It is not the teaching of the Catholic church, it is the deposit of faith handed down to her from both what is written and what was handed down to her from the Apostles sacred Traditions. The Catholic church never invents or interprets scripture as you “see” or anyone else, only what was handed down to her.
The Catholic Church will agree with all that is presented in the following, Jesus built his Church upon Peter here, along with his profession of faith, including pertaining to the “Truths Peter has just spoken.”
The way you see it does not conflict with scripture nor sacred Tradition, because the “Truths Peter has just spoken” does not conflict with any of the above.
The Catholic Church since the resurrection, has grown these past 2000 years and she has many members (branches) operating in many different apostolates (miniistries) world wide as One body, believing in One Lord, in One baptism. So your reasoning does not contradict Catholic teaching, because your opinion did not specify as to who might be your many branches?
Sufjon;7689824]Hi Gabriel: Thank you for the response. I understand that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church and I agree that His words could be interpreted that way. I also see how they could be interpreted as pertaining to the truths Peter had just spoken. I also understand the history of Christianity and the reasoning behind succession. I also can see how that same tree can have as many branches as it can grow and still be the same tree. As an outsider to Christianity either truth can be applicable in my opinion
.
We are not specifically dealing with the later verses here, which you bring up that deals with whole other topic that deals with powers and principalities. I don’t see your reasoning for trying to fit a circle into a square here. The two subjects do not relate to one another in the context we are visiting them here.
Although if you like we can deal with it within its original context, but as Jesus addressing the evil power and principality which is trying, but not yet infected Peter’s will against the will of God, does not deal with our subject.
To be very honest, I don’t understand the reasoning here. Jesus said the exact same thing to Satan himself in the wilderness and that was surely not a call to follow him in the context of his exchange with Satan, (with whom He used the exact same words). He even goes so far as to call Peter Satan. The relevance of whether or not He was Vicar of the Church at that point would have to be explained to me.
When one reads the Gospel of Matthew, it is a fact that Matthew is addressing his Jewish Christian audiences. So to interpret this Matthew 16:14-18 to get the correct interpretation from the aramaic language, with a Jewish understanding having a Hebrew faith.
To interpret this english translation and pretend to add contents of past or future tense, then to interpret the english translation without ever visiting the original audience interpretation leads to many interpretations from protestantism and individuals who don’t hold to the Judeo Christian revealed Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is why;
God does not change, man does. God has always maintained a Patriarch to oversee his flock in Abraham, Moses, King David etc. Jesus = God incarnate applies this act of God to Peter as well in the New Covenant. For example;
Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven. NAB commentary
In short, reading this text as a first century Judeo Christian faith with a Hebrew/Amaraic understanding, you will find that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more, when Jesus gives the Keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter.
Any other interpretation is new and comes from man, unless you can evidence that Jesus is not doing what Matthew records in his gospel, from another source?
Peace be with you
I do appreciate your kind response, but I’m sensing that a lot of mental engineering is required to reconcile the two verses in such a way that Peter becomes the Rock on which the church is built. The logic is smoother when you don’t read too much into either verse, in which case, He simply meant that the truth Peter spoke was the rock on which He would build His Church in verse 16, and He simply got very ticked off at Peter in verse 23. If we insist on reading too much meaning about Peter in verse 16, it follows that we would have to insist that verse 23 is also chocked full of meaning about Peter as well. It would be disingenuous to allow ourselves to say that one verse is profound and the other is not in order to work our way into a conclusion that supports a given outcome.
Your friend,
Sufjon
