Protestant interpretations...

[BrooklynBoy200]

Came across this on some anti-Catholic protestant site. The site itself has quite a few ignorant claims (the usual- worship of the saints, priests, etc.) but this kind of caught my eye. Could somebody explain this?
It’s regarding Peter’s papacy:

" Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.
In Greek, Peter is petros, masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,
petra, feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra, what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: “Thou art Little Rock, and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will build my Church.”
To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of
Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peter’s statement of FACT – “Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God.” That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom. "

 

[Ginger2]

Well, I’m just a little nobody Protestant so my (name removed by moderator)ut here will mean nothing, but…

The reason Protestants believe two different words derived from the same root word are used is because secular writings, from around or a little before the same time, use these two words clearly giving them different meanings.

 

[FCEGM]

Came across this on some anti-Catholic protestant site. The site itself has quite a few ignorant claims (the usual- worship of the saints, priests, etc.) but this kind of caught my eye. Could somebody explain this?
It’s regarding Peter’s papacy:

" Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.
In Greek, Peter is petros, masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,
petra, feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra, what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: “Thou art Little Rock, and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will build my Church.”
To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of
Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peter’s statement of FACT – “Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God.” That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom. "

This has been addressed several times by Catholic Answers; here’s an excerpt from one article by James Akin:

One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the “rock” that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17–19. I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it. Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church. That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In the passage, I thought, the “small stone” Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the “large rock” (petra) of Jesus.

What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get “Cephas”)—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—“You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church”—should be decisive for our interpretation.

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

 

[4EverHis]

I think this is a good answer

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

 

[whm]

When ever this argument surfaces, I wonder why the next few versus are not included.

“and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”

“Whatever you bind on earth with be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth with be loosed in heaven.”

 

[kkoleon]

funny how protestants quote the early church… especially out of context. Augustine was famous for saying many things *“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]). * Yet there is so much the church fathers teach that they tend to ignore!

 

[Nita]

I would just add to the above quote from a previous thread (Post #3), that we know for certain the word used for the change in Simon Bar Jona’s name was kepha/Cephas from John 1:42

*John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). *

 

[Nita]

I think this is a good answer

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

Very good article. Thanks EverHis.

 

[PJM]

Came across this on some anti-Catholic protestant site. The site itself has quite a few ignorant claims (the usual- worship of the saints, priests, etc.) but this kind of caught my eye. Could somebody explain this?
It’s regarding Peter’s papacy:

maybe this will help?

The evidence of this truth is found in Mt. 16: 13-19

13 “ Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Why Jesus choose, Caesarea Philippi to teach this lesson, to actually “Found” His Church.

Keep in mind that “words used in the bible” have been Divinely Inspired, and thus we must search out there meanings as used at the time of pronouncement, keeping in mind the “time,” the “location,” the “speaker,” and to whom the “words were intended.”

Jesus chooses Caesarea Philippi for the following reasons. It was the See of a huge and very active “many gods” pagan population. Caesarea Philippi is located on a large hill, and had the areas largest Pagan Temple.

First we note in verse 14, that Jesus asked the question: ”who do people say that I am?” In verse 15 He asked His twelve deciples, “but who do YOU say that I am?” And we find that they are speechless. Then Simon Peter replies: “You are the Christ.” Jesus replies in verse 17: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Notice the name change: In the bible, whenever God changes a name, that person is called to a particular and prominent role. For example: Abram to Abraham, or John the Baptist being named John, not Zachary after his father.

In verse 18, Jesus specifies that I (singular) Jesus will build My (singular) Church (singular) upon this rock (singular). And warrants with His own merits (too soon come in His Crucifixion) that it is and will be THE TRUTH, and that Satan shall never prevail against Her.

Next in verse 19 Jesus says: I (singular) will give to you Simon Bar-Jona ( singular), the key (singular) to the gate of Heaven (singular).

In the Old Testament times it was common practice for the major cities to be “walled in.” They actually were surrounded by wall that had GATES, and the gates, especially the “Main gate” actually had a KEY.

Also it was common to have a KING of the City (Jesus is in this role.) And a Prime Minister who actually had COMPLETE Power and Authority to rule and administer the city. The key carrier, actually had sole possession of the “key to the city (the city is a symbol of the Kingdom of God) and ran independently the city, day-in and day-out. The carrier of “the Key,” answered to NOONE except the KING. Simon Peter was given the “Key to the KINGDOM of Heaven,” With complete and total authority to Rule and Administer “the Kingdom.”

To be sure that everyone CLEARLY understood His message, Jesus in verse 19 goes on to say as further proof of His Singular intent: “, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Why did Jesus, who is God use these very words? Because the words “to bind,” and “to Loose,” were Rabbinical Terms, Binding in Jewish Law. At the time of their pronouncement they were spoken by a Jew, to Jews who would clearly have understood the significance of the words, and their Binding authority. That is why we never read about any attempts to usurp the Power of Simon Peter by any other Apostle! They understood exactly what Jesus said, what Jesus had done, and what Jesus meant.

1. Jesus knew of King David and his Walled Cities
2. Jesus knew King David used “Prime Ministers.”
3. Jesus appointed Simon Peter as ‘Prime Minister of His Kingdom
4. Jesus admitted in front of Pilate: John chapter 18: 33 Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?” 36* Jesus answered, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.” 37* Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.”

 

[PJM]

And this?"

1. Additional biblical support for “One Church” and Primacy of Peter

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

1. Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
2. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42: Mt 16:18).
3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
7. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
8. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
9. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
10. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
11. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
12. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
14. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
15. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
18. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
19. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
20. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
21. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
22. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
23. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
24. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
25. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

29: 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt. Chapter 23)
Note: While the bible does not speak specifically of the “ Chair of Peter,” this term gets it’s origin from “the Chair of Moses,” which EVERYONE KNEW WAS THE “SEAT OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.”

1. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16). ‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government.

The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

 

[Ginger2]

This has been addressed several times by Catholic Answers; here’s an excerpt from one article by James Akin:
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. …the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get “Cephas”)—would have been used. …

That would be a very good explanation if the information presented was factual and true, but it is not.

There are different words used for big and little rock formations in Aramaic, also. If you look at the Peshitta and compare Gospel verses translating the words petra and petros, you can clearly see the difference, which suggests Matthew 16:18 is a translation error.

However, that is a lot of work. It might be easier to see what the rest of the Scriptures claim about who is the rock:

Luk 8:13 They on the rock (petra) [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra)was Christ.

Now, the RC says Peter was a man and could not be referred to as “petra” as it is the feminine form of the word. Yet, Christ Jesus, who is also male, is referred to as “petra”

 

[Luke65]

Now, the RC says Peter was a man and could not be referred to as “petra” as it is the feminine form of the word. Yet, Christ Jesus, who is also male, is referred to as “petra”

Let’s compare apples to apples. “Rock” is not Jesus’ name or title. His title is “Christ” - in Greek, “Christos”, not “Christas”! The literal meaning of the passage is that our Lord built His Church on Peter himself. The spiritual meaning is that He built His Church on faith like Peter’s - faith like a rock. Both interpretations are correct, which is why Fathers like St. Augustine taught both interpretations. But to prove the literal meaning…

“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)

“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:14)

So taken together, we see that the Church of Christ is built on all the apostles and prophets, with a special primacy for the 12, and a special primacy among the 12 for Peter. This is easily discernible for those who love the truth; especially when we can all see, 2000 years later, the successor of Peter right there in Rome where St. Peter left the Keys of the Kingdom when he died a glorious martyr’s death - in fulfillment of Scripture.

 

[Ginger2]

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,** Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner** [stone];

Funny you should mention the above verse as I thought I should have included that one in my previous post.

I do understand what you are saying.

First I disagree about your Greek grammar theory, but it is too much trouble to go into that when you will cite you “evidence” and I will cite mind and we will get no where.

So, I’ll cut to the chase.

If the RC is protected from error, and Christ Jesus himself instituted the succession of popes, how is it that anti-popes were ever allowed to hold “Peter’s chair”? Why didn’t anyone know the anti-popes were false until years after they died? How can a real pope consecrate an anti-pope? How can an anti-pope consecrate a true pope?

Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). Why did it take over forty years to discover he was an heretic?

“It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics.” --Pope Adrian VI, 1523 If Adrian VI is supposedly a true pope, how can he error or whether a pope can error?

How can I place my faith and trust in a church that teaches,
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).Pope!!!

when that pope may turn out to be an anti-pope several years after I’m dead - and I would have followed the enemy because I trusted the RC instead of the Divine Word of God. ???

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

As for the OP. My studies have shown me the RC arguments concerning the word “rock” fall short of reality.

Ginger

 

[Luke65]

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:2-3)

Luke 12 (NIV)

42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47"That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

---

Most of us are happy we’re sheep, not shepherds!

 

[Ginger2]

Someone said Peter is mentioned more than any other Apostle. That is not true. Paul is mentioned more than Peter, unless you count as two mentions when Peter is referred to once as Simon Peter or Simon called Peter.

Each of those instances is one individual mention.

However, I did count instances of “Simon, Simon” as two.

But, I’m not sure what difference it makes. Protestants could point out that Paul wrote far more Scripture than Peter.

 

[Ginger2]

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:2-3)

You were making more sense before. Jesus also told them to obey Caesar. It was not to say Caesar spoke for God tho, was it.

 

[Luke65]

You were making more sense before. Jesus also told them to obey Caesar. It was not to say Caesar spoke for God tho, was it.

God chose Moses to lead His people, and as you can see, the “seat of Moses” was still there for the First Coming of Christ. God chose Peter to lead His Church, and as you can see, the “seat of Peter” will be here until the Second Coming of Christ. God does not leave His sheep without a shepherd. Unfortunately…

“So the people grumbled against Moses…” (Exodus 15:24)

 

[LionHeart777]

There are different words used for big and little rock formations in Aramaic, also. If you look at the Peshitta and compare Gospel verses translating the words petra and petros, you can clearly see the difference, which suggests Matthew 16:18 is a translation error.

Hello Ginger,

what is your source for saying this. How can one verify if this is true?

 

[kepha1]

So, I’ll cut to the chase.

If the RC is protected from error, and Christ Jesus himself instituted the succession of popes, how is it that anti-popes were ever allowed to hold “Peter’s chair”?

Regardless of external appearances, anti-popes never held the Chair of Peter.

Why didn’t anyone know the anti-popes were false until years after they died?

Such as?

How can a real pope consecrate an anti-pope?

Popes are popes for life. Dead popes can’t consecrate anything.

How can an anti-pope consecrate a true pope?

Again, a dead anti-pope can’t consecrate anything. What you fail to understand is that the true Papacy can only be succeeded by a legitimate (dead) Pope, regardless of the time gap and how many anti-popes claimed to be pope.

Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). Why did it take over forty years to discover he was an heretic?

Pope Honorius never taught error. He lived as a solid churchman and died with his reputation intact. He was buried with honors in St. Peter’s basillica. It was not until 20 years after his death that his letters to Sergius became an issue. By that time, Pope Honorius’ attempt to prevent schism and keep the Monothelites in the Church was seen to have failed. His leniency had to be condemned. But I defy you to show me one single Magisterial document in which the Catholic Church officially taught error in this case. There are none. The letters to Sergius were not magisterial documents BY DESIGN. Pope Honorius was trying to keep the matter informal to avoid open conflict and possible schism.
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ButlerOnCaseOfPopeHonorius.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ248.HTM
http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/limits.html
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3301
http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm

“It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics.” --Pope Adrian VI, 1523
If Adrian VI is supposedly a true pope, how can he error or whether a pope can error?

After several hours of searching, I have to conclude that this quote is not from Pope Adrian VI, but from Dave Hunt who claims the quote to be of Pope Adrian VI, and Dave Hunt is a malicious anti-Catholic. Even if the statement were true, a pope can have a heretical OPINION, but never a false teaching. Protestants are constantly confusing impeccability with infallibility. They are NOT the same.

 

[kepha1]

How can I place my faith and trust in a church that teaches,

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).Pope!!!The primary job of the Pope is to tell the world to follow Jesus. To be any kind of Christain in the 13th century other than being submissive to the Pope in the 13th century was unthinkable. Plus, Catholics don’t read 700 year old papal bulls the same way Protestants read the Bible. You are taking one sentence out of context and twisting it. The full text is found here: papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
The Pope is asserting the spiritual authority and superiority of God over the state, he is not beating his chest like some kind of egotistical dictator that you try to make him out to be.

when that pope may turn out to be an anti-pope several years after I’m dead - and I would have followed the enemy because I trusted the RC instead of the Divine Word of God. ???

Anti-popes never had any authority, and Catholics do not “follow the pope” in the way you think. And the RC is entrusted by God to teach the Word of God without error, not allow individual opinions to take over what the Word of God meant to the ones who wrote it. We can see the kind of mess that makes.

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought … calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. …God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, …” (St. Catherine)

St. Catherine is correct. Pope Satan could do a lot of damage, but he could never teach an error. The Holy Spirit would not let him, just as the Holy Spirit would not let any pope or anti-pope teach an error that would be binding on the faithful. What you fail to understand is what an infallible teaching is, how it is arrived, and how it is delivered.

As for the OP. My studies have shown me the RC arguments concerning the word “rock” fall short of reality.

Your “studies” are out of touch with Protestant scholarship.