Pope Fiction

[Mickey]

Why did Jesus Rename Simon?

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles for preaching the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardour was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt 10:2) and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” – and further after this: “Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained” (Jn 20:22-23); or: “with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens” (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone – Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore “by the passions of his own sins – says Wisdom – is each ensnared” (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
Blessed Augusrine

 

[Mickey]

one may say that the clearest interpretation of «και επί ταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την Εκκλησίαν» is the following: Ι will build my Church also οn this rock, in which you confessed, that Jesus Christ, as upon solid ground and οn you, Peter, as confessing in Him and constituting thus a foundation stone οn this ground, without excluding but rather understanding that Ι will also build οn other foundation stones, namely the rest of the Apostles, who will proclaim the same truth in Christ upon whom will rest the teachings of the Church concerning me.
myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/boumis_peter.html

 

[Lazerlike42]

one may say that the clearest interpretation of «και επί ταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την Εκκλησίαν» is the following: Ι will build my Church also οn this rock, in which you confessed, that Jesus Christ, as upon solid ground and οn you, Peter, as confessing in Him and constituting thus a foundation stone οn this ground, without excluding but rather understanding that Ι will also build οn other foundation stones, namely the rest of the Apostles, who will proclaim the same truth in Christ upon whom will rest the teachings of the Church concerning me.
myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/boumis_peter.html

That translation is absolutely indefensiblel and an act of terrible, blasphemous, and damnable violence to the Word of God. The Greek says nothing about a confession or any of the other things mentioned here.

Thou art Peter,—and upon this—rock-- I will build my Church.

su-----ei-Petros—kai epi-----taute-petra—oikodomeo----Ekklesia

Taute in Greek is a pronoun, and it refers to the most recent preceding noun, in this case, Petros.

Even if this were not the case, in verse 17 there is no subject whatsoever that one could try to say taute refers to. The Confession of Peter does not exist as a noun in the entire Caesarea Phillipi discourse. The only subject in the section is Simon. Verse 17 reads, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed to you, but my Father Who is in Heaven.” In English, the word “it” is often added, but it does not exist in the Greek.

Furthermore, the words καγω δε σοι λεγω at the beginning of verse 18 seperate the context and the parts of grammar from verse 17, making verse 18 an entirely new thought. The only thing that taute could possibly refer to is Peter, the Rock.

Mickey, turn away from sources that so utterly pervert the word of God for their own ends, please, for the sake of your soul!

Peace and God bless

 

[Algernon]

I think so. Now I don’t know exactly how it worked, because I wasn’t there. For all anybody knows, Peter might have declared that when he died, the bishop of Rome would be the one to fill his apostolic office because Rome was the gateway to all the world. In other words, maybe it didn’t matter where he died and he had set it up beforehand. Or maybe it’s just because he died there. Either way, I guess.

In fact, Peter probably did establish more than just the bishopric of Antioch. St. Paul set up quite a few! St. Thomas did as well, as did all of the other Apostles. They all ordained bishops to oversee different places. Take St. Thomas. He set up bishoprics in India, and probably along the path to India, and probably served in some of them over the years.

Say for the sake of argument Thomas set up 5 of them. Now he was only one guy with one office. You couldn’t have 5 guys suceeding him into that one office. They succeeded from him in that he ordained them, but not in that they filled his unique apostolic office.

Actually, this is where a lot of Protestants get messed up. They can’t accept Apostolic Succession because there were only 12 or 13 Apostles. How, they ask, can there be hundreds of bishops? There were only 13 roles to fill there! They don’t grasp the difference between the apostolic offices and the institution of seperate offices of oversight of cities.

So then, shouldn’t there be 13 Apostolic Sees instead of just one? Don’t they all have the power to bind and loose?

A

 

[Algernon]

one may say that the clearest interpretation of «και επί ταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την Εκκλησίαν» is the following: Ι will build my Church also οn this rock, in which you confessed, that Jesus Christ, as upon solid ground and οn you, Peter, as confessing in Him and constituting thus a foundation stone οn this ground, without excluding but rather understanding that Ι will also build οn other foundation stones, namely the rest of the Apostles, who will proclaim the same truth in Christ upon whom will rest the teachings of the Church concerning me.
myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/boumis_peter.html

I have also heard it interpreted as “You are Simon, whom I have surnamed Rock because of the firmness of your faith…”

A

 

[Lazerlike42]

So then, shouldn’t there be 13 Apostolic Sees instead of just one? Don’t they all have the power to bind and loose?

A

I was going to answer this in my previous post, but I figured I’d save space just wait until you asked it.

There is certainly the tradition that there are this is really hard to find the right word for, believe me, I’ve spent a long time trying - thrones for each of the Apostles. The unique office of each of the Apostles was filled by a succesor in the same ay Peter’s was. The strongest tradition of this exists in India, where the throne of the Apostle Thomas has been recognized since his time.

Unfortunately, in the case of Thomas, the throne is contested by six different bishops. Six lay claim to it, currently, so who really fills it? Who knows! It’s not a subject that I have either the time or the resources to attempt to make a thorough study of and determine if there is even a way to identify the true succesor, though perhaps some Malankaran somewhere may have dug into it, given that it would relate very directly to his Church.

In the case of the other Apostles, history has largely lost where they ended up. The only throne that we can say who the definite succesor is is the throne of Peter.

That being said, it might not even matter. It’s not clear that these other thrones carried with them any particular authority. This is why the issue of universal jurisdiction is, as you have figured out, really all that important. If Peter did have an authority over the other Apostles, as St. Chrysostom teaches, then it would make sense for the succcesor in His Apostolic throne to as well. The other Apostles didn’t seem to have any particular authority over one another. The Orthodox concept of a primacy of honor would seem to be what the other Apostolic thrones would carry with them, and in fact this is the case. The Holy Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas does carry honor with it, which is why there is controversy over it.

Peace and God bless

 

[Lazerlike42]

I have also heard it interpreted as “You are Simon, whom I have surnamed Rock because of the firmness of your faith…”

A

Which is more line with the Catholic understanding of it, and the understanding of the Fathers - Eastern included - that we have quoted here extensively. That being said, there’s no evidence for this in the Greek text. The Greek simply says that Simon is Rock, and on the Rock the Church will be built, whatever the reason Jesus so named him. That’s what really matters, ultimately. The Fathers, many of which we’ve quoted here, - Eastern included - recognized that Peter is the Rock, and that he had authority over universal Church.

Peace and God bless

 

[Mickey]

That translation is absolutely indefensiblel and an act of terrible, blasphemous, and damnable violence to the Word of God…

Shame on you for that accusation.

The keys were given to ALL the Apostles to bind and to loose. The Rock is St Peter’s confession. Christ is the cornerstone and the Apostles/prophets are the foundation. That is Scripture and you know it!!! Take all Scripture and look at it in full context.

There is no such thing as papal supreme infallibility and it cannot be derived from the Scriptures that you attempt to twist. The false innovation of the 1870 dogma is what is doing violence to the Church. May you open your eyes to see the truth. May God have mercy on your soul…

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[Mickey]

The Fathers, many of which we’ve quoted here, - Eastern included - recognized that Peter is the Rock, and that he had authority over universal Church.

Wrong. The Pope had a primacy of honor with all bishops being equal. That is the historic and ancient Church. The Ultramontanes changed all that.

 

[Algernon]

If Peter did have an authority over the other Apostles, as St. Chrysostom teaches…

Sorry if you’ve already said so, but where is this found?
Thanks,

A

 

[Lazerlike42]

Shame on you for that accusation.

The keys were given to ALL the Apostles to bind and to loose. The Rock is St Peter’s confession. Christ is the cornerstone and the Apostles/prophets are the foundation. That is Scripture and you know it!!! Take all Scripture and look at it in full context.

There is no such thing as papal supreme infallibility and it cannot be derived from the Scriptures that you attempt to twist. The false innovation of the 1870 dogma is what is doing violence to the Church. May you open your eyes to see the truth. May God have mercy on your soul…

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

Mickey, none of those claims have anything to do with the translation of Matthew 16:18. The fact is that every rule of Greek grammar in the book completely rules out the possibility that the rock is Peter’s confession, and every rule in the book requires that Peter himself is the Rock. That’s all I was talking about in that post.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Sorry if you’ve already said so, but where is this found?
Thanks,

A

Algernon, in response to this question and to Mickey’s statements, I’m going to repost some of the most important evidence of universal jurisdiction that have been posted so far. The first one on the list will be St. Chrysostom’s teaching on this matter.

Peace and God bless

 

[cascherman]

Ch. 10 The Papacy is a “medieval Roman invention”

Pg. 119 “The earliest account we have…Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.”
This letter was written in A.D. 80; Clement was not Bishop of Rome until A.D. 88

I have heard dates as late as 96 AD for the letter I’d like to see your source for the year 80.

**edit- actually I have double checked my sources, including the letter itself (you should read it) and all of my sources say 96 AD. (Early Christian Writings), so I would have to say you have come across some information that is liberal at best in presenting the truth. **

 

[cascherman]

Mickey, none of those claims have anything to do with the translation of Matthew 16:18. The fact is that every rule of Greek grammar in the book completely rules out the possibility that the rock is Peter’s confession, and every rule in the book requires that Peter himself is the Rock. That’s all I was talking about in that post.

And also considering the idea that Peter’s confession was the rock and not Peter himself was not heard from until protestant apologetics arose. The early Church is somewhat unanimous in agreeing the rock is Peter, that will tell you something on how to interpret the verse. (If anyone has quotes from ECFs supporting his confession being the rock, I’d love to see them, but I have not found any.)

 

[Lazerlike42]

I have heard dates as late as 96 AD for the letter I’d like to see your source for the year 80.

**edit- actually I have double checked my sources, including the letter itself (you should read it) and all of my sources say 96 AD. (Early Christian Writings), so I would have to say you have come across some information that is liberal at best in presenting the truth. **

Even the first sentence of the letter itself says it’s written by Clement, the bishop of Rome. This ought to serve as a warning of just how dishonest some - note that I said some - will get to discredit the papacy.

 

[cascherman]

Even the first sentence of the letter itself says it’s written by Clement, the bishop of Rome. This ought to serve as a warning of just how dishonest some - note that I said some - will get to discredit the papacy.

I think his argument was actually that Clement wrote the letter before he was bishop of Rome, making him not Pope, making the letter we love to use not support for the papacy.

But, as I said, all evidence I can find says year 96 and amazingly not one says the year 80. That makes it 6 years after he was made bishop of Rome (providing your history is correct when it comes to the year he became bishop, which now that I think about it, very well may not be)

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think his argument was actually that Clement wrote the letter before he was bishop of Rome, making him not Pope, making the letter we love to use not support for the papacy.

But, as I said, all evidence I can find says year 96 and amazingly not one says the year 80. That makes it 6 years after he was made bishop of Rome (providing your history is correct when it comes to the year he became bishop, which now that I think about it, very well may not be)

“The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.”

 

[Algernon]

I have heard dates as late as 96 AD for the letter I’d like to see your source for the year 80.

**edit- actually I have double checked my sources, including the letter itself (you should read it) and all of my sources say 96 AD. (Early Christian Writings), so I would have to say you have come across some information that is liberal at best in presenting the truth. **

“It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80.” Pope Fiction, p. 119

 

[Lazerlike42]

Alright, here are a number of pieces of evidence supporting universal papal jurisdiction, starting with Algernon’s St. Chrysostom quote:

[Peter says “Men and brethren,” etc.]
Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.—For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body:with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, “And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” Luke xxii. 32–>, Ben.)

St. Chrysostom explains that Peter, though he had the same authority (power to ordain - to declare) as the whole group of 120 put together, did not simply say “we are sufficient” (note the royal we that popes of Chrysostom’s time used) because he was beyond vain-glory. He later says that Peter had been put in charge over all the rest.

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople [ie. canon 28]
, let Your Holiness [Leo I] be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. **Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. **Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.

Here, the Archbishop of Constantinople Anatolius apologizes to Pope Leo for the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, and tells him that the entire force of confirming the council lies with Leo’s authority. Leo struck canon 28 from the council, and for the next 600 years no Eastern Church mentions more than 27 canons of Chalcedon.
Socrates Scholasticus:

There were present at this Synod ninety bishops from various cities. Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. - Ecclesiastical History, Book 2 Chapter 8

Eastern historian Socrates Scholasticus, writing before Chalcedon, says that a canon commands that no ordinances be made against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. Scholasticus was so much an easterner that he wrote of the western Church only on the very rare occasion that it impacted the east in some way, adding great support to his impartiality.
Third Council of Constantinople:

• ]“this Apostolic Church of His * has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error…”
• “the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome]… by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations…”
• according to Giovanni Domenico Mansi’s collection of the Councils of the Church, "The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.”

The Council accepts, approves, and applauds the letter of Pope Agatho, which includes these and other statements asserting universal papal jurisdiction.

more to come…

 

[Lazerlike42]

Gregory the Great:

If, then, these things which have been brought before us have the rampart of truth, inasmuch as we consider that, taking advantage of your vicariate jurisdiction under us, you are presuming unjustly, we will, with the help of Christ, decree further concerning these things, according to the result of our deliberations. But as regards the present, by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, we decree that, the decrees of thy judgment being first annulled and made of none effect, thou be deprived of holy communion for the space of thirty days, so as to implore pardon of our God for so great transgression with the utmost penitence and tears.

Pope Gregory the Great excommunicates John, the bishop of the Byzantine cirty Prima Justiniana (Epistle iii, iv).

**For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. **For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep (John xxi. 17). To him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that they faith fail not. And thou, when thou art converted,strengthen thy brethren (Luke xxii. 31). To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates ofhell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matth. xvi. 18). Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores

Pope Gregory the Great Epistle V, xx. For countless more Gregory quotes, see globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm.
Council of Chalcedon:

And he [Dioscorus] dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

• Acts of Session I.

Council of Chalcedon:

And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is.

• Acts of Session IV.

3rd Council of Constantinople:

Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up…

• Letter of the Council to Pope Agatho

For more from the Councils, see globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/ecu.htm.

These are just a few of the pieces of evidence. More could be provided if I had the time.

Peace and God bless!