“An ecclesial body”, not the ecclesial body - now there’s the rub. FWIW, here’s what the Haydock commentary has to say:po18guy:
What do verses 1 through 4 of 2 Timothy 4 states disqualifies an ecclesiastical body of being “the pillar & shield of the truth”?
You didn’t read far enough into chapter 4. Keep reading to get to the point of my comment.
But the difference is the context of Matthew 16:19 is that Jesus is giving the keys to Peter FOR THE PURPOSE of binding & loosing. Jesus later extends this binding & loosing to the rest of the church. Ergo, it must also possess the keys. Otherwise, they would not be able to bind & loose. Like Eliakim, Jesus possesses the keys, but these are different “keys” than the ones mentioned in Matthew 16. Like it’s been said elsewhere, “Don’t confuse metaphors” including metaphors about keys.
You original comment was bringing up 2 Timothy 3 & the church being the pillar & shield of the truth. My comment was that for ANY ecclesiastical body to qualify as this “pillar & shield,” they must not do the things mentioned by Paul in chapter 4 vv. 4-5. It has nothing to do with Peter as the rock. I was addressing your comment.
Rock. The arguing has been going on since 1517 at least. To focus on a single word or verse from the seamless garment that is scripture seems academic at best, disingenuous at worst.SaberBob:
If Jesus was speaking Aramaic, the Aramaic equivalent would be 'cela, which would directly translate into petra in Greek. Therefore, the more accurate translation into Greek would be “You are Cephas on this 'cela I will build my church.” So, you are right, it is a play-on-words.
The fact that Catholicism uses Matthew 16:18 as the proof-text of Peter being the rock, ergo the head of the church, ergo the first bishop of Rome, ergo the first Pope, is hardly “academic.” It’s the whole bedrock of the faith!
I think you are confusing Peter with Samson. LOL! (“Can you smell what the Nazarite is cookin’!”)Who is calling Peter a “pebble.” That is a Catholic strawman, based on the belief that Protestants discern “rock” (petra) from “stone” (petros), that petros means pebble. Protestants who study the Greek know that petros doesn’t mean pebble, which is a different Greek word. Probably best next time not to assume, but ask.
Not at all! Do we forget the direct lineage, the writing of the early fathers?
No confusion here…just going by the events recorded in scripture.
I write not just for your eyes, but for any and all who read this. Certainly you must be aware that rock/pebble is the hackneyed bible Christian shibboleth(?) Despite your apparent incredulity, I make nothing up.
Who did not all agree Peter was the rock. Some did. Some didn’t. Some thought it was Christ (like Augustine). Some thought it was Peter’s confession.
I edited my previous response regarding your comment about “Super Peter.”
I hear it just as much from Catholic apologists, as if it’s a unified belief of most, if not all, Protestants that “petros” means “pebble.” It’s not.
Agreed. And I have. I pray you do as well. But I wouldn’t call it “meaningless,” because this particular subject is more significant than most, which separate Catholics from Protestants & Orthodox sects. Blessings to you. BTW, love Indiana Jones. The Raiders of the Lost Ark is still my all time favorite. Last Crusade is a close second.
First there needs to be evidence from Scripture that Jesus gave each and everyone of the apostles the keys in Matthew 16 or Matthew 18, and that is just not there. There is Scriptural evidence that Peter was given the keys.
It does change the fact because it goes back to the question, who has the authority to bind and loose, Peter. The papacy, has the authority to bind and loose.
This you would have difficulty proving. We know that at the time of the discussions they had doubts and disagreements about the OT Canon but what they continued to believe through their Christian walk, we don’t know and if here they may just disagree with what you are saying about them.
Been a Protestant all my life. I’m not throwing stones here or anything, but I never ever heard about the pebble.
Okay, that is a very, very long stretch. That is definitely taking a bible verse completely out of the rest of the Bible.
Exactly, as I said earlier, this is where one goes when one wants to get the Church out of the picture, so they can privately interpret scripture as they personally choose. It is a form of rebellion against God.
In Matthew 18 it is universally understood that Christ is talking to all the disciples. He doesn’t stop talking to all, turn to Peter alone, and say only you Peter get the keys to bind and loose. All the disciples were given equal authority.
Man can I relate when I was protestant. For me personally though, what kept me from submitting was a sense of pride. I was proud for thinking that I can be an authority of Scripture.
Yes, but in Matthew 16 Jesus is speaking only to Peter.
Yes and the Church’s teaching and the Pope must align with Scripture.
In all charity, Protestants reject authority and rely only on their own private interpretation of what they think God is saying in the Bible.
But you do, you yield it to yourself, when you rely on your own personal interpretation.
Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium and no I would not now ever leave God’s Church, but there was a time when I was in the protestant world and that is why I understand the protestant thinking.
Yes, I agree, it will, at least ways for now until Jesus supplies divine intervention.