(SPLIT) Mike Gendron's "Who Holds the Keys?"

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Shanpo # 90

At the risk of sounding like a ‘smart elec’ which I don’t mean to. But – I Could ask You the same questions.

But I’ll Try to answer your question about Peter from a different perspective. I’ve Never considered that That ‘interpretation’ was ‘valid’. Because I Don’t believe that Scripture / God’s Word has given rise to the papacy/ And it’s Also true that the Vatican is immensly powerful. The Roman Empire was probably the greatest most powerful in history.

The Roman empire has nothing at all to do with the Catholic Church except that they spent the next couple of hundred years trying to eradicate us.

You need to actually read your history…especially that of the early church.

I’ve Also suggested that Everyone is Very able to read God’s Word for themselves. Don’t be depending on what I say – I’ve simply been around offering a Different perspective.

As if we don’t read the Bible for ourselves. Most of us that have spent time as non-Catholics are regulars in the Word of God, and if you check, you’ll soon see that most all of the cradle Catholics are also very much Bible readers. The important difference is that we don’t try to make up our own doctrines and ours is informed by what we know the early church taught.

Question: Have you ever bothered to read the writings of the early church and maybe compared them to what you currently believe? If there’s a difference, who do you suppose is closer to the apostles and more accurate?

So – Why is the RCC church THE only true teaching? After all Jesus Christ has told us that “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but through Him.”

Can you show any direct connection between the church you currently attend and those early church writers? And again…if there’s a difference, who is more likely to be correct?

Catholics completely agree with John 14:6 and that has been the doctrine of the Church since day one. However, you seem to want to infer that we hold to something different, which is completely inaccurate.

And John 8:32 To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said. “If you hold to My teaching you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

No problem there. But how do you reconcile that with the fact that Jesus specifically says that He is building His church on Peter, and then Paul specifically tells us that communion really is the body and blood of Jesus. (See 1st Corinthians 11:23-30) We already are free…so what are you trying to say?

petra22 – so in Your humble opinion Jesus made the disciples / apostles priests. – okay Your ‘opinion’ / My ‘opinion’ What does God’s Word Tell us.

Where do you think the word priests evolved from? Right there in the NT where it uses the word “episcopos” for what most translations call elders. I suppose you’ve never checked to see what the function of the elders was in the early church, have you.

 

[adrift]

Shanpo # 90

petra22 – so in Your humble opinion Jesus made the disciples / apostles priests. – okay Your ‘opinion’ / My ‘opinion’ What does God’s Word Tell us. .

The Scriptures have been quoted. The word of God tells us that the Apostles were priest. The question you have been asked is how do you know that how you read the Scriptures, that you say you can read for yourself, even though Scriptures tell you you can’t, is true?

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.I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:
23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

 

[maryj]

I just have to say…I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. Great contributions!! Carry On…

 

[petra22]

petra22 – so in Your humble opinion Jesus made the disciples / apostles priests. – okay Your ‘opinion’ / My ‘opinion’ What does God’s Word Tell us. .

Luke 22–“This is my body, which is given for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.”
–“Take this and
divide it among yourselves;… This cup that is
poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

1 Cor 11–“This is my body that is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.”
–“This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do this, as often as you drink it,
in remembrance of me.”

 

[ShanPO]

Shanpo # 90

At the risk of sounding like a ‘smart elec’ which I don’t mean to. But – I Could ask You the same questions.

But I’ll Try to answer your question about Peter from a different perspective. I’ve Never considered that That ‘interpretation’ was ‘valid’. Because I Don’t believe that Scripture / God’s Word has given rise to the papacy/ And it’s Also true that the Vatican is immensly powerful. The Roman Empire was probably the greatest most powerful in history.

I’ve Also suggested that Everyone is Very able to read God’s Word for themselves. Don’t be depending on what I say – I’ve simply been around offering a Different perspective. So – Why is the RCC church THE only true teaching? After all Jesus Christ has told us that “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but through Him.”
And John 8:32 To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said. “If you hold to My teaching you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

petra22 – so in Your humble opinion Jesus made the disciples / apostles priests. – okay Your ‘opinion’ / My ‘opinion’ What does God’s Word Tell us. .

You very well could ask me the same question, and I kinda wish you would! Our Lord said He will build His church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Now taking that scripture, and considering there was ONLY ONE CHURCH for 1500 years or so after Christ, and also considering that the Book that you swear has all the Authority that you give it was written by those who were a part of that Church from its inception, I’d have to say that’s how I know.

What I want to know from you, and you still haven’t answered me is how do YOU know that what you read in the Bible, or what your pastor tells you is the correct interpretation? I look at scripture and find that Peter was the first Pope because he was given they keys to the kingdom, and you find that he wasn’t. Who’s right? We can’t both be right, because we’re saying opposite things. And if you claim to be right, how can you back that up? I have the writings of the ECF’s, all you have is the Bible, and you can’t say that you know you’re right from a source you’re trying to interpret. Do you see the issue here? I want you to seriously look at what you’re saying and consider what I see as the absurdity of it.

Again, I want to know how you know that your interpretation of the verses where Peter was given the keys is right and mine is wrong. I’d also still like an answer to the which came first question, because I feel that your answer is very important to the discussion at hand.

 

[adrift]

When I read Mike Gendron’s piece, the first thing that occurred to me is that he was taking the premise that scriptures are the keys and then finding Scripture to support his interpretation. He than ignores all the rest of Scripture.

As has been pointed out, Jesus said He was founding a Church upon the Rock. Jesus doesn’t leave doubt about who the Rock is. The foundation of His Church is Peter (Cephas) who He gives the Keys to Heaven. Keys are a symbol of authority. This authority refers back to the Church that Jesus is establishing.

Now we are told that the Keys are actually Scripture something that only existed as the Old Testament. Yet Jesus never said go and write but go and preach. Preaching requires a flesh and blood person.
As the Bible states someone is needed to instruct.

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

31

He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

Now according to crochet lady the Ethiopian should have been able to read it for himself but that goes against Scripture.

 

[crochet_lady]

Amendel #33

I agree with your comments up to “through the line of Bishops beginning with Peter. Then you listed 11 Timothy 4:21. Peter was 1st one of the disciples that Jesus personally chose and then he was an apostle. Paul is writing to Timothy – that particular verse is simply listing Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.”

Some have been trying to tie apostles and priests together. Oh, Linus was supposed to be next priest after Peter? An apostle was one who had been with Jesus during His ministry and had witnessed His crucifixion and resurrection / ascension back to the Father.

So Scripturally – How / when did apostles turn into priests / bishops.

The Jews had their priests / synagogues.

Jesus Christ became our Only needed high priest after He died on the cross and rose
again. Because at the time of the crucifixion there was an earth quake and the veil separating the Holy of Holies was torn in half from the top to the bottom. The high priest -
whomever it was at the time of the yearly offering/ sacrifice – was the Only one allowed past that veil / curtain. Meaning that That was no longer needed. – No more need for a Human high priest to atone once a year for our sins. Jesus Christ was Now – as a result of the cross had become our only mediator needed between us and God.

Peter and Paul Both had important roles in the New Testament. And both of them also had other men working With them.

Just was reading in John 15 and 16:12 " But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own, he will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to Me by taking what is mine and make it known to you. vs 16 “I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the
world.”

There are So many comments I Could make on So many comments / subjects.

And, yes, there Are Many different churches ‘out there’ that teach lots of ‘things’. People are free to go to Any of them and compare Their teaching to what God’s Word says. Lots of people Don’t want to hear God’s Word. There was a Baptist church we went to for a while – discovered after a while that his sermons were from passages that didn’t really say very much. No real doctrine being taught – but he Did take obscure passages and tried to stretch their meaning to say things that he, the pastor, said they meant. My husband tried to talk with him, privately, and the pastor said that that was simply my husbands interpretation that differed from his. They Both had degrees. Part of the ‘problem’ is that people who see that degree by a person’s name assume that the person had extra-special Biblical knowledge and can be ‘trusted’ to preach the ‘truth’. So they just sit there and ‘accept’ what’s being ‘fed’ to them. But God , Himself, tells us to Study, meditate on His Word for ourselves. ASK the pastor / group teacher about Scripture when you have a question.

And I HAVE been reading Isaiah 22 more lately. Trying to figure out more about what is being said and how it’s being applied. God is the Father, He’s given us Jesus – through the lineage of David. Joseph is in the lineage of David. And, obviously, Jesus Christ is.
In the Old Testament – New Testament – cities have walls, gates surrounding them to protect from the enemy. And faithful stewards are given the ‘key’ / power to let people in and out. To protect the ruler and the people from the enemy. The ‘king’ / leader of the people is often thought of as the ‘father’ / protector of the people. But in Revelation 20 or so – maybe 19 – God, Himself does the casting – the Book of Life is there – who’s name is written in That book is allowed into the New Jerusalem. Peter is NOT standing there Beside God ‘directing traffic’.
So – it is God who created – all things that we have – His Son, Jesus Christ became the only needed mediator between us and God. The Holy Spirit gives each believer a spiritual gift which is where elders/ over seers of congregations come in. And Jesus Christ gives us guidelines/ qualifications for those who would feel called to positions of leadership. And then come those of us In those groups / congregations. BUT Satan Also gets into the picture by trying to deceive as many of us as possible.

And – every person has the privilege of reading God’s Word - for ourselves – what we Do with It is Also our personal responsibility. We Will all answer to God in the end.

 

[adrift]

Shanpo # 90

At the risk of sounding like a ‘smart elec’ which I don’t mean to. But – I Could ask You the same questions.

But I’ll Try to answer your question about Peter from a different perspective. I’ve Never considered that That ‘interpretation’ was ‘valid’. Because I Don’t believe that Scripture / God’s Word has given rise to the papacy/ And it’s Also true that the Vatican is immensely powerful. The Roman Empire was probably the greatest most powerful in history.

So you are starting with a belief not based on Scripture but what you don’t think was possible because? You say that the Vatican is immensely powerful so that means that God could not possibly be in charge?
I would expect the Church of Jesus to be powerful after all the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I’ve Also suggested that Everyone is Very able to read God’s Word for themselves.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Do you know many who speak Greek? You must rely on a translation. You must hope that the person who translated it did so faithfully.
As I have already stated, to be able to read Scripture for yourself goes against Scripture.

Don’t be depending on what I say – I’ve simply been around offering a Different perspective. So – Why is the RCC church THE only true teaching? After all Jesus Christ has told us that “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but through Him.”
And John 8:32 To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said. “If you hold to My teaching you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

What Jesus is telling them is that they are in bondage to sin.

Jesus answered them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.

Where do you find that the Catholic church is the only true teaching? We do have the fullness of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Catholic Catechism
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

 

[dronald]

Can anyone explain why Jesus changed the word “rock” who was Peter to a larger rock that Jesus intends to build His Church on?

Shouldn’t Jesus had said, “you are Peter and upon this Peter” instead of using a different word for rock when referring to what the Church would be built on?

 

[adrift]

So Scripturally – How / when did apostles turn into priests / bishops.

This was answered before but I will provide the answer once more

The Apostles were the first ordained priests, when on Holy Thursday night Christ told them to do in his memory what he had just done at the Last Supper. All priests and bishops trace their ordination to the Apostles. Their second essential priestly power, to forgive sins, was conferred by Christ on Easter Sunday, when he told the Apostles, “For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained” (John 20-22,23).

Jesus Christ became our Only needed high priest after He died on the cross and rose
again.

What you are failing to acknowledge is Jesus’ own words “Do this in memory of me”

 

[adrift]

Can anyone explain why Jesus changed the word “rock” who was Peter to a larger rock that Jesus intends to build His Church on?

Shouldn’t Jesus had said, “you are Peter and upon this Peter” instead of using a different word for rock when referring to what the Church would be built on?

Actually Jesus spoke in Aramaic which would have been “you are Cephas and upon this cephas”

There was not different meaning.

Lets take on the Greek.

In Strong’s concordance it list Petros as a primary word meaning the Apostle. As most people know, other languages including the Greek give words feminine and masculine endings. For instance in Spanish roca has a feminine ending just like the Greek petra. Since Peter is a man, it would be changed to a masculine ending Petro to reflect he is a man just like the Spanish would be changed to Roco. You would never use a feminine ending for a man or visa versa.

 

[spina1953]

So you are starting with a belief not based on Scripture but what you don’t think was possible because? You say that the Vatican is immensely powerful so that means that God could not possibly be in charge?
I would expect the Church of Jesus to be powerful after all the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Do you know many who speak Greek? You must rely on a translation. You must hope that the person who translated it did so faithfully.
As I have already stated, to be able to read Scripture for yourself goes against Scripture.

What Jesus is telling them is that they are in bondage to sin.

Where do you find that the Catholic church is the only true teaching? We do have the fullness of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Just want to say great post! I think many forget that translations into a different languages that there are word changes just as you stated.

 

[maryj]

Can anyone explain why Jesus changed the word “rock” who was Peter to a larger rock that Jesus intends to build His Church on?

Shouldn’t Jesus had said, “you are Peter and upon this Peter” instead of using a different word for rock when referring to what the Church would be built on?

99.9 % of scholars believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek. There is only one word that would have been used,Cephus. You are Cephus, and upon this Cephus I build my church.There was no aramaic distinction between, little stone, and big rock Then you can get into the whole Petra debate, which is the feminine form of the word…easier yet, you can read Scott Hahn on the Papacy
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[dronald]

Actually Jesus spoke in Aramaic which would have been “you are Cephas and upon this cephas”

There was not different meaning.

Lets take on the Greek.

In Strong’s concordance it list Petros as a primary word meaning the Apostle. As most people know, other languages including the Greek give words feminine and masculine endings. For instance in Spanish roca has a feminine ending just like the Greek petra. Since Peter is a man, it would be changed to a masculine ending Petro to reflect he is a man just like the Spanish would be changed to Roco. You would never use a feminine ending for a man or visa versa.

The way I’ve understood it (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the type of rock used to say “Cephas” is a smaller rock than the one used to say, “this rock.” Assuming Jesus meant the same rock, why isn’t this clear in my translation today? Or yours even? The Greek was unable to use the same rock in both instances?

 

[adrift]

The way I’ve understood it (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the type of rock used to say “Cephas” is a smaller rock than the one used to say, “this rock.” Assuming Jesus meant the same rock, why isn’t this clear in my translation today? Or yours even? The Greek was unable to use the same rock in both instances?

In all my searches of the Greek I have not been able to come up with the rock used was a smaller rock. The Scripture does not indicate it

18 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.

Look at the construct your name is Peter (which means rock) and upon this rock referring back to Peter I will build my church. It is really a slight of hand to try to make them two different words in order to deny that he was making Peter the head of His Church.
As I wrote Peter in the strong concordance is a primary word which means it is not taken from any other word but is a first source word. In other words it became a proper name whose meaning was rock.

The word used for Cephas was a translation of the Aramaic. Cephas does not have any other meaning but rock. Jesus would have used the Aramaic Cephas not the Greek word Petros so the whole argument is baseless.

 

[adrift]

99.9 % of scholars believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek. There is only one word that would have been used,Cephus. You are Cephus, and upon this Cephus I build my church.There was no aramaic distinction between, little stone, and big rock Then you can get into the whole Petra debate, which is the feminine form of the word…easier yet, you can read Scott Hahn on the Papacy
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Great read

 

[dronald]

Thank you for the explanations. I’m not a expert on languages and have no right discussing the wording here. I’ve simply been taught such but am open to truth.

That being said, I’m going to ask in the “non Catholic religions” forum because I am genuinely curious on what was said.

 

[adrift]

Thank you for the explanations. I’m not a expert on languages and have no right discussing the wording here. I’ve simply been taught such but am open to truth.

That being said, I’m going to ask in the “non Catholic religions” forum because I am genuinely curious on what was said.

I would be interested in that discussion.

 

[Church_Militant]

Amendel #33

I agree with your comments up to “through the line of Bishops beginning with Peter. Then you listed 11 Timothy 4:21. Peter was 1st one of the disciples that Jesus personally chose and then he was an apostle. Paul is writing to Timothy – that particular verse is simply listing Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.”

Some have been trying to tie apostles and priests together. Oh, Linus was supposed to be next priest after Peter? An apostle was one who had been with Jesus during His ministry and had witnessed His crucifixion and resurrection / ascension back to the Father.

So Scripturally – How / when did apostles turn into priests / bishops.

See post 101 above.

The Jews had their priests / synagogues.

And this is relevant to “who holds the keys” how?

Jesus Christ became our Only needed high priest after He died on the cross and rose again.

High priests do not preclude the existence of priests and never have. In fact, they actually infer them. Still, how is this relevant to “who holds the keys?”

Peter and Paul Both had important roles in the New Testament. And both of them also had other men working With them.

Ah…and yet Paul states plainly in Romans 15: "16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the** priestly** service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Just was reading in John 15 and 16:12 " But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own, he will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to Me by taking what is mine and make it known to you. vs 16 “I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

And again, faithful Catholics have no problem at all with that passage and what it says, but it seems to fly in the face of the n-C lack of definitive authority that would supply an consistent doctrinal interpretation of scripture. Hence we are faced with the myriad of varied interpretations, most of which not only do not agree with each other, but with the verifiably authentic teachings of the early church and in fact with the Word of God itself, which is precisely what we see here in Mike Gendron’s article that you CL posted as being consistent with what you believe. How in the world do you reconcile all that?

There are So many comments I Could make on So many comments / subjects.

Well you did join the forums of the 2nd largest Catholic site in the world. Did you expect to find nobody home?

And, yes, there Are Many different churches ‘out there’ that teach lots of ‘things’. People are free to go to Any of them and compare Their teaching to what God’s Word says. Lots of people Don’t want to hear God’s Word. There was a Baptist church we went to for a while – discovered after a while that his sermons were from passages that didn’t really say very much. No real doctrine being taught – but he Did take obscure passages and tried to stretch their meaning to say things that he, the pastor, said they meant. My husband tried to talk with him, privately, and the pastor said that that was simply my husbands interpretation that differed from his. They Both had degrees. Part of the ‘problem’ is that people who see that degree by a person’s name assume that the person had extra-special Biblical knowledge and can be ‘trusted’ to preach the ‘truth’. So they just sit there and ‘accept’ what’s being ‘fed’ to them. But God , Himself, tells us to Study, meditate on His Word for ourselves. ASK the pastor / group teacher about Scripture when you have a question.

Sorry you guys had to endure that, but:shrug: that just proves our point all over again. Where is the authority that should correct such errant teachings? How do you know that your husband was correct and the pastor was wrong? (A somewhat rhetorical question. My point is that who is there to decide that issue with authority?)
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

And I HAVE been reading Isaiah 22 more lately. Trying to figure out more about what is being said and how it’s being applied. God is the Father, He’s given us Jesus – through the lineage of David. Joseph is in the lineage of David. And, obviously, Jesus Christ is.
In the Old Testament – New Testament – cities have walls, gates surrounding them to protect from the enemy. And faithful stewards are given the ‘key’ / power to let people in and out. To protect the ruler and the people from the enemy. The ‘king’ / leader of the people is often thought of as the ‘father’ / protector of the people. But in Revelation 20 or so – maybe 19 – God, Himself does the casting – the Book of Life is there – who’s name is written in That book is allowed into the New Jerusalem. Peter is NOT standing there Beside God ‘directing traffic’.

Again…not sure of relevance to this topic.

[Since you brought up the book of life in revelation though, I might point out that, as a Baptist, you probably believe in the doctrine of “eternal security of the believer” or OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved), am I correct? If so, I have to ask how you can resolve that with Revelation 3:[5] "He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot **his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." ? Since to be saved, ones name has to be found in that same Book of Life and yet right here we see Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ telling us that some will have their names blotted out of that book. If their names were in there before, that means they were saved, right? …And if blotted out they are lost?]

BUT Satan Also gets into the picture by trying to deceive as many of us as possible.

And again, where is the needed authority to insure that that doesn’t happen? If, as Paul tells us God is not a God of confusion, then whence comes these confusions of doctrines?

And – every person has the privilege of reading God’s Word - for ourselves – what we Do with It is Also our personal responsibility. We Will all answer to God in the end.

Again…this is different from our Catholic faith how? Yet, I do not have the right nor the authority to decide correct Christian doctrines based upon my personal reading and study of the Bible alone…as I have pointed out before, look at the fruits of that outside of the Catholic Church.