Scipture and Papal Authority

[BamaRider]

I was watching EWTN recently and came across this discussion.

Jesus, who knew the importance of following Scripture during his ministry, far more then any normal man, said this to Peter-

Matthew 16 v19

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now place that in the framework of this Old Testament quote

19
I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.
20
5 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

Isaiah Chapter 22 v 19-22.

He gave the authority to Peter, and that authority has been passed down to our Holy Father Benedict 16. I think it is fair to see, Papal authority goes back a long way.

 

[thistle]

I was watching EWTN recently and came across this discussion.

Jesus, who knew the importance of following Scripture during his ministry, far more then any normal man, said this to Peter-

Matthew 16 v19

Now place that in the framework of this Old Testament quote

Isaiah Chapter 22 v 19-22.

He gave the authority to Peter, and that authority has been passed down to our Holy Father Benedict 16. I think it is fair to see, Papal authority goes back a long way.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[MarcoPolo]

Scott Hahn talks about that parallel brilliantly. Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22 are of nearly identical structure.

 

[Robbinson]

Yes - but later in scripture God uses the same words with respect to the other disciples.

See Matthew 18:18 ("I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven")

So this authority appears to have been extended to all the original disciples, rather than exclusively to St. Peter. As to the question of whether that authority then passes down through the ages from Peter and the original disciples/apostles to others (apostolic succession), that is a Church tradition, but I don’t think there is anything in scripture that actually tells us that.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[RobHom]

But the actually “Authority” was first and primarily given to Peter:

**16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

*18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.***

To say otherwise is to deny the words of Christ Himself. The foregoing is from the Douay-Rheims Bible drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm and the King James Version says exactly the same thing… biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-20&version=9

The establishment of the Primacy of Peter and the Apostolic Succession is clearly spelled out. There is no doubt regarding this.

 

[Robbinson]

But the actually “Authority” was first and primarily given to Peter:

**16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

*18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.***

To say otherwise is to deny the words of Christ Himself. The foregoing is from the Douay-Rheims Bible drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm and the King James Version says exactly the same thing… biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-20&version=9

The establishment of the Primacy of Peter and the Apostolic Succession is clearly spelled out. There is no doubt regarding this.

Thanks for the reply. I actually believe the reference to “on this rock” refers not to Peter, but to Christ (i.e, Peter’s confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ. ) That is the rock (foundation) on which the Christian faith is in fact built. Our faith, in fact, hinges on this (and not on Peter). This doesn’t mean that Peter can’t otherwise have been granted authority - and I’m not here attacking the concept of the Pope, etc., but I think this particular verse is referring to the confession of faith - not Peter as the “rock”. Elsewhere in the scriptures the “rock” always refers to God - or his Shepard (Jesus).

Gen 49:24 ("But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel")

**Deut 32:4 ("He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. ")

**Deut 32:15 (Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior.) **

**1 Sam 2:2 ("There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.) **

**2 sam 2:22 (*For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God? )/*B]

2 sam 23:3 (The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: 'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,)

Blessings,

Brian**

 

[RobHom]

Brian…I understand what you are saying…but therein lies the difference in our beliefs. We Catholics view Peter as the “Rock”, and from my take or opinion…if you read the entire paragraph…actually starting a little earlier than I quoted, where Christ asks the Apostles who do they think he is…the flow indicates he is naming Peter as Peter, which also means “Rock”… As many words are synonymous with others…one would have to actual examine one of the ancient manuscripts to see if “rock” in all cases were identical.

This has always been a bone of contention…no?

 

[YADA]

Yes - but later in scripture God uses the same words with respect to the other disciples.

See Matthew 18:18 ("I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven")

So this authority appears to have been extended to all the original disciples, rather than exclusively to St. Peter. As to the question of whether that authority then passes down through the ages from Peter and the original disciples/apostles to others (apostolic succession), that is a Church tradition, but I don’t think there is anything in scripture that actually tells us that.

Blessings,

Brian

Yes the other apostles hold an “office” but it is not the “Office if the Prime Minister” who “holds th keys” … they are given an authority to bind and loose but they are not given “keys”

and your point about Jesus being the Rock … well yes Jesus is the “Corner Stone” rejected and God is refered to as Rock … no catholic disagrees … however in atthew … Jesus says that Simon is “Blessed” … renames him Peter [Cephas - Rock] and says “that on this Rock I will build my Church” …

To understand the passage as you would have it … JEsus would rename Simon to Rock and then say that "and upon [Myself] this rock I will build my chruch … it just does not fit the passage …

It is the same with those who state that Jesus holds the keys … [again somehing catholics would not argue - in as much as the King always holds His keys [the master key as it were] while at the same time He authorizes others [by giving them a set of keys] to open and shut. … in this passage … Jesus states clearly that he is giving “the keys” … you do not give to yourself somehting which you already possess …

And tot he argument that he was pointing to a nearby large rock [in the Petros means small pebble and Petra means large boulder arguement] … you don’t rename a person and then hand a key to an inanimate object … how does a boulder reach out and take … let alone use - a key …?

 

[jcrichton]

Yes - but later in scripture God uses the same words with respect to the other disciples.

See Matthew 18:18 ("I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven")

So this authority appears to have been extended to all the original disciples, rather than exclusively to St. Peter. As to the question of whether that authority then passes down through the ages from Peter and the original disciples/apostles to others (apostolic succession), that is a Church tradition, but I don’t think there is anything in scripture that actually tells us that.

Blessings,

Brian

Hi, Brian!

…you seem to forget that it was only to Peter that Jesus offered the “keys” and while the other disciples were partakers of the newly established Church, Christ delegated His Authority only to Peter at this particular time. Later on, after His resurrection He annoints them with the Holy Spirit and includes the other 10 with Peter.

What you claim as not Biblical and only Church Tradition supposes that Christ founded His Church for the duration of the Disciples’ lifetime… once the last of them should die then the Church would no longer exist–Christ’s words totally disagree with you!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I was watching EWTN recently and came across this discussion.

Jesus, who knew the importance of following Scripture during his ministry, far more then any normal man, said this to Peter-

Matthew 16 v19

Now place that in the framework of this Old Testament quote

Isaiah Chapter 22 v 19-22.

He gave the authority to Peter, and that authority has been passed down to our Holy Father Benedict 16. I think it is fair to see, Papal authority goes back a long way.

Hi!

While it is nice to have a parallel in the Old Testament… it is not necessary: Jesus instituted the Church (His Community) because the Disciples would not be able to worship in the same format as had been done previously (St. John 4:23-24); this new economy results in a new system of governance–the Bishops and Priests.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks for the reply. I actually believe the reference to “on this rock” refers not to Peter, but to Christ (i.e, Peter’s confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ. ) That is the rock (foundation) on which the Christian faith is in fact built. Our faith, in fact, hinges on this (and not on Peter). This doesn’t mean that Peter can’t otherwise have been granted authority - and I’m not here attacking the concept of the Pope, etc., but I think this particular verse is referring to the confession of faith - not Peter as the “rock”. Elsewhere in the scriptures the “rock” always refers to God - or his Shepard (Jesus).

Gen 49:24 ("But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel")

**Deut 32:4 ("*He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. ***")

Deut 32:15 (Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior.)

1 Sam 2:2 ("There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.)

**2 sam 2:22 (*For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God? )/***B]

2 sam 23:3 (The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: 'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,)

Blessings,

BrianThe problem with such interpretation is that it makes Jesus a simpleton who cannot even make a single direct reference to Himself when He speaks…

Granted, many would love to have Jesus be nothing more than an incompetent orator; but Jesus is very precise in His language and expressions–further, He never uses parables to Teach His Disciples.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[RobHom]

Yada…you might find this interesting… regarding the Petros/Petra agument…the following is a link to a free site that is on the island of Cyprus…and it does translation in both ancient as well as modern Greek… kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Below is the response from the site for the search in “Ancient Greek” for the word “PETROS”:

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
Πέτρος ο = Saint Peter
Petros o**

Now, below here is the response from the site for search in “Ancient Greek” for the word “Petra”:

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
πέτρα η = rock stone
petra i**

As you can see…“Petros” is St. Peter, and “Petra” is rock stone, however…it does not discriminate as to “size”.

A search on the same site produces no translation to ancient Greek for the word “boulder”. But, what the site does is “disprove the false claim that Petros means small rock”. I would think that a Greek translation site would be accurate.

And according to this site: christiananswers.net/dictionary/cephas.html

Cephas = Petros = Petrus

Cephas is “Syriac”

Petros is “Greek”

Petrus is “Latin”

 

[YADA]

Yada…you might find this interesting… regarding the Petros/Petra agument…the following is a link to a free site that is on the island of Cyprus…and it does translation in both ancient as well as modern Greek… kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Below is the response from the site for the search in “Ancient Greek” for the word “PETROS”:

Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
Πέτρος ο = Saint Peter
Petros o

Now, below here is the response from the site for search in “Ancient Greek” for the word “Petra”:

Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
πέτρα η = rock stone
petra i

As you can see…“Petros” is St. Peter, and “Petra” is rock stone, however…it does not discriminate as to “size”.

A search on the same site produces no translation to ancient Greek for the word “boulder”. But, what the site does is “disprove the false claim that Petros means small rock”. I would think that a Greek translation site would be accurate.

Thanks it is interesting and yes, I have seen that before … I was only attempting [in my common writing] to dispel the most common arguments against Peter receiving the “keys” and being the “rock” as the passage clearly references … these other arguments make the passage sound bizarre … and not matter the language incoherent IMHO

 

[RobHom]

Thanks it is interesting and yes, I have seen that before … I was only attempting [in my common writing] to dispel the most common arguments against Peter receiving the “keys” and being the “rock” as the passage clearly references … these other arguments make the passage sound bizarre … and not matter the language incoherent IMHO

My pleasure… I know what you mean, and I agree. I have used the Greek site to make the point…and once it was made, the argument came to a “screeching halt”!!! It appeared that some people had been given some very bogus information… You did well in your writing… I just wanted to throw a piece of supporting information that you might be able to use…

Peace!!

 

[Robbinson]

Hi all - I appreciate the respectful replies. I didn’t pick a particular quote for this reply (because I didn’t want to be perceived as singling any one out - but many respondents made the same point to which this is responsive).

As to the “Is Jesus” the Rock or is this referring to Peter, while I do believe the more natural reading of the passage (taking both context and all other references in scripture to “Rock” being to God) to suggest Jesus is referring to that Jesus is the Christ or Peter’s confession of faith, rather than to Peter - I’ll cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself on this point:

“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”. The Catechism cites as reference to this observation Mt. 16:18; St. Leo the Great, Sermo 4:3.

So - there appears to be a lack of uniform interpretation of this verse within the Catholic community and the official catechism cites an observation consistent with the view I expressed. Of course, this doesn’t mean it is correct - but again, if you take the context of scripture - why would Christ say the “Rock” on which the Church is built is a man (no matter how noble) as opposed to the confession/idea/faith that Jesus is Lord and saviour. We know Peter was not perfect - his denial of Christ three times occurred after this confession of faith. Peter showed great faith, but also moments of lost faith (like when he walked on water, but then lost faith (who wouldn’t - I don’t fault him, but he was a man). He was a great leader of the faith and incredible contributor to the early Church. But the “Rock” on which the Church was to be built (again “Rock” always in scripture elsewhere referring to God himself) - I don’t think so and I ask sincerely - on what does your/our faith turn? I think that is a rhetorical question. I think all Christian faith (Catholic and Protestant) turns on faith in Christ as Lord and saviour.

Apostolic authority is still a legitimate question - I just don’t think it rightly turns on this particular verse

Blessings,

Brian

 

[jcrichton]

Yada…you might find this interesting… regarding the Petros/Petra agument…the following is a link to a free site that is on the island of Cyprus…and it does translation in both ancient as well as modern Greek… kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Below is the response from the site for the search in “Ancient Greek” for the word “PETROS”:

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
Πέτρος ο = Saint Peter
Petros o**

Now, below here is the response from the site for search in “Ancient Greek” for the word “Petra”:

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
πέτρα η = rock stone
petra i**

As you can see…“Petros” is St. Peter, and “Petra” is rock stone, however…it does not discriminate as to “size”.

A search on the same site produces no translation to ancient Greek for the word “boulder”. But, what the site does is “disprove the false claim that Petros means small rock”. I would think that a Greek translation site would be accurate.

And according to this site: christiananswers.net/dictionary/cephas.html

Cephas = Petros = Petrus

Cephas is “Syriac”

Petros is “Greek”

Petrus is “Latin”

But would Jesus not have used Kephas/Cephas which is the Aramaic word?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi all - I appreciate the respectful replies. I didn’t pick a particular quote for this reply (because I didn’t want to be perceived as singling any one out - but many respondents made the same point to which this is responsive).

As to the “Is Jesus” the Rock or is this referring to Peter, while I do believe the more natural reading of the passage (taking both context and all other references in scripture to “Rock” being to God) to suggest Jesus is referring to that Jesus is the Christ or Peter’s confession of faith, rather than to Peter - I’ll cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself on this point:

“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”. The Catechism cites as reference to this observation Mt. 16:18; St. Leo the Great, Sermo 4:3.

So - there appears to be a lack of uniform interpretation of this verse within the Catholic community and the official catechism cites an observation consistent with the view I expressed. Of course, this doesn’t mean it is correct - but again, if you take the context of scripture - why would Christ say the “Rock” on which the Church is built is a man (no matter how noble) as opposed to the confession/idea/faith that Jesus is Lord and saviour. We know Peter was not perfect - his denial of Christ three times occurred after this confession of faith. Peter showed great faith, but also moments of lost faith (like when he walked on water, but then lost faith (who wouldn’t - I don’t fault him, but he was a man). He was a great leader of the faith and incredible contributor to the early Church. But the “Rock” on which the Church was to be built (again “Rock” always in scripture elsewhere referring to God himself) - I don’t think so and I ask sincerely - on what does your/our faith turn? I think that is a rhetorical question. I think all Christian faith (Catholic and Protestant) turns on faith in Christ as Lord and saviour.

Apostolic authority is still a legitimate question - I just don’t think it rightly turns on this particular verse

Blessings,

Brian

The problem is with the Authority of the Church… for if I were to ask on what authority do non-Catholic Christians turn (how do they determine that it is their right to be a “church”) they have nothing to fall upon since even that which some claim (the early Church) was that very Church founded by Christ on Kephas!

…to simply remove part of the Holy Scriptures is to deny Jesus Word!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Robbinson]

The problem is the Authority of the Church… for if I were to ask on what authority does non-Catholic Christians turn (how do they determine that it is their right to be a “church”) they have nothing to fall upon since even that which some claim (the early Church) was that very Church founded by Christ on Kephas!

…to simply remove part of the Holy Scriptures is to deny Jesus Word!

Maran atha!

Angel

On this we may well agree. I believe in all of the scriptures and I believe in the relevancy of tradition (thus am more inclined toward the High Anglican Protestant Church) than many Protestants and, with candor, find that element of the Catholic faith very attractive. However, I didn’t follow how this reply related to the question of whether the reference to the “Rock” was Peter or Christ (or the confession of Christ) nor to the fact that the Catechism appears to intepret this verse as referring to the confession of faith.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[YADA]

Hi all - I appreciate the respectful replies. I didn’t pick a particular quote for this reply (because I didn’t want to be perceived as singling any one out - but many respondents made the same point to which this is responsive).

As to the “Is Jesus” the Rock or is this referring to Peter, while I do believe the more natural reading of the passage (taking both context and all other references in scripture to “Rock” being to God) to suggest Jesus is referring to that Jesus is the Christ or Peter’s confession of faith, rather than to Peter - I’ll cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself on this point:
…
Apostolic authority is still a legitimate question - I just don’t think it rightly turns on this particular verse

Blessings,

Brian

Brian,

What your response indicates is an “Either/Or” mentality … As I said not one catholic would disagree that Christ is the holder of the Master" key or that Jesus is the “Rock” of our salvation …

Similarly …Peter’s ***confession ***is also foundational to the Church …

It can be both … Peter, the office holder who bears the authority of one who has been entrusted with the “Keys” by the Master [Jesus] and his [Peter’s] confession of faith [an oath of fidelity] if you will… they ar not mutualy exclusive and the church recognizes that …

Think of it this way … your boss would not grant you the authority to sign the company checks unless you had first so indicated your knowledge of and faithfulness to him as the company owner …

 

[Robbinson]

Brian,

What your response indicates is an “Either/Or” mentality … As I said not one catholic would disagree that Christ is the holder of the Master" key or that Jesus is the “Rock” of our salvation …

Similarly …Peter’s ***confession ***is also foundational to the Church …

It can be both … Peter, the office holder who bears the authority of one who has been entrusted with the “Keys” by the Master [Jesus] and his [Peter’s] confession of faith [an oath of fidelity] if you will… they ar not mutualy exclusive and the church recognizes that …

Think of it this way … your boss would not grant you the authority to sign the company checks unless you had first so indicated your knowledge of and faithfulness to him as the company owner …

Thank you Yada. That is an interesting perspective. I’ll study it out a bit further.

Blessings,

Brian