take a step back and have a look

[RobHom]

Thanks Rob!

My pleasure!

Well, all of the English Bibles translate it accurately. The reason for the different interpretations is over reaction to the Roman Catholic interpretation.

OK, I can understand that.

That’s a serious problem though. If it isn’t addressed by Christ, or any of the apostles in their various epistles how can we assume it’s not a human invention of dogma? Why no mention of this particular succession of Peter’s role as foundation of the apostles by Paul, John, or Peter himself? Peter himself writes as if he is on equal footing with the other ministers. Those church fathers who mention the preeminence of the bishop of Rome in Christendom could not have possibly dreamed of the claims that would be made by Vatican I.

Just for the sake of argument… I can understand your point, but I’m sure that you see the other side of the argument…that being the Catholic side…that we do not embrace sola scriptura, and we do accept other writings, while not on the same level as the Bible, but as instructional and historical information and basis. I confess I have not read much about Vatican I, so I probably should…

As a bishopric, Peter did have a successor and I can accept that the concept of a bishop of Rome is not unbiblical or non-apostolic. Just not the dogmatic pronouncements by Rome of what that entails.

OK… Are you pointing at specific “dogmatic pronouncements”, or is it a broader issue…? Just curious.

 

[TriuneUnity]

My pleasure!

Just for the sake of argument… I can understand your point, but I’m sure that you see the other side of the argument…that being the Catholic side…that we do not embrace sola scriptura, and we do accept other writings, while not on the same level as the Bible, but as instructional and historical information and basis. I confess I have not read much about Vatican I, so I probably should…

Well, I certainly don’t expect you to throw up your hands and say you’re done with the papacy from posting on an internet forum…LOL. Having said that, though, it would be a good idea to read those documents. The claims made in them are quite startling once you’ve studied history on the matter of Matthew 16:18 and its interpretation throughout church history.

OK… Are you pointing at specific “dogmatic pronouncements”, or is it a broader issue…? Just curious.

Mainly papal infallibility; However, it is also the notion that the bishop of Rome maintains jurisdiction over the entire Christian church and therefore has authority on the consciences of all the faithful. I can accept that Christ singles out Peter as the foundation of the apostolic ministry; I can accept that the bishops of Rome always have had, and always will have, a place of honor in Christian society; the rest is just too far-fetched, unbiblical, and unhistorical. And since the Middle Ages specifically, has fallen into dangerous error.

Having said that…I would rather drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with Zwingli.

 

[RobHom]

Well, I certainly don’t expect you to throw up your hands and say you’re done with the papacy from posting on an internet forum…LOL. Having said that, though, it would be a good idea to read those documents. The claims made in them are quite startling once you’ve studied history on the matter of Matthew 16:18 and its interpretation throughout church history.

Ooooh, you wascally wabbit…now you’ve got me curious!! So now I have more homework, and I’m getting way too old to be doing “homework”!!

Mainly papal infallibility; However, it is also the notion that the bishop of Rome maintains jurisdiction over the entire Christian church and therefore has authority on the consciences of all the faithful.

I’ve never quite looked at it that way…but then I’ve never really had reason to… I guess I’ve always viewed the Pope as being the Shepherd for Catholics, since most other denominations don’t hold him in the same esteem.

I can accept that Christ singles out Peter as the foundation of the apostolic ministry; I can accept that the bishops of Rome always have had, and always will have, a place of honor in Christian society; the rest is just too far-fetched, unbiblical, and unhistorical. And since the Middle Ages specifically, has fallen into dangerous error.

I’m probably not sure what you are referring to as dangerous error, but feel free to PM me what you think…

Having said that…I would rather drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with Zwingli.

Me too!! But who knows, one of these days I may be in your neck of the woods…and maybe I’ll buy you a beer!!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

?? Do the research yourself. Read the Greek text and see where Petros and Petras is used and how they are used. Jesus founded his Church upon Jesus formally. How could the Christian Church of God be founded upon anything but? Yes, Peter was put in charge but not to do things that are divine.

Ok, first I’ll be honest and say I only scanned this thread to try and catch up. With that said, I did see someone address what I think is the correct answer to the Greek translation and didn’t notice SIA responding to it. If I am wrong, I apologize. His responses are short and easy to read through.

Before I start, can anyone show me any scriptures where Jesus is referred to as “rock”?

Christ spoke Aramaic and named him, Kefa (there are several variations of spelling for this translation one which is Cephas, but only one meaning which is “rock”).

The apostle’s given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the Aramaic nickname, kêfâ, meaning ‘rock’. The final sigma (s) is added in Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine. That the meaning of the name was more important than the name itself is evidenced by the universal acceptance of the Greek translation, Πέτρος (Petros).

Other Greek translations of scriptures, it appears as Petros which does mean a piece of rock. What is being overlooked is the fact that this is also the masculine use of the word, as mentioned above. The feminine use of the word is Petras, which means massive rock, according to these translations.

The author of Matthew and others would not refer to Peter in a feminine way.

G4073
πέτρα
petra
pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

G4074
Πέτρος
Petros
pet’-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

G2786
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas’
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.

G3037
λίθος
lithos
lee’-thos
Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively): - (mill-, stumbling-) stone.

H3710
כּף
kêph
kafe
From H3721; a hollow rock: - rock.

Besides the obvious name disputes, I see someone has brought up the keys and the binding and loosing statements made by the Lord.

What is being overlooked here is the symbolism in the Lord’s choice in places to do this.

This took place at Cesarea Philippi. This mount is a massive rock that was used by Greek pagans who had statues of their Gods there, including Pan.

Pan (Greek Πάν, genitive Πανός) is the Greek god of shepherds and flocks, of mountain wilds, hunting and rustic music: paein means to pasture. He has the hindquarters, legs, and horns of a goat, in the same manner as a faun or satyr. He is recognized as the god of fields, groves, and wooded glens; because of this, Pan is connected to fertility and season of spring.

Another thing about Caesarea Philippi was it was considered evil by non-pagans because of the pagan gods there and Caesarea Philippi was believed to cover hades, as it is called in the Greek translation.

G86
ᾅδης
hadēs
hah’-dace
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen, that is, “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.

Mat 16:18

(DRB) 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.

(Etheridge) Also I say unto thee, that thou art Kipha, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of Sheul shall not prevail against her.

(IGNT+) καγω δε AND I ALSO σοι TO THEE λεγω SAY, οτι THAT συ THOU ει ART πετρος PETER, και AND επι ON ταυτη τη THIS πετρα ROCK οικοδομησω I WILL BUILD μου την MY εκκλησιαν ASSEMBLY, και AND πυλαι GATES αδου ου OF HADES κατισχυσουσιν SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST αυτης IT.

(KJV+) 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.

(KJVA) 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.

(Murdock) Also I say to thee, that thou art Cephas: and upon this rock, I will build my church: and the gates of death shall not triumph over it.

(NJB) So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.

(RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

(Vulgate) et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam

What better place to impress upon the Apostles about the Church, Peter and the gates of hell?

 

[Ronald_E]

In relationship to the opening post I refer to John 17:20-23 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be grought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”
How can we be one if we are divided? If we are divided the world then will not believe that Jesus was sent by the Father. Look at reality. Being divided diminishes Our Lord in the eyes of the world. If we are united Christ becomes real to the rest of mankind.
We support suffering in the world by being divided because we diminish God’s Word with our egotistic bickering. We debate about theology when we could be one as Christ desires us to be.
In the meantime needless suffering continues.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ooooh, you wascally wabbit…now you’ve got me curious!! So now I have more homework, and I’m getting way too old to be doing “homework”!!

Good! The “it has always been the interpretation of the universal church that Mt 16:18 establishes the Rock/Peter/papacy analogy” when about 80% of patristic citations commenting on Mt 16:18 regarded the rock as either Christ or Peter’s confession.

I’ve never quite looked at it that way…but then I’ve never really had reason to… I guess I’ve always viewed the Pope as being the Shepherd for Catholics, since most other denominations don’t hold him in the same esteem.

I am sure he is a shepherd and hey, when he says something, I listen too. It’s the concept of someone 8,000 miles away from me defining what I must believe in order to be in union with his “See.”

I’m probably not sure what you are referring to as dangerous error, but feel free to PM me what you think…

Sure thing.

Me too!! But who knows, one of these days I may be in your neck of the woods…and maybe I’ll buy you a beer!!

Jahvol isnt gut. We can go to Mass and then Divine Service It’ll be like a religious beer tasting tour.

 

[jmcrae]

Good! The “it has always been the interpretation of the universal church that Mt 16:18 establishes the Rock/Peter/papacy analogy” when about 80% of patristic citations commenting on Mt 16:18 regarded the rock as either Christ or Peter’s confession.

If you’re referring to St. John Chrysostom’s commentary, check out his homily for Pentecost Sunday in the Sunday Sermons of the Early Fathers - he reaffirms the Papacy as the anchor-point of Christianity - Vatican I actually quotes directly from that sermon; it’s the centrepiece of the Proclamation of Papal Infallibility - which is all the more telling since he was an Eastern Catholic, and one would have expected him to side with the “honoured but equal” crowd - he didn’t.

I am sure he is a shepherd and hey, when he says something, I listen too. It’s the concept of someone 8,000 miles away from me defining what I must believe in order to be in union with his “See.”

What we “must believe” are things that are, in fact, true - things that help us make sense of who Christ was.

 

[swariffin]

Where in the Scriptures does it tell us that anything that you claim as truth outside of the Scriptures is truth? It doesn’t.

Why don’t you answer my question, then I answer yours, since I asked first.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If you’re referring to St. John Chrysostom’s commentary, check out his homily for Pentecost Sunday in the Sunday Sermons of the Early Fathers - he reaffirms the Papacy as the anchor-point of Christianity - Vatican I actually quotes directly from that sermon; it’s the centrepiece of the Proclamation of Papal Infallibility - which is all the more telling since he was an Eastern Catholic, and one would have expected him to side with the “honoured but equal” crowd - he didn’t.

It’s not my contention that the fathers did not see the bishop of Rome as a significant ecclesiastical office within Christendom. I was referring specifically to the Mt 16 reference. Vatican I stated the church has “always and everywhere” interpreted Mt 16 to be Peter as the Rock forming the papacy. It’s just not the case.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s not my contention that the fathers did not see the bishop of Rome as a significant ecclesiastical office within Christendom. I was referring specifically to the Mt 16 reference. Vatican I stated the church has “always and everywhere” interpreted Mt 16 to be Peter as the Rock forming the papacy. It’s just not the case.

Well, it’s more of a “both/and” situation, rather than an “either/or” situation. The Fathers who spoke of this passage as referring to Christ as Rock, and Simon bar Jonah’s declaration itself as Rock ( that is to say, all of those who addressed the subject at all) also recognized the significance of the renaming, and that Peter himself (including his successors) is intended to be the final or ultimate authority of the Church on earth, especially when taken in light of John 21:15-19.

In other words, there was no Church Father who ever said, “No, the Pope is not the final authority of the Church; that passage means something else.” Rather, they were layering meaning upon meaning (which is what they do with just about every other passage of Scripture, too - they never, ever, took an “either/or” mentality to the Scriptures).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, it’s more of a “both/and” situation, rather than an “either/or” situation. The Fathers who spoke of this passage as referring to Christ as Rock, and Simon bar Jonah’s declaration itself as Rock ( that is to say, all of those who addressed the subject at all) also recognized the significance of the renaming, and that Peter himself (including his successors) is intended to be the final or ultimate authority of the Church on earth, especially when taken in light of John 21:15-19.

In other words, there was no Church Father who ever said, “No, the Pope is not the final authority of the Church; that passage means something else.” Rather, they were layering meaning upon meaning (which is what they do with just about every other passage of Scripture, too - they never, ever, took an “either/or” mentality to the Scriptures).

I agree with your first statement of it being a both/and. They understood the passage multiple ways. That I have no problem with as I lean to that interpretation. I don’t agree with your second statement, though, and I think many of them would’ve been flabbergasted by the claims of Vatican I.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with your first statement of it being a both/and. They understood the passage multiple ways. That I have no problem with as I lean to that interpretation. I don’t agree with your second statement, though, and I think many of them would’ve been flabbergasted by the claims of Vatican I.

Not at all, since the declaration of Papal Infallibility quotes or paraphrases rather extensively from St. John Chrysostom’s Pentecost sermon. He preached this sermon and had it promulgated during the late 300s AD, around the same time that Pope Damasus was commissioning the Bible to be compiled.

It was also shortly after that sermon was published that Pope Innocent I would have infallibly declared and closed the canon of the New Testament - and how could he have done so, if his authority to do so was not widely recognized? (So widely in fact that even Protestants of today do not question it.)

 

[RobHom]

Jahvol ist gut. We can go to Mass and then Divine Service It’ll be like a religious beer tasting tour.

Sounds like the real thing to me!!! I’m in Cinci right now…but I’ll be going south then west…but if I know a couple of days ahead when I’ll be in central Ohio…I’ll certainly let you know!!

Pssst, I’m partial to “Weissbier”

 

[SIA]

What kind of logic is it asking Benedict 16 as the successor of Peter from the scripture? There is none saying that. It also says nothing about somebody born human sometime in the 20th century who later using the nickname SIA and joint the CAF. Based in scriptures, there no such verse ever mention the term of Protestanism, Mormonism, Calvinism, Lutheran, or any other denomation. There is no prophecy of a guy named Martin Luther too.

I never said that the Scriptures spoke to Protestantism, Mormanism etc. They don’t talk about any of us today specifically (except for Jesus’ biological brothers of course). But, they also do not speak of a line of popes who will posess the same authority that Jesus gave Peter. This is proven by the anti-Scriptural actions and teachings of the RCC today. Jesus would in no way approve of many of these.

 

[jmcrae]

I never said that the Scriptures spoke to Protestantism, Mormanism etc. They don’t talk about any of us today specifically (except for Jesus’ biological brothers of course). But, they also do not speak of a line of popes who will posess the same authority that Jesus gave Peter. This is proven by the anti-Scriptural actions and teachings of the RCC today. Jesus would in no way approve of many of these.

Why did Jesus cite Isaiah 22, which speaks of a Succession, in Matthew 16:18-19, if He did not intend for the Office of Peter (which He established in that passage) to continue with successors?

 

[SIA]

Why did Jesus cite Isaiah 22, which speaks of a Succession, in Matthew 16:18-19, if He did not intend for the Office of Peter (which He established in that passage) to continue with successors?

I never said that he didn’t intend for his Church to continue with successors to Peter. My point is that the RCC has gone off the tracks and refuses to admit it. With Luther, with diabolical popes and with the most recent child sex abuse scandals and convictions.

 

[jmcrae]

I never said that he didn’t intend for his Church to continue with successors to Peter. My point is that the RCC has gone off the tracks and refuses to admit it. With Luther, with diabolical popes and with the most recent child sex abuse scandals and convictions.

The Church most emphatically did not approve of Luther or any of his tactics; nor did it ever sanction the “diabolical” actions of various Popes, nor the child sex abuse scandal (in the majority of cases, they were homosexual relationships with young adults and older teenagers - they weren’t children, as such).

Why do you think we have now banned homosexual clergy even if they are celibate, and banned persons with homosexual tendencies (whether they act on them or not) from serving in any capacity whatsoever in the Church? Because we “approve” of this behaviour?

The fact that it happened does not mean that the Church “approved” it, or do you think that anybody who breaks the rules anywhere is being “approved” by the people who made the rules and who are now punishing them and making sure similar incidents don’t happen in the future?

 

[ufamtobie]

That’s surely a matter of opinion.

It is Jesus Christ’s promise, and that is the THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT! Amen Amen.

Ufamtobie

 

[swariffin]

I never said that he didn’t intend for his Church to continue with successors to Peter. My point is that the RCC has gone off the tracks and refuses to admit it. With Luther, with diabolical popes and with the most recent child sex abuse scandals and convictions.

Peter himself denied Jesus three times, not long after Jesus gave His word to him. Are you saying that by Peter’s denial, Peter refused to become the successor?

RCC has gone off tracks? Before we touch the issue of the dogmas, let me ask you some questions. Do you believe in the deity of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe in the Trinity?

 

[SIA]

The Church most emphatically did not approve of Luther or any of his tactics; nor did it ever sanction the “diabolical” actions of various Popes, nor the child sex abuse scandal (in the majority of cases, they were homosexual relationships with young adults and older teenagers - they weren’t children, as such).

Why do you think we have now banned homosexual clergy even if they are celibate, and banned persons with homosexual tendencies (whether they act on them or not) from serving in any capacity whatsoever in the Church? Because we “approve” of this behaviour?

The fact that it happened does not mean that the Church “approved” it, or do you think that anybody who breaks the rules anywhere is being “approved” by the people who made the rules and who are now punishing them and making sure similar incidents don’t happen in the future?

You are just like the wife of a long time abusive alcoholic. No matter what, you always have an excuse or some kind of justification of the circumstances or behavior of your husband . How sad.