There is a lot riding on Pope Peter

[Volodymyr_988]

When this section of the Gospel of Matthew would come up in our old Baptist bible-studies my wife always had a knack of mentioning how the Peter was buried under St. Peters Cathedral and thus Jesus ‘literally’ built His Church on Peter. This would usually be received with strange looks and some discomfort, but she made a great point. Of course I should mention that my wife was raised Catholic and the faith she learned as a child obviously stuck with her. Now we are both Catholic.

St. Peter’s Basilica is not the Cathedral of the Pope of Rome. St. Peter’s Basilica was (maybe is) the traditional church for the Patriarch of Constantinople when he visits Rome.

The Cathedral Church of the Pope of Rome is St. John Lateran.

 

[adrift]

Jesus was making a wordplay on Peter’s name. Peter(Petros in greek) means “a movable rock or stone” The word translated “rock” (petra in greek) means “an immovable rock formation or rock mass.” Peter wrote, “you are living stones that God is building into His spiritual temple. What’s more, you are His holy priests.” Also he wrote, “You are coming to Christ, who is the living cornerstone of God’s temple.”
What this is all saying is that when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church.” the “rock” is the truth that He “is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” And that all who believe in Him and confess Him as Lord are His holy priests and the living stones that God is building into His spiritual temple.

Just went through this in another thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=128185

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

Petros is not a Greek word Petra is. It is difficult for those not familiar with languages that have feminine and masculine ending to understand the usage. Petra is a feminine noun word for rock. The a on the end denotes this. However, because Peter is male they made the ending male hence the os but it did not change the meaning of the word which is only rock.

This isn’t the first time a name is changed. When a name is changed it denotes something big just like it does here.

 

[mark_a]

When this section of the Gospel of Matthew would come up in our old Baptist bible-studies my wife always had a knack of mentioning how the Peter was buried under St. Peters Cathedral and thus Jesus ‘literally’ built His Church on Peter.

This is the first time I’ve heard this. Of course, many deny that Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[Nita]

…Now let’s read on a little further shall we? Matthew 18:18. The authority that was given to Peter in chapter 16 is given to the other apostles as well. “Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus is speaking about church discipline. What do you take this verse to mean?

Considering the context (18:15-17), I take it to mean the power to excommunicate when members refuse to accept church authority. There is nothing to indicate they were given anything like the overall power of the keys which was given to Peter.

Nita

 

[Cranch]

Hi there cranch. Thankyou for your reply. Not to worry, I caught the sarcasm. Very clever. (a little sarcasm of my own) Anyway, yes, that is Peter getting the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Now let’s read on a little further shall we? Matthew 18:18. The authority that was given to Peter in chapter 16 is given to the other apostles as well. “Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus is speaking about church discipline. What do you take this verse to mean?

This authority given to the Apostles resides today in the Catholic Church which is the inheritor of the Apostolic Tradition handed down from the Apostles themselves for the continuance on earth of the Church Christ founded. However, Peter alone was singled out by Jesus and given the keys, and others here have pointed out his leadership as described in Scripture. There is still only one leader of the whole Catholic Church on earth and that is Peter’s successor the Pope.

 

[jabajaba]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Apostles handed down there Apostolic authority to the catholic church? On the contrary Acts 1:22, and I Cor 9:1, state that only eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have Apostolic authority.
Now in regards to Matt 18. According to the Christian Research Institute, “the original text reads, ‘You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.’ Notice how Jesus distinguished between Petros (Peter’s name in the Greek, which means “stone”) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”) For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was simply use the word “Petros” twice. In this way, He would have clearly demonstrated that the church would be built upon Peter. However, as we have seen, He used a different word—namely “petra”–to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play by Jesus on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” or “rock” to refer to Peter’s confession—that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of The Living God. Thus Jesus, (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established.
Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by the builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the Apostle Paul calls Jesus the Foundation(I Cor. 3:11), the Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (I Cor. 10:4) of the church. And so, in light of this, we must conclude that the Bible does not support the idea of Peter being the very first Pope.”
Such is the position of the Christian Research Institute.
Furthermore, I would say that to assert that believers in Jesus Christ need the Pope or anyone else on earth to be our mediator is to claim that what Jesus Christ did on the cross is insufficient to reconcile us to our Heavenly Father.
Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative or malicious in any way. I am simply trying to understand the Catholic position.

 

[Beeline]

Jesus was making a wordplay on Peter’s name. Peter(Petros in greek) means “a movable rock or stone” The word translated “rock” (petra in greek) means “an immovable rock formation or rock mass.” Peter wrote, “you are living stones that God is building into His spiritual temple. What’s more, you are His holy priests.” Also he wrote, “You are coming to Christ, who is the living cornerstone of God’s temple.”
What this is all saying is that when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church.” the “rock” is the truth that He “is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” And that all who believe in Him and confess Him as Lord are His holy priests and the living stones that God is building into His spiritual temple.

The Catholic Church agrees that the Rock is both Peter and his faith…both interpretations are correct. And of course you’d be quite foolish not
to take note that Jesus renamed Simon to Peter.
There is a purpose to everything…no?

 

[Beeline]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Apostles handed down there Apostolic authority to the catholic church? On the contrary Acts 1:22, and I Cor 9:1, state that only eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have Apostolic authority.
Now in regards to Matt 18. According to the Christian Research Institute, “the original text reads, ‘You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.’ Notice how Jesus distinguished between Petros (Peter’s name in the Greek, which means “stone”) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”) For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was simply use the word “Petros” twice. In this way, He would have clearly demonstrated that the church would be built upon Peter. However, as we have seen, He used a different word—namely “petra”–to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play by Jesus on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” or “rock” to refer to Peter’s confession—that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of The Living God. Thus Jesus, (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established.
Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by the builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the Apostle Paul calls Jesus the Foundation(I Cor. 3:11), the Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (I Cor. 10:4) of the church. And so, in light of this, we must conclude that the Bible does not support the idea of Peter being the very first Pope.”
Such is the position of the Christian Research Institute.
Furthermore, I would say that to assert that believers in Jesus Christ need the Pope or anyone else on earth to be our mediator is to claim that what Jesus Christ did on the cross is insufficient to reconcile us to our Heavenly Father.
Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative or malicious in any way. I am simply trying to understand the Catholic position.

This link covers all the arguments:
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
below is an important snippet of what it covers.

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

 

[Cranch]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Apostles handed down there Apostolic authority to the catholic church? On the contrary Acts 1:22, and I Cor 9:1, state that only eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have Apostolic authority.
Now in regards to Matt 18. According to the Christian Research Institute, “the original text reads, ‘You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.’ Notice how Jesus distinguished between Petros (Peter’s name in the Greek, which means “stone”) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”) For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was simply use the word “Petros” twice. In this way, He would have clearly demonstrated that the church would be built upon Peter. However, as we have seen, He used a different word—namely “petra”–to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play by Jesus on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” or “rock” to refer to Peter’s confession—that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of The Living God. Thus Jesus, (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established.
Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by the builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the Apostle Paul calls Jesus the Foundation(I Cor. 3:11), the Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (I Cor. 10:4) of the church. And so, in light of this, we must conclude that the Bible does not support the idea of Peter being the very first Pope.”
Such is the position of the Christian Research Institute.
Furthermore, I would say that to assert that believers in Jesus Christ need the Pope or anyone else on earth to be our mediator is to claim that what Jesus Christ did on the cross is insufficient to reconcile us to our Heavenly Father.
Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative or malicious in any way. I am simply trying to understand the Catholic position.

It’s good that you are trying to understand the Catholic position. But you don’t seem to be reading the posts in your own thread. It has been stated a few times now that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that Matthew wrote the original Gospel in Aramaic. That means any discussion of Petra and Petros is pointless because those words were not used by the inspired author. This is made very clear again in Beeline’s post above. Are you simply discarding this as Catholic propoganda?

As to Apostolic authority, your citations concern electing a replacement Apostle and Paul affirming he is an Apostle. They say nothing against the Apostles handing on their authority, which they did by laying on of hands and creating priests to preach and teach in the early church: Acts 14:22, 15:22-27; 1Tim 4:11-14, 5:17. The Apostolic succession is universally confirmed by the Early Church Fathers also.

Finally you’re not not going to be viewed favorably by blatantly misrepresenting what others write on this forum. I said the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church on earth. Did I call him a “mediator”? No. Did I “claim that what Jesus Christ did on the cross is insufficient”? No.

 

[mercygate]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Apostles handed down there Apostolic authority to the catholic church? On the contrary Acts 1:22, and I Cor 9:1, state that only eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have Apostolic authority.

There were still living eyewitnesses in the community. It made sense to choose from among those. Your problem with handing down authority to the Catholic Church is really a problem about whether any authority exists among human beings in the Church.

Since the Great Commission requires the eleven to make disciples, to teach and to baptize “unto the end of the world,” *and *given the reference to the transmittable authority of stewardship in the promise of the keys, and noting Paul’s reference to himself as "least of the Apostles" (though he was not an eyewitness to the Resurrection), and to his own ministry in 2 Cor as having been entrusted to him as an ambassador, it makes sense to understand that authority MUST be ongoing in the Church if the mission will endure “unto the end of the world.”

Though Paul received a unique commission, he did not go out on mission until authorized by the laying on of hands from the Church. He sought the counsel of the 3 Apostles (specifying that he spoke with nobody else) in Jerusalem – including Peter – when a problem arose in Antioch that he could not settle and also to receive affirmation that he was preaching a true gospel. He was not a one-man operation.

Now in regards to Matt 18. According to the Christian Research Institute, . . . (elided to save space) He used a different word—namely “petra”–to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play by Jesus on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” or “rock” to refer to Peter’s confession—that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of The Living God. Thus Jesus, (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established.

Even Protestants don’t buy this. The grammar will not support it, nor does the context. I respect Hank Hanegraaf, but on this subject he does not meet his usual standard. In limiting the discussion of Peter’s authority to Mt. 16, you can do the linguistic flim-flam (though not with real credibility), but leaving out Luke 18, Jn 21, Isa 20, Acts 1, 2Cor, it doesn’t hold up.

Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by the builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the Apostle Paul calls Jesus the Foundation(I Cor. 3:11), the Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (I Cor. 10:4) of the church. And so, in light of this, we must conclude that the Bible does not support the idea of Peter being the very first Pope."

That Peter refers to Christ as the Rock and Cornerstone does not undercut the apostolic authority committed to the eleven and the “first” place given to Peter. How could the chief of the Apostles possibly preach anything other than that Jesus is **THE **rock, THE, cornerstone? Matthew starts his list of Apostles: “first, Simon who is called Peter.” Everybody knows Simon was not the first called. “First” must relate to something other than the sequence of the call. Every other list of Apostles in the New Testament names him first.

. . . Furthermore, I would say that to assert that believers in Jesus Christ need the Pope or anyone else on earth to be our mediator is to claim that what Jesus Christ did on the cross is insufficient to reconcile us to our Heavenly Father.
Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative or malicious in any way. I am simply trying to understand the Catholic position.

To understand the mediation of Jesus without understanding the means he gave of perpetuating it through “making disciples, baptising, and teaching” – in addition to exercising the power of the Keys in the Sacraments is a failure to view the “big plan.” Catholics do not see the Church as a barrier between our souls and our Savior. We see it as an edifice made of all those “living stones” (Peter’s words again) reaching back through the ages to the Upper Room. That edificie is built on “the foundation of the apostles.”

The main issue for you, it seems, is not *Peter *or papacy, but apostolic authority. Peter’s position is secondary to that. Even if a person accepts apostolic authority but still reject’s the role of Peter’s Church, you have to ask yourself – in light of the New Testament witness: What kind of “Apostolic” Church do you have if Peter is *not *in your apostolic household?

 

[adrift]

For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was simply use the word “Petros” twice.

Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic using the word Cephas.

So it would be Your name is Cephas and upon this cephas I will build my Church. The confusion is for those who cannot accept this.

 

[trogiah]

I am not a catholic but am learning about the church. Matt 16:15-17 gets brought up an awful lot. But not for the right reason. A catholic priest told me that Peter is the rock that Jesus built the church on because Jesus knew that Peter had unfailing faith, and that Peter is greek for rock. Well, I believe that Peter is greek for rock. What I don’t agree with is that Peter had unfailing faith. 10 chapters later his faith was a miserable failure. The ‘Rock’ that Jesus built His church on is the truth which Peter spoke. That Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

You don’t have to go 10 chapters later. Less than 5 verses later Jesus is calling Peter a satan. Oddly, Jesus doesn’t take back the keys.

I think perhaps there is less riding on Pope Peter than you suggest. I think that there is less riding on the words and actions of any other pope, bishop, priest, or other minister than many would think. Jesus is the head of the Church. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of any other church. The historical significance and importance of the bishop of Rome does matter, though not as much as many seem to think. All leaders carry a certain measure of authority among humanity but that authority never approaches or replaces God.

Jim

 

[jabajaba]

Trogiah, I understand and agree with most of what you are saying. What I am having difficulty with however is the emphasis that is being placed on the keys. Certainly, Jesus said “And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” There is no disputing that. But it sounds as though some people take that literally; as though Jesus actually reached into His pocket and took out a set of keys and handed them to Peter. I am not in any way belittling anyone, because I may be misunderstanding you all on this.

 

[mercygate]

Trogiah, I understand and agree with most of what you are saying. What I am having difficulty with however is the emphasis that is being placed on the keys. Certainly, Jesus said “And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” There is no disputing that. But it sounds as though some people take that literally; as though Jesus actually reached into His pocket and took out a set of keys and handed them to Peter. I am not in any way belittling anyone, because I may be misunderstanding you all on this.

As a newcomer to the Forums, you may not be aware that The Catechism of the Catholic Church is always a good place to start when trying to understand the official story on anything.

I’ll bet you could figure out that when the Church speaks of the Keys, she is not speaking of physical keys:

CCC Paragraph 553: Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The power of the keys in the Old Testament was given to Israel’s prime minister when the king was not in the country.

In the New Testament Jesus is still king even though he ascended into heaven and his prime minister on Earth–the pope has been given the keys.

 

[jabajaba]

The power of the keys in the Old Testament was given to Israel’s prime minister when the king was not in the country.

In the New Testament Jesus is still king even though he ascended into heaven and his prime minister on Earth–the pope has been given the keys.

Could you direct me to the Old Testament scriptures that state this?

 

[RNRobert]

Could you direct me to the Old Testament scriptures that state this?

Isaiah 22:22-23.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Isaiah 22:22-23.

My oh My… You might have wanted to finish this chapter…
23"I will drive him like a (AG)peg in a firm place,
And he will become a (AH)throne of glory to his father’s house.

24"So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars.

25"In that day," declares the LORD of hosts, "the (AI)peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even (AJ)break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the (AK)LORD has spoken."

 

[RNRobert]

My oh My… You might have wanted to finish this chapter…
23"I will drive him like a (AG)peg in a firm place,
And he will become a (AH)throne of glory to his father’s house.

24"So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars.

25"In that day," declares the LORD of hosts, "the (AI)peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even (AJ)break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the (AK)LORD has spoken."

And this is relevant, how?

Peter did die for his faith, but does that mean that his office ceased to exist?
Besides, the OT was only a imperfect forshadowing of the New. You might as well say that because the Davidic Kingship ceased to exist in Israel, that one day Jesus’s Kingship will cease.

 

[MrStain]

St. Peter’s Basilica is not the Cathedral of the Pope of Rome. St. Peter’s Basilica was (maybe is) the traditional church for the Patriarch of Constantinople when he visits Rome.

The Cathedral Church of the Pope of Rome is St. John Lateran.

oops. Thanks for the correction. I should have said St. Peter’s Basilica.