Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[LionHeart777]

Hi there aussie,

along the lines of what Mystophilus said, I think you are struggling to make it an either/or thing in regards to whether St. Peter is the “rock” or his faith is, when it is a both/and thing. Consider the following citations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. ‘The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/881.htm

“424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/424.htm

“552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Our Lord then declared to him: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ Christ, the ‘living Stone’, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/552.htm

Also, St. Matthew 16:18-19 is not the only text in the Scripture that proves the Petrine Ministry (i.e. the Papacy). The history of the Church testifies to it.

Regards,

Nick

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

Actually, while I appreciate what you wrote, there are several problems with it. Let me explain.

First up in the upper right hand side of your post, you are identified as a Protestant. On my posts, I have self-identified as a Catholic. So, if categorically did NOT identify yourself this way, I suggest you bring this to the Mod’s attention so that a correction is in order.

Thank you for the endorsement on allowing Catholics to believe as they will. It is good that you believe in Jesus Christ and let me encourage you to increase your belief.

From what I gather you hve asked questions and arrived at the conclusion you seem most comfortable with. I am certainly not trying to convince you to become a Catholic.

The real issue, however, is the on-going concern about how Matt 16:18 is turned upside down and inside out. The heart of the matter is not how confused one can make or unmake a sentence with today’s flare for picking apart the Greek that was used to write what was probably spoken in Aramaic - but - how was it understood by contemporaries.

Just follow the time line beginning from Matt 16 (Christ probably had this conversation with Peter and the other Apostles in 32-33AD. Look at the first hundred years after this event and look how Christianity developed.

The early church father Irenaeus (ca. A.D.130–200) saw the pope as the leader of the Catholic Church and went to see him in Rome ewtn.com/saintsholy/saints/I/stirenaeus.asp Polycarp (ca. A.D. 70–160), who was a disciple of the Apostle John, saw the pope as the leader of the Catholic Church and also went to see him in Rome catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=99. From the earliest times we have Early Church Fathers seeing the pope as the visible head of the Catholic Church.

Starting with Peter, as the First Pope, by 250AD there had been about 20 successors of Peter newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm Life for the very young Catholic Church was not easy - with on-going persecutions, poor communications and no New Testament as we have it today. But, there was the recognized leader of the Church - and they all look backwards to Peter.

In my opinion, it is a major error to try and apply the standards of today on an earlier period - especially such an early period. They did not have the advantage of hind-sight as we do today. What they did have was the guidance of the Holy Spirit to ensure that no error was taught.

The efforts to contort, stretch and strain Matt 16 are being done in a vacuum. The Word of God is alive - and it enlivened the Apostles and those followed after them. To claim that centuries of misunderstandings enabled an instituion to contiue to flurish - and fight off heresy that could have easily derailed a mere human organization - totally lacks both evidence or even the imagination to try and see how such an impossibility would work.

What is noteworthy is that Christ left Himself in the Eurcharist and the Holy Spirit to guide the Catholic Church from error - but - He did not leave a set of blueprints on how His Church was to grow and develop. If the complaint is that it was not smooth, but rather bumpy and disorganized and sometimes chaotic - well - I think such criticism would be valid! While the destination was promised - the journey there is an on-going process. Sometimes this journey is lead by great saints and sometimes by great sinners! The Church is not our property - but that of Christ. Our stewardship will be evaluated.

I submit that the proof of Matt 16 is the obvious words. But, for those who demand still more proof - look to history and note how the Catholic Church developed and spread the Word of God. The understanding of these Early Church Fathers - as expressed by their actions - was to recognize the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the Catholic Church. And, so it has continued.

God bless

**tqualey —**First of all - I categorically do NOT identify myself as a Protestant.

I don’t “protest” the Catholic Church one bit. I think you guys can believe whatever you want. It’s totally fine with me.

I don’t really know, and really don’t care what the “Protestants” have to say about much of any of this, either.

I’ve come in to this site as a believer in Jesus Christ - one who knows Him personally and intimately - and have courteously asked questions, considering whether or not to become Catholic.

And, the bottom line always comes down to this: The Catholic understanding of Matt 16:18 is based not on exegisis nor on linguistics, but on Church Tradition (which is valid). But - the meaning of Matthew 16:18 was NOT at all as clear-cut and agreed upon as some of you guys make it out to be. Certainly the role of the “Bishop of Rome” was not.

I don’t deny that there were some people who believed from early on that somehow the Church was to be built on Simon Peter. I also can see, very clearly, in the writings of some of the Church Fathers, that they were not at all unanimous in that position.

Thus, it may have been the position of SOME that the Church would be built on “the rock, Simon Peter”, but it was equally the position of others that the Church would be built on “the rock, Jesus Christ”, or on “the Revealed Truth that Jesus is the Christ” (AKA “Peters Confession”).

Somebody back in time had to decide which one was going to be the “official line”. AND, that decision was made by PEOPLE. It was something that was talked about, written about, and debated, and finally it was decided that the Seat of Authority would rest on “Peter” (or subsequent Popes).

Even then, it was not entirely hashed out how extensive that authority was. Was “Peter” (ie, “the Pope”) the “supreme authority” or was he “first among equals”? This very matter led to the Great Schism in 1054. In other words, the very nature of what was actually *meant * by Matt 16:18 had been debated for a thousand years, and finally, the part of the (then existant) Church that became known as “Roman Catholic” split off from the part that became known as “Orthodox”.

So, what I’m saying is this: I myself don’t really know if it’s true (or not) that Peter was “the rock”. What I know is this: There have been those that believe it since early on, and there have been those that didn’t believe it from early on. It was NEVER something that was just totally accepted by all believers.

In 1870, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick did research regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I, but wasn’t delivered. However, it was published later, and the Archbishop points out the 5 interpretations which Fathers of antiquity held to:

(1) Peter as the Rock, [17 Fathers],
(2) all the apostles, [8 Fathers],
(3) that the church was built on the faith that Peter confessed, [44 Fathers],
(4) Jesus as the Rock, [16 Fathers],
(5) all Christians were the living stones [5 Fathers]

Now, I don’t know anything about the Archbishop, except that he was Catholic. But, if his research was even PARTLY accurate, it would indicate that the Church Fathers had different beliefs (interpretations) of Matt 16:18

Somehow, Somewhere, Somebody felt they had to make a decision - for whatever reasons - as to what the “official version” would be. Those that went along with “Peter the rock” were Catholics, and (apparantly) all the others went the Orthodox route. I guess.

For me, personally, I just know - because God revealed it to me - that Jesus IS the Christ.

If it weren’t for that one, overwhelming, all-encompassing, massive TRUTH - then NOTHING about Christianity OR the person Jesus means a thing. If it weren’t for that one wonderful and horrifying TRUTH, Jesus would have been nothing more than another “notable teacher”.

So, I don’t know where Peter fits in. I mean, he wasn’t even the first to recognize Jesus as “the Christ”. His brother, who introduced him to Jesus, already called Jesus “the Messiah” (the Christ) when he first told Peter about Jesus.

Therefore, since I can’t quite figure out (to my own satisfaction) what relevance “Peter” (or subsequent Popes) have to me personally, then I guess I’m just not Catholic…

Is that OK with you?

 

[LionHeart777]

To “piggy back” on what tqualey said, St. Paul himself went to see the Pope (Gal. 1:18), and to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:

A confirmation of the position accorded to Peter by Luke, in the Acts, is afforded by the testimony of St. Paul (Galatians 1:18-20). After his conversion and three years’ residence in Arabia, Paul came to Jerusalem ‘to see Peter’. Here the Apostle of the Gentiles clearly designates Peter as the authorized head of the Apostles and of the early Christian Church.

Source: Kirsch, Johann Peter. “St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 25 Aug. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Lionheart, tqualey and Mystophilus…

My sincere THANKS for your excellent posts. I think these posts of yours may be the best I’ve read yet.

I won’t take time to respond at this moment, because there is a great deal of info and insight to digest… But, I assure you, I have read, and will read again, all that you have written…

BTW - yeh, my personal info says I’m a “Protestant”… My apologies… I’m really not… It’s just that when I signed up, I had no idea what “Protestant” meant… In particular, to Catholics… I’ll have to change that to something else… I just chose that designation when I signed up to simply say “I’m not Catholic”…

I’m going to ponder what you guys have written for the next few days, then I’ll get back with you, if you will continue with me…

Again, my most sincere thanks for your taking time to respond…

And - tqualey - I really like the “reality” of what you have to say… talking about “bumpy, disorganized and sometimes chaotic”. I can relate to that, and it seems like a very honest assesment of how things really went… I mean, hey, we may revere many of the early believers as “Saints”, but they were PEOPLE… Get ANY bunch of people together, going down some road, even when they’re heading for the same destination, there’s going to be bumps, and even disagreements on how to get to that destination… Yeh, I like what you had to say…

OK… I’ll talk with you all in a few days…

Aussie

 

[Mystophilus]

We have plenty of evidence that Petrine Supremacy did exist as an Early Church belief, predominantly amongst the Roman Fathers; we also have plenty of evidence that Petrine Supremacy did exist as an Early Church belief, particularly amongst the Greek Fathers (you have apparently seen some evidence of this, although I am not sure whether you have read their original words).

Uh…

obviously, that should have been “we also have plenty of evidence that Petrine Primacy did exist as an Early Church belief, particularly amongst the Greek Fathers” …

In other words, the two sides disagreed, eventually leading to an explosion and lots of Officially Not Talking To One Another.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

Glad you found the responses helpful. It really is a very complex matter - possibly analogus to a beginning geology student looking at the various rock strata found in a large area (in the US, the Grand Canyon would be a good example (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area ) and I am sure there are similar examples in AZ Here we are on the ‘top’ looking down - but many years ago, those lower layers were once the ‘top’ and they, too could look down on earlier layers. It is easy to become overwhelmed with all of the layers - and focusing on all the variations (something geologists do all the time) is a real skil - because they are looking for something.

I think everyone on this thread agrees that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, came to save us from sin. Developing a personal relationship with Christ is something that all of the Saints did and demonstrated to others. There are truly inspiring stories of these saints willing to face death at the hands of the leaders of the Roman Empire - rather then betray Christ. St. Polycarp (65-155AD) is one of the earliest examples. Here is an interesting link: newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm

For those interested in finding out about the Christ that Polycarp was following in his life - that brought him to martyrdom, we need to do some ‘digging’ through the various ‘historical strata’ that separate us from the 1st & 2nd Centuries. In reality, this is your job - and while others on this thread can offer help - you are the one who must work the ‘shovel and pick’ of this personal investigation to get to the truth.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

God bless

Lionheart, tqualey and Mystophilus…

My sincere THANKS for your excellent posts. I think these posts of yours may be the best I’ve read yet.

I won’t take time to respond at this moment, because there is a great deal of info and insight to digest… But, I assure you, I have read, and will read again, all that you have written…

BTW - yeh, my personal info says I’m a “Protestant”… My apologies… I’m really not… It’s just that when I signed up, I had no idea what “Protestant” meant… In particular, to Catholics… I’ll have to change that to something else… I just chose that designation when I signed up to simply say “I’m not Catholic”…

I’m going to ponder what you guys have written for the next few days, then I’ll get back with you, if you will continue with me…

Again, my most sincere thanks for your taking time to respond…

And - tqualey - I really like the “reality” of what you have to say… talking about “bumpy, disorganized and sometimes chaotic”. I can relate to that, and it seems like a very honest assesment of how things really went… I mean, hey, we may revere many of the early believers as “Saints”, but they were PEOPLE… Get ANY bunch of people together, going down some road, even when they’re heading for the same destination, there’s going to be bumps, and even disagreements on how to get to that destination… Yeh, I like what you had to say…

OK… I’ll talk with you all in a few days…

Aussie

 

[aussie_stockman]

Lionheart, tqualey and Mystophilus…

hey, guys…

Something just sorta struck me, and I want to run this past you guys - any or all of you - for your thoughts…

But first - just imagine we’re a bunch of guys sitting around the living room, talking about “stuff”… like good friends…

Then, I say “OK, guys, you know all that stuff we’ve been talking about on catholic.com? Been good stuff… Yeh, I know all you guys are Catholic, and I’m not… At least, not yet… But - I got a question for you… Something finally occurred to me: I got NO IDEA what the heck it even MEANS to ‘build a church’ on somebody… I mean, really, what does that even mean??? Now, don’t explain it to me in ‘churchy’ terms. I don’t want to get into theology or stuff like that. Give me some kind of example of what it would mean to build something - anything - on some guy… because really, when it gets right down to it, that statement baffles the heck out of me”…

OK - there it is… And, before you go writing an answer, go get a cup of coffee, relax, sit back, and remember you’re talking to a good buddy…

Aussie

 

[Mystophilus]

Lionheart, tqualey and Mystophilus…

hey, guys…

Something just sorta struck me, and I want to run this past you guys - any or all of you - for your thoughts…

But first - just imagine we’re a bunch of guys sitting around the living room, talking about “stuff”… like good friends…

Then, I say “OK, guys, you know all that stuff we’ve been talking about on catholic.com? Been good stuff… Yeh, I know all you guys are Catholic, and I’m not… At least, not yet… But - I got a question for you… Something finally occurred to me: I got NO IDEA what the heck it even MEANS to ‘build a church’ on somebody… I mean, really, what does that even mean??? Now, don’t explain it to me in ‘churchy’ terms. I don’t want to get into theology or stuff like that. Give me some kind of example of what it would mean to build something - anything - on some guy… because really, when it gets right down to it, that statement baffles the heck out of me”…

OK - there it is… And, before you go writing an answer, go get a cup of coffee, relax, sit back, and remember you’re talking to a good buddy…

Aussie

Sure, but let me start with “Mate, I’m not Catholic”: I’m Anglican, and, while we might look like them to you, we look like you to them. Such is the joy of being stuck in the middle.

As for that expression, Jesus says, “You have the right stuff, Pete, and I am going to use that stuff, in you and in others, as the foundation for a group of people who will carry my message to the world.” To put it another way, it is much like when you are building a team, for sport or for work, and you know that Pete is exactly the kind of guy whom you want, Pete and people just like Pete.

 

[Porknpie]

**tqualey —**First of all - I categorically do NOT identify myself as a Protestant.

I don’t “protest” the Catholic Church one bit. I think you guys can believe whatever you want. It’s totally fine with me.

Aussie -

But…by definition you are protesting which is what the reformers did, denying first and foremost the authority of the church (singular) and it’s an easy jump to say the Eucharist is only symbolic. This opens the whole box of who has the authority to interpret scripture and decide on faith and morals. Right now…WIKI says we have 38,000 churches (plural, not what scripture says) each believing something different. Of course you’ve heard this by now…

So in Matthew 18:15, Christ again refers to a church, that can bind and loose. What “church” has this authority ? Or was Jesus speaking figuratively?

15 “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

Well, let me try my hand at this…

I can only speak about the US - mainly because it is the only country I know well enough to speak about… This country could be said to be 'built on" the Founding Fathers - and their beliefs about government were condensed into the Constitution.

In this country, the Congress passes a bill to be sent to the President for his signature to become a law. If this law is later challenged - it is not challenged because keeping it is inconvenient or expensive - but, that the law itself is a violation of the Constitution. This is a matter for the Supreme Court to resolve. If the Court upholds the law then it is enforceable - but, it not - then the law is thrown out."

What I have always found of interest is that Christ said to Peter that He would be His CHURCH on this sinful and weak man. Now, stop and think - the Jews did not have churches. There was the Temple in Jerusalem and synagogues in the various cities, towns and villages. The pagans (Greeks and Romans) had temples to their various gods. No one had a CHURCH at this time to the best of my knowledge. Christ is telling the world that He is beginning something brand new. And, without belaboring the point - this is where the very essence of the New Testament comes in. Christ did not come to provide the world with wise sayings or amazement at wonderous miracles - He came to free man from sin and He created His Church to do this after He left the Earth.

So, here we are sitting around … and you are not offering us any beer or something from the barbie?! What kind of mate are you?!! And, don’t give me this line about the difficulty of getting this stuff through the internet…

God bless

Lionheart, tqualey and Mystophilus…

hey, guys…

Something just sorta struck me, and I want to run this past you guys - any or all of you - for your thoughts…

But first - just imagine we’re a bunch of guys sitting around the living room, talking about “stuff”… like good friends…

Then, I say “OK, guys, you know all that stuff we’ve been talking about on catholic.com? Been good stuff… Yeh, I know all you guys are Catholic, and I’m not… At least, not yet… But - I got a question for you… Something finally occurred to me: I got NO IDEA what the heck it even MEANS to ‘build a church’ on somebody… I mean, really, what does that even mean??? Now, don’t explain it to me in ‘churchy’ terms. I don’t want to get into theology or stuff like that. Give me some kind of example of what it would mean to build something - anything - on some guy… because really, when it gets right down to it, that statement baffles the heck out of me”…

OK - there it is… And, before you go writing an answer, go get a cup of coffee, relax, sit back, and remember you’re talking to a good buddy…

Aussie

 

[Julia_Mae]

Ultimately, you are demanding evidence from Luke - and, all the other writers that simply is not there. But, you neglect to look to other sources - and this is a significant omission. The Early Church Fathers - who were chronologically much closer to the Apostles then anyone engage in the 16th Century revolt - clearly identified that the successor of Peter was the head of the Church.

I would really like a reference to who said this and where. A link if you have it. Thanks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mystophilus,

That was a good analogy…

Let me tell you about how I see Peter as having the ‘right stuff’. In the description we are given about the 12 (and some of these guys don’t say anything that is recorded in the Gospels!) Peter is brash, boastful, and has a loud mouth. Few of these guys are educated (Matthew the tax collector probably had the best…but, that is a guess). I don’t know about anyone else, but I have been in management for almost all of my working life - and I can tell you that of the 12, I would NOT have selected Peter as my replacement. Basically, having a ‘hot-head’ in charge of something is probably not prudent. But, as we know, God’s ways of judging and acting are quite different from our ways (Isaiah 55:8).

My guess is that Peter was chosen precisely because of these characteristics (that I would see as a liability) because Christ’s Church is going to survive - not because of the human leadership it has - but, because it is protected by God Himself. As you look back across the 2,000 years that the Catholic Church has been in operation - there have been more then enough people in leadership positions to sink a purely human organization.

Just my opinion.

God bless

Sure, but let me start with “Mate, I’m not Catholic”: I’m Anglican, and, while we might look like them to you, we look like you to them. Such is the joy of being stuck in the middle.

As for that expression, Jesus says, “You have the right stuff, Pete, and I am going to use that stuff, in you and in others, as the foundation for a group of people who will carry my message to the world.” To put it another way, it is much like when you are building a team, for sport or for work, and you know that Pete is exactly the kind of guy whom you want, Pete and people just like Pete.

 

[Julia_Mae]

My guess is that Peter was chosen precisely because of these characteristics…

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you*, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Jesus explains why He said what He said to Peter: because Peter knew He was the Messiah NOT because anyone told him, but because he had it revealed to Him by God (and I suppose, believed it). An argument can be made, especially when you look at the Greek, that Jesus was saying His church, His group of followers, would be built in that way, by the direct knowledge of Christ through God, and not through the preaching or teaching of men.

All people who come to Christ Jesus in this way are given the keys to the kingdom, the keys Jesus says in another part of the Gospels, that Pharisees stole, not entering themselves or allowing anyone else to enter. It can be interpreted that Jesus, as Messiah, is the only true keeper of the keys and He is delivering them to the faithful.

I’m not saying this is the correct meaning, just a quite reasonable interpretation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

I think this link will not only provide you with historical data, but identify numerous Early Church Fathers in their support for the Bishop of Rome being in the leadership position of the entire Catholic Church: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems presented by Protestants arguing against the Primacy of Peter is that they use contemporary standards to just historical actions. For example, today we can trace the successions of Presidents from Washington to Obama, their terms of office, important issues they confronted, etc without any difficulty whitehouse.gov/about/presidents so many would assume this can be done for any other group that claims succession. But, think back: the Cathoic Church was actively persecuted from its beginning (St. Paul writes about his persecution by the Jews) by many groups - the Roman Empire heading the list. It wasn’t until 313AD that the Edict of Milan ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan ) stopped the persecution.

From Peter’s beginning rule in 32AD until 313 there were 31 successors newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm - and the Canon of the Bible had not yet been established. During this time (contrasted with our own time), all the things we take for granted: communications, documentation, official statements were greatly limited. Then on top of this there were the persecutions so that open displays of following Christ risked martyrdom.

One of the things that Chrsit DID NOT give His Chruch was a blueprint on how everything was to go. There was no step-by-step set of directions for the Apostles. You will recall that after Pentecost, the Apostles continued to go to the Temple to worship (Acts 2). Now, we can look at this beginning as an indication that they were just bumbling along without direction and any insight on what they were to do - or - as a developmental process where God, working with these men showed them slowly how He wanted His Church to proceed. The only guarantee is that His Church would teach no error. Everything else (including warts, moles, various wrinkles, etc) are there for all to see. And, by the time the 16th Century came around there were some very obvious problems.

The choice, as I see it, is to either have faith in Christ that He would move His Church back to where it needs to be - or to abandon what Christ said, create a man-made religion and then claim to follow a Christ that conforms to the vision of those in revolt.

God bless

I would really like a reference to who said this and where. A link if you have it. Thanks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

I was giving a personal opinion - nothing more.

But, let me clarify this a bit. Yes, indeed! God the Father gave Peter the answer to Christ’s question - and Peter said it loud and clear: “You are the Messiah…!” And then Christ identifies that Simon did not come up with this on his own - but was told the answer!! Now, instead of going forward… let’s go back. Just why do you think God the Father selected Peter out of the 12 to be told the answer? I’ve alrady given you my opinion. I would be interested in yours.

The really interesting problem with your presentation about the Keys is that it has no support from the text itself, or Sacred Tradition, or The Early Church Fathers or the Net Testament. You will note that Christ was only talking to Peter and the other 11 were assumed to have been listening. Additonally, Christ does not state he has 11 duplicate sets of keys to hand out when he is finished talking to Peter. The keys (one set) represented visible authority and honor. Interestingly enough, this is a custom that has carried over to today when a visiting dignitary visits a place the local officials present ‘the keys to the city’ to them. Usually, these ‘keys’ are made of cardboard and could not open any lock in the town - but, the symbolism of public authority and honor and respect is what is given today.

Now, maybe I am saying this because I do not know one word of Greek - I only got out of Latin class by the Grace of God! So, I really can not comment on this concept of ‘…going back to the Greek…’ argument. But, from a non-Greek reader let me tell you the problems with this approach:

1- While Christ was fluent in Greek (and all languages for that matter…) He is talking to His Apostles in a relaxed area (no crowds or Pharisees trying to trip Him are noted to have been present). The assumption is that Christ spoke Aramaic to them. His words appear in Matthew’s writing in Greek because Matthew is writing to a Greek literate audience. There have been many explanations about nouns that have a gender in many languages but not in English - so this issue of ‘big rock’ vs ‘little pebble’ is of little consequence when the issue is one of translation from one language to another.

2- The real issue of understanding is did the people who initially received the message act in such a way to demonstrate understanding. Peter is acknowledged the leader of the Apostles, Peter is acknowledged the head of the Church that Christ just founded on him. I have just given you a link that gives you the historical basis for this understanding. In addition, I think it is good to know that it is not recorded where the other 11 said something like, “That’s not fair!” or “We all should be in charge” or “Why did you pick that loud-mouth?” Nope. Never happened. The 11 accepted the authority of Christ and the decisions He made.

This same type of faith in Christ is needed today.

God bless

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you*, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Jesus explains why He said what He said to Peter: because Peter knew He was the Messiah NOT because anyone told him, but because he had it revealed to Him by God (and I suppose, believed it). An argument can be made, especially when you look at the Greek, that Jesus was saying His church, His group of followers, would be built in that way, by the direct knowledge of Christ through God, and not through the preaching or teaching of men.

All people who come to Christ Jesus in this way are given the keys to the kingdom, the keys Jesus says in another part of the Gospels, that Pharisees stole, not entering themselves or allowing anyone else to enter. It can be interpreted that Jesus, as Messiah, is the only true keeper of the keys and He is delivering them to the faithful.

I’m not saying this is the correct meaning, just a quite reasonable interpretation.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hi, Julia Mae,

I think this link will not only provide you with historical data, but identify numerous Early Church Fathers in their support for the Bishop of Rome being in the leadership position of the entire Catholic Church: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

What you said was this:

The Early Church Fathers - who were chronologically much closer to the Apostles then anyone engage in the 16th Century revolt - clearly identified that the successor of Peter was the head of the Church.

It’s not true. There was a discussion. It is not true that there was any kind of majority opinion or dogmatic declaration amongst the bishops of the early Church. If you have a fact from someplace I am not familiar with that shows otherwise, I’d like to see it. I am not interested in more arguments from more sources.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Help! Can someone please answer the objections on this website? justforcatholics.org/a124.htm

I think you will want to start reading here - catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

In addittion, we know Jesus spoke Aramaic because of what others have already said - He spoke it on the cross and he spoke it when he healed the girl. In addition some of the text you can tell was translated from Aramaic to Greek.

Now for the clincher. Saying that Petros means little pebble and Petra means large rock shows a faulty knowledge of first century Koine Greek. I will quote an excerpt from a Catholic Answers article to show this.

"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros andpetra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek.

(For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368)."

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

Finally, just examining the context of the text yields the result that Peter is the rock. Even Protestant scholars agree on this. Any attempt to circumvent this is done because of the opposition to Catholic interpretation and its implication and has nothing to do with what the text actually means to an objective observer. At the very base level the question should be at least why is Peter the only apostle or person in the bible to have his name changed to rock? That has to mean something! Protestants can not just write that off as meaningless!

"Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jona!.. And I tell YOU, YOU are Peter [which means rock], and on this rock I will build my church… 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.”

• Mt 16:17-19

Here Jesus calls Simon blessed! Then he calls him rock and says upon this rock he will build his church. And then he blesses him again by saying he will give him the keys of the kingdom and he will have authority in heaven and on earth. So we see really Peter is being blessed 3 times by Jesus. It would make no sense for Jesus to bless Peter and then call him a little pebble to make light of him, but still give Peter the keys to the kingdom and authority in heaven and earth. The context of the passage is a blessing to Peter. And as we see Jesus uses the language of Is 22 where we see the changing of the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom. Since Jesus is the new Davidic King whose thrown will never end, it is entirely his right to appoint his Prime Minister to be Peter.

“In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”

• Is 22:20-24

Many Protestant scholars admit that Peter is the rock, however they get around this by denying that Peter’s office was succeeded or by saying that Mt 16:15-19 was a later addition to the text and not part of the original. However, the office of Prime Minister denotes succession. Prime Minister’s were replaced and succeeded by new one’s in the Davidic Kingdom as can be seen in Is 22:15+. And, if you want to start throwing out texts from the bible that you don’t agree with that is a slippery slope.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Just why do you think God the Father selected Peter out of the 12 to be told the answer?

No one says He did only choose Peter. He could have told them all. Peter may have simply been the first to answer. The Apostles could all have been discussing it for months. Years, really. We cannot base any belief on a presumption that only Peter had this revelation. There’s no evidence for it.

The really interesting problem with your presentation about the Keys is that it has no support from the text itself

It has complete support from the text. What part do you think does not?

You will note that Christ was only talking to Peter and the other 11 were assumed to have been listening.

And you think this means He was only referring directly to Peter?

Mathew 18
21Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22* Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times. 23

Who is Jesus saying should forgive essentially endlessly here? Only Peter?

Now, maybe I am saying this because I do not know one word of Greek

I do. I do because if I am going to discuss Scripture and what meanings can be gotten, it’s important to know. Translation is a very slippery process, more art than science. We can justify nothing whatsoever from Scripture by reading English translations, IMO. For instance, in the very passage we are discussing, a Greek word is simply ignored and not translated at all.

He is talking to His Apostles in a relaxed area (no crowds or Pharisees trying to trip Him are noted to have been present).

There is no evidence of this, on the contrary, the Scripture says

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

“Disciples” are the followers, all those present, not 12 Apostles. The location makes it quite likely He was, indeed, speaking Koine.

so this issue of ‘big rock’ vs ‘little pebble’ is of little consequence when the issue is one of translation from one language to another.

It’s actually of rather large importance when one realizes that the only word in English that translates one of them correctly is “massif.”

Peter is acknowledged the head of the Church that Christ just founded on him

The fact is: he is not and was not. The Orthodox, just as ancient and sharing the same Fathers and Apostles, do not recognize any such thing. The first church at Jerusalem was headed by James the Just, not Peter.

This same type of faith in Christ is needed today.

There is absolutely no question of anyone’s faith in Christ. The issue is: what did He say - what was His intent? You believe, and the Roman Catholic Church teaches and expects adherence to a certain interpretation. This was not an interpretation shared amongst all the ancient Universal churches.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

I really am quite aware of what I said. You may want to be a bit slower on your, “It’s not true…” statement - and let me show you where you are in error.

You asked for a link that supports what I told you and I provide the link from an authorative source. I think it would be appropriate for you to address what I provided. If you think what I provided was in error then just where are your links?

Are you saying that the Early Church Fathers (from approximately 2nd-6th Century) were not chronologically closer to Christ then those in revolt from the Catholic Church in the 16th Century?

At no time did I say that there was any number of ECF with one view or another. The link I provided, however, gives you the names of those ECFs who saw the successor of Peter as the leader of the Catholic Church.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say there, “… was a discussion…”. About what? Who was involved in this discussion? When did it take place? What was decided? I find this statement of your in need of clarification.

Again, what you are failing to address is that beyond Matt 16, and beyond Sacred Tradition, we have plain old secular history to address. And the Catholic Church traces it origin - beginning with Christ’s appointment of Peter - to Benedict XVI. This is almost a 2,000 year unbroken history of the Bishop of Rome being in charge of the Catholic Church. It was not smooth, easy, wrinkle free or anything else we have today - but, it is there for anyone to look at identify as a reality.

The link I provided answers the questions you asked me to support. From your statement, I am not sure if you bothered to read it. I am, however, not on this thread to custom tailor links to meet with some pre-determined criteria you have for validity. If you have a problem with the link I gave you, then spell out how it is in error - and please, use some references this time. Merely carping that you do not like the source - that is in direct oppostion to the position you have taken is hardly a convincing argument.

God bless

What you said was this:

It’s not true. There was a discussion. It is not true that there was any kind of majority opinion or dogmatic declaration amongst the bishops of the early Church. If you have a fact from someplace I am not familiar with that shows otherwise, I’d like to see it. I am not interested in more arguments from more sources.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And the Catholic Church traces it origin - beginning with Christ’s appointment of Peter - to Benedict XVI. This is almost a 2,000 year unbroken history of the Bishop of Rome being in charge of the Catholic Church.

ALL the other ancient apostolic churches can also trace their origins to the Apostles and Pentecost, including the Orthodox.

The Church wasn’t in Rome at the start - and had no Bishop, the Church was in Jerusalem, and Peter was not “in charge” as you put it. If you read the correspondences among the earliest Fathers, no one acknowledges the Bishop of Rome as any sort of “supreme Church commander” if you know what I mean.

As for the discussion, it has been quoted extensively ITT as I said before. (In This Thread.)

I am not making a case for either side. You believe firmly the argument as presented by EWTN or others. Those arguments are not proof of fact, they are interpretive and subject to assent. We disagree as to that apparently. I have no interest in an interminable exchange about this.

Peace.