The gates of hell shall not prevail against WHO?

[Libertarian_FL]

This is a just question. However, the Catholic Church is not a “bible based” church as they are commonly created today among our separated brethren. the Catholic Church was alive and well, functioning as Jesus set it up, for decades prior to the writing of any of the gospels. What is written there is not the Source of our faith, but the reflection of it. The Church was founded by Christ, not by the writing of it. Does that make sense?

We understand it the way we do because we read what is written from the perspective of what the Apostles believed and taught.

Yes but doesn’t the basis of the Papacy rest on this passage and others that possibly could be either inaccurate or false. Like I stated Jesus never wrote a gospel that we know of so how can we be sure your Biblical foundation is what Jesus wanted? And if your using mere tradition set down by men ,and I mean that quite literally, isn’t that no different than Sola Scriptura since your also making doctrine which is no different than many Protestant denominations.

I’m not being critical just being reflective on these matters.

 

[Through_Him]

Gates hold things in and keep things out.
Again I ask what are the gates of hell?

The gates of hell is the power of death. Spiritual death. Jesus made Peter head of the community of the Church. He became the spokesperson.

 

[Javl]

Yes but doesn’t the basis of the Papacy rest on this passage and others that possibly could be either inaccurate or false. Like I stated Jesus never wrote a gospel that we know of so how can we be sure your Biblical foundation is what Jesus wanted? And if your using mere tradition set down by men ,and I mean that quite literally, isn’t that no different than Sola Scriptura since your also making doctrine which is no different than many Protestant denominations.

I’m not being critical just being reflective on these matters.

In that light what you are saying is that what has been considered scripture ( the NT ) can be just as false as what has been considered false and spurious in what was not included in the NT. In other words we could have thrown the baby out with the bath water!

How do we know that what was written is what Jesus said? We have Jesus word for it,especially when He said that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us all things. We believe Him and rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and He has never let us down or left us ( although we have given Him a hard time and sometimes do not listen to Him ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[spockrates]

Ask any forum moderator, or the forum director.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem.

Well, I don’t know any forum moderator from Adam. How can I be sure the one I ask tells me the truth? But you appear sincere. Do you know of any Catholic who has ever been booted from the forum for life?

 

[spockrates]

The gates of hell is the power of death. Spiritual death. Jesus made Peter head of the community of the Church. He became the spokesperson.

Sounds reasonable to me, Through!



How, then does Spiritual death not overcome Jesus’ Church?

 

[josie_L]

I fail to see your point? The churches in the Middle East were largely wiped out by Islam. What’s the point? Some churches fell into sin and heresy. Many became gnostics, some pelagians, some docetists, some montanists, some Arians. What’s your point? Many have fallen into sin and have fallen off the bus of the Church throughout the last 2,000 years. Are you implying that since some have fallen into heresy or apostacy that somehow that means the overall Catholic Universal Church that Christ built on Peter is also a thing of the past, destroyed and irrelevent as well? No one ever said that people within the Church will not go down a dark path or that some churches within the Catholic Church will not travel down the way to heresy? But the ship of the Catholic Church, the Church guided by the papacy is still sailing. Some crewmen have jumped off, and Satan’s pirates have done some damage at times, but the ship still sails. And it drives some people nuts!

This description makes me think of St. Don Bosco’s prophetic dream (are you familiar with it?).

 

[Javl]

Well, I don’t know any forum moderator from Adam. How can I be sure the one I ask tells me the truth? But you appear sincere. Do you know of any Catholic who has ever been booted from the forum for life?

No. None at all.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Marlowann]

It is not clear to me that the syntax of Matthew 16:18 indicates that Jesus is referring to Peter as the rock.

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

If Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock, then why did he not say “and upon YOU I will build my church?” Since the other disciples were probably paying attention (and obviously, they were present), do we have any reason to believe that Jesus had turned to his disciples and gestured towards Peter when he mentions the rock, as such: “and upon this rock (points towards Peter) I will build my church?” It’s not totally inconceivable, but I don’t see any reason to believe it to be true.

Is it not simpler to believe that Peter’s confession is the rock, as anyone who affirms his confession honestly is essentially entering into the church?

 

[Stephen168]

It is not clear to me that the syntax of Matthew 16:18 indicates that Jesus is referring to Peter as the rock.

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

If Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock, then why did he not say “and upon YOU I will build my church?”

That thou art Cephas (Peter), and upon YOU (this Cephas ) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against my church (it.)

 

[Xavierlives]

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

Although, I think the thread is a bit undone at this point, one of the original issue was what does Jesus mean when he says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (even though the topic is labeled “the gates of hell shall not prevail against WHO’).

**Immediately the Catholics and the protestants dug in for the fight because everyone is used to fighting about “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” ** But did this question really require any division?

A recap of the argument over “the gates of hell” are basically

The existential Hisalone posits:

What are the gates of hell?

Javl attempts to answer with

The gates of hell are the machinations and power of Satan and his horde in trying to destroy Jesus’ Church. Although he has done damage to it because of man’s lust for power, etc., he will never succede because Jesus said so.

The now literalist Hisalone says,

Gates hold things in and keep things out.
Again I ask what are the gates of hell?

Now frustrated Hisalone asks,

What do the GATES of hell do?

The defensive Javl says,

Now you are nit picking and playing with semantics. If you do not understand what is meant by “the gates of hell” then pray to the Holy Spirit for enlightment in understanding scripture ( and not itnterpreting it ).

And for the Catholic perspective with a splash of slap-in-the-face,

Well, well, Hisalone, you’re obviously here in a moment of providence to enlighten we “misguided” Catholics. I’m not clear to which denomination or creed you belong? In any case, the gates of hell are Satan himself who mxes lies with the truth. The gates of hell are the errors of heresy, the infiltration of sinful teachings that are full of lies. The gates of hell are immoral theology and morality. …] If you can’t see the gates, that gives a clue into your spirituality…

Ricko comes in with a spiritual answer of

The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. …]

He is not speaking of actual, physical gates.

Hisalone reaffirms

…] The gates of hell cannot prevail in keeping Christs Church from liberating those in bondage nor can it prevail against those bound being set free and going out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

Then the OP’s intent is made clear with

I like your statements especially: “bastardized river dance” and I am asking your permission to use that phrase when I debate again with the protestants about the gates of hell being unleashed by the reformation.

I wonder though…what the protestants will interpret the phrase “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church” since the church is invisible and each denominations claimed to be based on the bible and yet cannot agree if left is left and right is right.

Any protestants here care to comment about “the gates of hell” interpretation?

Anyway, thanks guys…I got better ammo now to talk about this particular subject next time around. I like this catholic forum because I can learn so much things in a very short time.

I am saddened by the whole thing. This young person was looking for ammo for the big fight that “gates of hell being unleashed by the reformation” and what is handed to him? The big fight with ammo to spare.

All I ask is, who prevailed here?

 

[Javl]

It is not clear to me that the syntax of Matthew 16:18 indicates that Jesus is referring to Peter as the rock.

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

If Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock, then why did he not say “and upon YOU I will build my church?” Since the other disciples were probably paying attention (and obviously, they were present), do we have any reason to believe that Jesus had turned to his disciples and gestured towards Peter when he mentions the rock, as such: “and upon this rock (points towards Peter) I will build my church?” It’s not totally inconceivable, but I don’t see any reason to believe it to be true.

Is it not simpler to believe that Peter’s confession is the rock, as anyone who affirms his confession honestly is essentially entering into the church?

Now you are nit picking and playing with semantics. It is to be read and understood exactly as it is stated. Don’t you think it could have been changed many, many years ago to favor the CC? But it hasn’t because it says exactly what it means. Peter is the rock. Why else would Jesus change his name from Simon-bar-Jonah?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Absolutely right. The poster to whom you replied says, “why doesn’t Jesus say on YOU I will build the Church?” One could counter and say, why didn’t Jesus say, “and upon this CONFESSION OF YOURS I will build my Church?” semantics goes both ways. It’s painfully obvious that Peter makes the confession of truth about Christ’s nature and identity and purpose. Then Peter is given a unique charism and office, named for what he is, the rock. History, the ECF’s and common sense show us as much.

QUOTE=Javl;5997677]Now you are nit picking and playing with semantics. It is to be read and understood exactly as it is stated. Don’t you think it could have been changed many, many years ago to favor the CC? But it hasn’t because it says exactly what it means. Peter is the rock. Why else would Jesus change his name from Simon-bar-Jonah?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Hisalone]

Now you are nit picking and playing with semantics. It is to be read and understood exactly as it is stated. Don’t you think it could have been changed many, many years ago to favor the CC? But it hasn’t because it says exactly what it means. Peter is the rock. Why else would Jesus change his name from Simon-bar-Jonah?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Jesus changed Peters name long before this read John 1.
God is refered to as rock in a number of biblical verses. There is no reason for him to change it up here. Christ the Son of the Living God is the rock that the Church is built on.

 

[Xavierlives]

Absolutely right. The poster to whom you replied says, “why doesn’t Jesus say on YOU I will build the Church?” One could counter and say, why didn’t Jesus say, “and upon this CONFESSION OF YOURS I will build my Church?” semantics goes both ways. It’s painfully obvious that Peter makes the confession of truth about Christ’s nature and identity and purpose. Then Peter is given a unique charism and office, named for what he is, the rock. History, the ECF’s and common sense show us as much.
Javl;5997677:

Now you are nit picking and playing with semantics. It is to be read and understood exactly as it is stated. Don’t you think it could have been changed many, many years ago to favor the CC? But it hasn’t because it says exactly what it means. Peter is the rock. Why else would Jesus change his name from Simon-bar-Jonah?

That’s great but what is the call of the question?

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

I am not disputing about Peter’s role but the last phrase: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

The Catholic Church has been standing there for 2000 years and it will stand there until the end of times, there is no doubt about this since the Lord himself who wills it.

What about other churches?

Can we say that the gates of hell have prevailed against the continuously divided protestant denominations since Martin Luther?

Or, is there any protestant denominations that have been closing down since its founding?
I am wondering, in real world scenario, what effect a church will suffer as a result of the gates of hell prevail against it.

The Anglican is splitting because of the homosexual ordinations but the church itself is still standing.
The Catholic church suffered many scandals and corruptions in the past but it’s still standing.

Or maybe the gates of hell will not prevail also against all protestant denominations until the end of times?

 

[spockrates]

No. None at all.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

And how many non-Catholics do you know who have been booted for good?

 

[Javl]

And how many non-Catholics do you know who have been booted for good?

Also none. I haven’t heard of anyone being booted since I’ve been in this forum.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[guanophore]

Yes but doesn’t the basis of the Papacy rest on this passage and others that possibly could be either inaccurate or false. Like I stated Jesus never wrote a gospel that we know of so how can we be sure your Biblical foundation is what Jesus wanted? And if your using mere tradition set down by men ,and I mean that quite literally, isn’t that no different than Sola Scriptura since your also making doctrine which is no different than many Protestant denominations.

I’m not being critical just being reflective on these matters.

I don’t think you read my post, Lib, because you are asking the same question again/making the same assertion. I am not sure how to say it differently. NOTHING in the Catholic church rests on ANY “passage” in the NT. All of the Catholic Church rests upon Jesus, the cornerstone, the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. It was they through whom the NT was penned, inerrant and inspired. This pasage is in the NT because it reflects what the Apostles believed and taught.

If you insist on this "biblical foundation: fallacy, I don’t think I can help you. Jesus did not build His church that way.
sacred tradition is not “mere”. It is the Living Word of God preserved infalliblly in the Church, just as He promised. All Cathloic doctrine comes from Jesus, and is preserved in the Sacred Scriptures, and the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Javl]

Jesus changed Peters name long before this read John 1.
God is refered to as rock in a number of biblical verses. There is no reason for him to change it up here. Christ the Son of the Living God is the rock that the Church is built on.

Why would Christ build a Church on Himself if He is the cornerstone? Peter knew exactly what Jesus was saying, but I don’t think you do. Also if Jesus changed Peter’s name long before this, then why did He repeat it?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[guanophore]

It is not clear to me that the syntax of Matthew 16:18 indicates that Jesus is referring to Peter as the rock.

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

If Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock, then why did he not say “and upon YOU I will build my church?” Since the other disciples were probably paying attention (and obviously, they were present), do we have any reason to believe that Jesus had turned to his disciples and gestured towards Peter when he mentions the rock, as such: “and upon this rock (points towards Peter) I will build my church?” It’s not totally inconceivable, but I don’t see any reason to believe it to be true.

He DID say that! “YOU are Rock, and upon this Rock, I will built…” Of course Peter’s confession of faith is also part of that Rock. They cannot be separated, any more than Peter can be separated from his Cornerstone.

Two other elements are helpful to understand this passage, one is that the Apostles understood Peter to be the referent. I think you are right, since they were there, they could tell.

The other is to look at the small handful of times when God has changed someones name in Scripture. Each occasion represented a drastic change in the identity and life of the person.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus changed Peters name long before this read John 1.
God is refered to as rock in a number of biblical verses. There is no reason for him to change it up here. Christ the Son of the Living God is the rock that the Church is built on.

Why do you think Jesus change Simon bar Jonah’s name?

Why, when He did it, did he say you “shall be called” (future) Peter?

Why did everyone call him Cephas?