the keys to the kingdom.

steve b:

The OT type is really very clear. It is representative of one being fired by the king, and another being named in the place of authority representing the king.

That person is not a king, but the prime minister over all the other ministers and subjects of the king.

In Peter’s case, he is Jesus’ prime minister, over the other ministers, and the entire Church, the kingdom of God.
The keys also represent authority of government. The kingdom is one, not many. The prime minister has the authority to bind what other ministers bind, but can bind what they loose, and loose what they bind.

Christ did not give Peter one key. If that means authority as a steward then Christ did not give Peter authority as a steward. “it shall not be so among you”.

Christ gave Peter two keys. To bind on earth and to loose on earth. This has nothing to do with Isaiah 22.

Christ said he came to save not to destroy. He came to forgive, not to judge. Let him without sin cast the first stone… It’s not for Peter or the Apostles or any who teach Christ to judge another.

Stop taking Peter out of the context he puts himself in, he does not teach that he is superior to the other Apostles, he does not teach that he has authority over any other member of the Church.

 

[jpusateri]

ricatholic:

Well since he called Peter satan, for whatever reason, shortly thereafter in 16:23, I think that Jesus knew that even Peter wouldn’t always be on His side of issues.

Peace

But Peter WAS indeed on his side of the issues. He just lacked full comprehension. We can argue that that was provided on Pentecost if you like. All that Jesus taught them was grooming him and all of them for the handing over of authority.

Jesus’ calling Peter satan was not the same kind of naming that occurred in Matt 16:18.

 

[Charbrah]

Myhrr:

Christ did not give Peter one key. If that means authority as a steward then Christ did not give Peter authority as a steward. “it shall not be so among you”.

Christ gave Peter two keys. To bind on earth and to loose on earth. This has nothing to do with Isaiah 22.

Then why does Matthew refrain from indicating that the keys of the kingdom were given to the other apostles. The keys are specifically given to Peter, and not any of the others. And we have to remember that Christ was a Jew and the other apostles were Jews. How would they have intepreted the ‘keys of the kingdom’? I think they all might have understood that the ‘keys of the kingdom’ were a direct reference by Christ to the Davidic keys in Israel’s kingship, in which the keys were given by the King to the Prime Minister.

 

[Myhrr]

Charbrah:

Myhrr:

Christ did not give Peter one key. If that means authority as a steward then Christ did not give Peter authority as a steward. “it shall not be so among you”.

Christ gave Peter two keys. To bind on earth and to loose on earth. This has nothing to do with Isaiah 22.

Then why does Matthew refrain from indicating that the keys of the kingdom were given to the other apostles. The keys are specifically given to Peter, and not any of the others. And we have to remember that Christ was a Jew and the other apostles were Jews. How would they have intepreted the ‘keys of the kingdom’? I think they all might have understood that the ‘keys of the kingdom’ were a direct reference by Christ to the Davidic keys in Israel’s kingship, in which the keys were given by the King to the Prime Minister.

There is only one key in Isaiah 22.

Tradition has it that what was given to Peter was also given to others upon the same confession of faith.

Has 1Peter 5:3 been expunged from your Bible?

1Peter

5:2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;

5:3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

He exhorts the elders, among which he is but another elder, he doesn’t command them.

I’m just looking at that verse in an Orthodox Bible and it has a interesting commentary on 5:3

Orthodox Study Bible

“5:3…Those entrusted to you (Gr*. kleron*) means those who have “the inheritance”, and is the source of our word “clergy”. In the OT the Levites were the kleros; their inheritance was the Lord. In the NT all are kleros, a royal priesthood, equally inheriting the Lord. While there are “orders” of clergy in the Church - bishops, presbyters, deacons - a separation or isolation between priests and laity is unknown in the NT.”

This might help explain how the Church worked. That’s why bishops couldn’t be “as being lords over those entrusted to you”. Why a bishop couldn’t have authority over another bishop, all the Church is the kleros.

How does this square with the demand for complete submission of intellect and will to an infallible teaching of the magesterium?

Christ didn’t authorise any such thing, Peter confirms this, “not as lords over the kleros”.

There’s been something about that in Vat II hasn’t there? The RCC has recently introduced the wording ‘priesthood of the people’, however, since the basic organisation as Peter knew it and taught it is not in place it isn’t the same ‘priesthood of the people’ as described by Peter.

Does anyone know when the RCC separated the ‘priests’ from the rest of the ‘clergy’, calling the latter ‘laity’ from which they excluded ‘priests’?

Perhaps this is the key to solving this problem… to understand the differences in Church structure re clergy. That seems to be the reason why my explanations of the Church as the early fathers understood it don’t gel here. Does this help you understand St Cyprian of Carthage now?

“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).”

A bishop can’t be judged by another neither can he judge another.

Neither Peter nor the other Apostles ever established successors, they established bishops as overseers of their equals, the people of which they remained members, they were not establishing dictator lords.

 

[jpusateri]

Myhrr:

Neither Peter nor the other Apostles ever established successors, they established bishops as overseers of their equals, the people of which they remained members, they were not establishing dictator lords.

It’s either dictator lords or authority-less examples? Is that the only choices you offer?

 

[Myhrr]

jpusateri:

It’s either dictator lords or authority-less examples? Is that the only choices you offer?

Peter does continue to explain how that authority works, by example, not by dictatorship.You claim him yours and you reject his teachings?

The authority of bishops was to shepherd the flock and there were often many elders mentioned in one place. In the early Church, after the Apostles, the bishops were chosen from the kleros by the kleros.

I think the RCC and the Orthodox Church are two completely different Churches, certainly from my exploration the Orthodox adhere to the early ecclesiology of the Church and the RCC don’t.

As I said earlier, I think the one flock is as Christ described, did we visit him in prison? feed him when he was hungry?

 

[jpusateri]

Myhrr:

Peter does continue to explain how that authority works, by example, not by dictatorship.You claim him yours and you reject his teachings?

The authority of bishops was to shepherd the flock and there were often many elders mentioned in one place. In the early Church, after the Apostles, the bishops were chosen from the kleros by the kleros.

I think the RCC and the Orthodox Church are two completely different Churches, certainly from my exploration the Orthodox adhere to the early ecclesiology of the Church and the RCC don’t.

As I said earlier, I think the one flock is as Christ described, did we visit him in prison? feed him when he was hungry?

I merely asked a question.

Are you suggesting that shepherds (real sheep herders) have no authority over their sheep? That when the sheep are going astray, they can only walk in the right direction, giving a good example of where to walk to the wayward sheep?

Feeding the hungry without the accompaying guidance toward righteousness is not being true to Christ either.

Again, dictatorship is not the only alternative.

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

There were several different sects around at the time, the Pharisees were one of them. Christ called them hypocrites, he didn’t say they were without authority, in the seat of Moses.

When the second person of the Blessed Trinity, gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, And says He will build His Church on Peter, what authority do you think the Pharisees had at that point?

 

[Myhrr]

jpusateri:

I merely asked a question.

Are you suggesting that shepherds (real sheep herders) have no authority over their sheep? That when the sheep are going astray, they can only walk in the right direction, giving a good example of where to walk to the wayward sheep?

Feeding the hungry without the accompaying guidance toward righteousness is not being true to Christ either.

Again, dictatorship is not the only alternative.

I’m sorry then, I still don’t understand the point you’re making.

Peter describes the authority, that of elders and descriptions of bishops elsewhere describe them, good, sensible people. They’re an authority because they hold the flock together, is your doctor superior to you? In knowledge probably yes and of course if you were ill you’d submit to his authority, that in no way implies that he has the right to demand submission of intellect and will to him. Quite the opposite, his practice is subject to your consent.

That’s how authority is understood by the early Church, bishops are a specialisation, just as are apostles etc. But they are not dictators, they do not command inferiors, they are an authority for equal members. And they are not beyond reproach, as Paul reminds, if any teach something other than is handed down they should not be followed.

A bishop demanding obedience is teaching something other than that handed down and is not to be followed. The choice is of course yours, you have free will. If you want to submit to the authority of the Bishop of rome, but the Bishop of Rome does not have the right to demand submission to his authority, not of any Christian, not of anyone.

In terms of the early Church the RCC and those Churches submitting to his authority do not have the same sort of bishops as in the early Church, in real terms I suppose it could be described that the RCC has only one bishop, the other bishops subservient do not count as bishops.

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Christ did not give Peter one key. If that means authority as a steward then Christ did not give Peter authority as a steward. “it shall not be so among you”.

Christ gave Peter two keys. To bind on earth and to loose on earth. This has nothing to do with Isaiah 22.

only 2 keys? Why not a whole set? It really doesn’t say how many keys there are. Bottomline, Peter holds the keys.

Myhrr:

Christ said he came to save not to destroy. He came to forgive, not to judge. Let him without sin cast the first stone… It’s not for Peter or the Apostles or any who teach Christ to judge another.

Why do you equate the keys with condemnation, and destruction? What about administration and ruling, which is what Jesus commanded of Peter.

Myhrr:

Stop taking Peter out of the context he puts himself in, he does not teach that he is superior to the other Apostles, he does not teach that he has authority over any other member of the Church.

Peter didn’t have to. Jesus did that for him.

 

[Myhrr]

steve b:

When the second person of the Blessed Trinity, gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, And says He will build His Church on Peter, what authority do you think the Pharisees had at that point?

Show me some real proof that Rome has any right to claim Peter for itself only.

You’re all so keen on this supposed superiority of Peter then tell me how the See he first established in Antioch got cut out of his succession.

From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs 1848 in reply to Pope Pius IX

§11. For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. The Throne of Rome is esteemed that of St. Peter by a single tradition, but not
from Holy Scripture, where the claim is in favor of Antioch, whose Church is therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be “the most venerable of all the Churches in the world.” Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: “The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used.”

Isn’t that theft to claim that Rome is more venerable than Antioch?