What's your Church's teaching on Matthew 16:18 and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Its not possession which cause’s one to schism nor did I say that. Its not being in communion which may or may not cause issues. If someone is not in communion and claims a different theology, is it an issue? Is God binding and loosing differently for different theologies?

Its Peters Faith and Person the Church is built on the Keys are deposited in the Church which was built upon Peter. If you are not in communion what makes you think you have any keys or power to bind and loose?

Its does but just for inquiry purpose’s. Why would this power to bind and loose not do the same? And doesn’t one being ordained a Bishop already represent their authority?



Nobody said this. Look at it this way, if you are not in communion and are a Bishop do you have the keys? Do you have the power to bind and loose? If you do show me in the early Church.

Actually I’m not arguing anything, I do believe all the Bishops in communion with Rome share the keys with the Pope. I’m merely excising my mind as to the beliefs of some the early church fathers thinking posted, which we agree all were in communion and thought slightly different about this, they all claimed unity was essential
I apologize if I have misunderstood you. Your meaning in the following statement was, it seems, not clear to me:
"If everyone has the keys and authority to bind and lose, than like Church’s can be set up not in communion…
You seem to be saying if everyone has the keys and authority to bind and loose, then it possible for them to set up Church’s out of communion with the Catholic Church.
As you stated, however, you believe the bishops do possess the keys, and yet you deny that entails the authority for them to set up Church’s, so apparently I mistook your meaning.
 
Excuse me if this isn’t the exact same topic…I heard on EWTN today a priest say that Luther had attempted to remove 3 or 4 (I think) books from the New Testament in part because they did not agree with his interpretation after he had added “alone” to “saved by faith”
 
Please permit me to explain why it is so important for the Catholic Church’s High Petrine teaching on the keys to be maintained:

The High Petrine Tradition of the Catholic Church is that bishops possess not only the power of the keys, but the keys themselves (in other words, the “power of the keys” is indistinguishable from the “keys” themselves).

When we speak of priests in relation to bishops, we say that the priests don’t have the keys, but only the power of the keys, given to them by the bishop. The bishop allows the priest to share in the power of the keys, but it is the bishop himself who holds the keys.

In that light, what is the only possible conclusion from stating that bishops do not have the keys, but only the power of the keys, while it is ONLY the Pope who has the keys? The most logical conclusion is that the relationship of the Pope to bishops is the same relationship that a bishop has to priests. Not admitting that bishops actually have the keys (through St, Peter), and simply stating that bishops have the power of the keys, makes bishops nothing more than mere vicars of the Pope. This directly contradicts the teaching of Vatican 2 that bishops are authentic teachers, and true vicars of Christ Himself, not merely vicars of the Pope.

I hope that helps readers understand the Catholic Church’s actual teaching on the matter.

As stated in previous posts, while High Petrine advocates can agree with Absolutist Petrine advocates that Jesus promised the keys to Peter in a unique way, we cannot agree with the Absolutist Petrine claim that ONLY Peter (and subsequently the Popes of Rome) possesses the keys, nor that Jesus intended ONLY Peter to possess the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Please permit me to explain why it is so important for the Catholic Church’s High Petrine teaching on the keys to be maintained:

The High Petrine Tradition of the Catholic Church is that bishops possess not only the power of the keys, but the keys themselves (in other words, the “power of the keys” is indistinguishable from the “keys” themselves).

When we speak of priests in relation to bishops, we say that the priests don’t have the keys, but only the power of the keys, given to them by the bishop. The bishop allows the priest to share in the power of the keys, but it is the bishop himself who holds the keys.

In that light, what is the only possible conclusion from stating that bishops do not have the keys, but only the power of the keys, while it is ONLY the Pope who has the keys? The most logical conclusion is that the relationship of the Pope to bishops is the same relationship that a bishop has to priests. Not admitting that bishops actually have the keys (through St, Peter), and simply stating that bishops have the power of the keys, makes bishops nothing more than mere vicars of the Pope. This directly contradicts the teaching of Vatican 2 that bishops are authentic teachers, and true vicars of Christ Himself, not merely vicars of the Pope.

I hope that helps readers understand the Catholic Church’s actual teaching on the matter.

As stated in previous posts, while High Petrine advocates can agree with Absolutist Petrine advocates that Jesus promised the keys to Peter in a unique way, we cannot agree with the Absolutist Petrine claim that ONLY Peter (and subsequently the Popes of Rome) possesses the keys, nor that Jesus intended ONLY Peter to possess the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk
Very well stated!

This is why the Pope is selected from within - otherwise when a Pope dies, there would be no authority to bind and lose another Pope.

However, I also have to agree that there needs to be communion with the successor of Peter - as his successor is given the task to strengthen the brethren and to feed and tend the sheep. This consistent singularity of Peter is just too obvious to ignore and its position of intended leadership cannot be denied.
 
Please permit me to explain why it is so important for the Catholic Church’s High Petrine teaching on the keys to be maintained:

The High Petrine Tradition of the Catholic Church is that bishops possess not only the power of the keys, but the keys themselves (in other words, the “power of the keys” is indistinguishable from the “keys” themselves).

When we speak of priests in relation to bishops, we say that the priests don’t have the keys, but only the power of the keys, given to them by the bishop. The bishop allows the priest to share in the power of the keys, but it is the bishop himself who holds the keys.

In that light, what is the only possible conclusion from stating that bishops do not have the keys, but only the power of the keys, while it is ONLY the Pope who has the keys? The most logical conclusion is that the relationship of the Pope to bishops is the same relationship that a bishop has to priests. Not admitting that bishops actually have the keys (through St, Peter), and simply stating that bishops have the power of the keys, makes bishops nothing more than mere vicars of the Pope. This directly contradicts the teaching of Vatican 2 that bishops are authentic teachers, and true vicars of Christ Himself, not merely vicars of the Pope.

I hope that helps readers understand the Catholic Church’s actual teaching on the matter.

As stated in previous posts, while High Petrine advocates can agree with Absolutist Petrine advocates that Jesus promised the keys to Peter in a unique way, we cannot agree with the Absolutist Petrine claim that ONLY Peter (and subsequently the Popes of Rome) possesses the keys, nor that Jesus intended ONLY Peter to possess the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk
We are in communion. 😃
 
However, I also have to agree that there needs to be communion with the successor of Peter - as his successor is given the task to strengthen the brethren and to feed and tend the sheep. This consistent singularity of Peter is just too obvious to ignore and its position of intended leadership cannot be denied.
And a noteworthy addition. 👍
 
However, I also have to agree that there needs to be communion with the successor of Peter - as his successor is given the task to strengthen the brethren and to feed and tend the sheep. This consistent singularity of Peter is just too obvious to ignore and its position of intended leadership cannot be denied.
AMEN! This is (part of) the Sacred Tradition of the undivided Church as expressed by the first part of the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 - that on matters important for the Church, the consent of the head bishop is necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Mardukm.

By “Absolutist Petrine advocates” I think you mean this:
. . . . we cannot agree with the Absolutist Petrine claim that ONLY Peter (and subsequently the Popes of Rome) possesses the keys, nor that Jesus intended ONLY Peter to possess the keys.
The Catholic Church’s teaching is . . . .
  • The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."
  • The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head."
  • Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him.
  • Peter, is the only one to whom Jesus specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
  • The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.
  • The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God.
  • The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.
  • For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
  • The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”
(all above bullet-points are exact excerpts from the CCC)

That being said, the Bishops DO possesses the Keys, but only in union with St. Peter.

And St. Peter can “unpossess” their Keys too.

We state that the Keys were uniquely entrusted to St. Peter. Just as you quoted (part of) Pope St. Leo mardukm.

POPE ST. LEO But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all (all of the Apostles and their successors — The Bishops) is entrusted to one (one Apostle and his successors — St. Peter).

Incidentally, Pope St. Leo died in the mid-400’s A.D.

(My point is that these ancient teachings are just matter of factly restated here, without any felt need to defend them on the part of Pope St. Leo back then. And I am not aware of anyone objecting to this back then either.)

Mardukm. You also said:
The High Petrine Tradition of the Catholic Church is that bishops possess not only the power of the keys, but the keys themselves (in other words, the “power of the keys” is indistinguishable from the “keys” themselves).
When we speak of priests in relation to bishops, we say that the priests don’t have the keys, but only the power of the keys, given to them by the bishop. The bishop allows the priest to share in the power of the keys, but it is the bishop himself who holds the keys.
In that light, what is the only possible conclusion from stating that bishops do not have the keys, but only the power of the keys, while it is ONLY the Pope who has the keys? . . . . .
I hope that helps readers understand the Catholic Church’s actual teaching on the matter.
Some of this I absolutely concur with. Some of it, depends upon what you mean.

You said:
The High Petrine Tradition of the Catholic Church is that bishops possess not only the power of the keys, but the keys themselves.
If by this you mean St. Peter (his successor) can take away the keys from a Bishop (remove this aspect of the Bishop’s authority) so far so good.

If by this you mean a Bishop has no authority to take away the keys from St. Peter, also so far so good.

If by this you mean the Bishops even collectively have no authority to take away the keys from St. Peter, also so far so good.

If you mean anything less then that, you are not affirming Catholic teaching.

You also said:
When we speak of priests in relation to bishops, we say that the priests don’t have the keys, but only the power of the keys, given to them by the bishop. The bishop allows the priest to share in the power of the keys, but it is the bishop himself who holds the keys.
I think that is an accurate statement too. For example we see the Priests have access to the Keys in the Confessional. The Priests forgive sins in the person of Christ. This is a vicarious role (an authoritative “deputy” if you will, or a “vicar” role).

**COUNCIL OF TRENT (CHAPTER V) **

On Confession

From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism; because that our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests His own vicars, as presidents and judges, unto whom all the mortal crimes, into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen, should be carried, in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins. . .

You also said (bold mine):
In that light, what is the only possible conclusion from stating that bishops do not have the keys, but only the power of the keys, while it is ONLY the Pope who has the keys?
Who said “bishops do not have the keys” bestowed upon them?

Later I will try to give some Bible verses to expound upon all of this.
 
Dear brother Cathoholic,

If you read the thread beginning with post #55, all your questions will be answered.

Blessings
 
The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

The authority that accompanies the “Keys” is essential to the unity or one-ness of the Church.

CCC 811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic."256 These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other,257 indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities.

Four Marks of the Church
  • One
  • Holy
  • Catholic
  • Apostolic
CCC 816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268​

CCC 1594 The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

(all above CCC bold and ul mine)

Without unity, the Church cannot be “ONE”.

**The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. **

This ONE-ness demands a very high level of moral certainty.

Let’s look at examples of this lived out in other religious and quasi-religious templates and see where it has led them.
  1. Some claim there is no moral certainty (oddly enough, they are certain of this).
  2. Some claim even if there is a moral certainty, we could not know it (oddly enough, they allegedly KNOW this).
  3. Some claim even if there is moral certainty, and we could know it there is no possible way to share it with others (oddly enough, they can share this uncertainty prototype with . . . you know what I am going to say . … certainty).
These are somewhat parallel to the errors of Gorgias (circa 485 - 380 BC), the nihilistic pre-Socratic philosopher. All three of the above morality motifs are self-contradictions.

Some also claim to arrive at moral certainty by . . .
  1. Their own mere “feelings” and experiences.
  2. Other quasi-religious writings and/or traditions.
  3. Old Covenant oral tradition and Old Covenant Written Tradition (The Tanakh).
  4. Written Tradition only or “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible ALONE).
  5. Oral Tradition AND Written Tradition (Scripture).
  6. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture, using the Divinely authoritative and Divinely protected Magisterium (or “the teaching authority of the Church”) and when necessary may correct, even wayward Bishops.
If you submit to any of the above authority prototypes, when doctrinal differences arise between two people, only one system above can keep unity within that communion. Which authority paradigm is it?

Eight of the above methods will result in doctrinal disarray.
One of the above methods will result in doctrinal unity.

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum Section 10) But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, . . . .
. . . . . It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Go back above and plug in “When a doctrinal difference arises (only one doctrinal difference is necessary) between two people in paradigm number ___ above, HOW can the doctrinal difference be definitively settled?”

Not a robotic submission. A reasoned debate is fine. But sooner or later it gets down to “brass tacks”.

The doctrinal differences are . . . .

Not merely persuasively settled (although that should be part of it) but authoritatively definitively settled.

Not tyrannically “settled” by force (“A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"—Ben Franklin), but definitively settled on the authority of Jesus our Lord and Savior.

There is only one paradigm that works (Hint: It is the system that requires the most humility from the most people).

LUKE 10:16 16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
 
Mardukm.

You stated:
Dear brother Cathoholic,
If you read the thread beginning with post #55, all your questions will be answered.
So you in post 55 are addressing House Harkonnen and a Lutheran position.

Fair enough.

You also said (parenthetical addition mine):
But, but to be perfectly clear, I believe the CC would disagree with two points of the excerpt from the (Lutheran) Treatise. Namely:
(1) “The keys were given PRINCIPALLY and directly to the Church.” Catholics believe the keys were given PRINCIPALLY and directly to St. Peter (since that is exactly what Scripture records).
(2) Catholics do not believe the “keys” refer merely to the preaching of the Gospel.
Without expounding on Lutheran theologies, I agree with your points above too:thumbsup:.

I skimmed the Lutheran reference (it was 15 pages in 12 point Microsoft Word format), but I did not detail it as the OP question was “What’s your Church’s teaching on Matthew 16:18 and why?”.

I do not want to address here: “What’s the Lutheran ecclesial communion teaching on Matthew 16:18 from 1537 and why?”

I did preempt some of the Eastern Orthodox positions (I see you list yourself as a “Copt” but in “communion with Rome”).

But thanks for the clarification Mardukm.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
The way to see infallible is through the correct understanding of Matthew 16:18. which then extends to Matthew 18:18 and other verse such as Luke etc. One Church of the Apostles, of which one Church proceeds though the Apostles being sent and they establish many, they are one Biblically and through the early Church. No one denied the Primacy for its to deny the essence of unity of one with the Apostles…

Its about the same as saying Judas was still in the Church since he was an Apostle and retained the power to bind and loose along with the keys.

What is bound on earth and what is loosed on earth is infallible. 🤷

Peter is overseer, head of the fountain, head of the disciples, prince of the apostles, the servant of servants.
 
We have been talking about the “Keys” but I think it is time to talk about St. Peter as “the Rock” too which more directly concerns Matthew 16:18 (although the “Keys” concept is utterly important and integral with the context of St. Peter as “the Rock”).

I will try to get back to “the Keys” issue later too, as I’d like to discuss the reflections of Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22.

Here are some of the common denials I run across about St. Peter being the Rock.

    • Context issues
    • Petros/Petra issues
    • Closely related “Original Greek manuscripts” issues
    • Peter’s confession of faith as the Rock issues
    • Jesus is the only Rock and Foundation issues
    • “Get thee behind me satan” issues
    • No evidence of Petrine primacy in Scripture so Jesus CAN’T be naming Simon “Rock”
    Let’s look at “Context issues” and see where that goes.

    MATTHEW 16:13-20 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do men say that the Son of man is?
    14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah,
    and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them,
    But who do you say that I am?
    16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the son of the living God.
    17 And Jesus answered him,
    Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
    For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
    but my Father who is in heaven. 18 **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. **
    19 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.
    20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

    Sometimes when Catholics refer to St. Peter as “the Rock” we are told that we Catholics ignore the context of Matthew 16.

    Let’s look at the relevant verses and see the context.

    Let’s first see how Jesus responds to St. Peter’s confession of faith, taking great pains to observe the context as it concerns Jesus addressing Simon Peter.

    Let’s again review Matthew 16:17-20 (all caps “YOU”, bold, and parenthetical additions will be mine)

    MATTHEW 16:17-20 17 And Jesus answered him,
    Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jona!
    For flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU,
    but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I (Jesus) tell YOU (Simon Bar-Jona),
    YOU (Simon) are Peter (Petros), and (not “but”) on this rock (Petra) I will build my church,
    and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
    19 I will give YOU (Simon) the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
    and whatever YOU (Simon) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
    and whatever YOU (Simon) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

    Deniers of St. Peter being the Rock will sometimes say: “To see Peter as the Rock here you Catholics have to take this verse out of context.”

    But is that really the case? Are Catholics really taking this out of context? No!

    Catholics make every effort to preserve the context and we still see this truth.

    We can see the flow of Jesus words here. Jesus is directing these words to Peter (obviously).

    We see Jesus addressing Peter as YOU here seven times! The whole flow of the context points to Peter here despite what some people want to throw into Sacred Scripture. To say otherwise is to interrupt, not follow the contextual flow of the relevant passages.
    • Peter testifies that Jesus is the Christ here.
    • Jesus said St. Peter’s testimony is from Jesus’ Father in Heaven (inspired oral testimony).
    • Peter receives the Blessing!
    • Peter receives the Keys!
    • Peter receives the Power to bind here!
    • Peter receives the Power to loose here!
    • And Peter is the rock
    .

    The context clearly and painstakingly obviously points to Peter!

    As we focus on Matthew 16, we will see that when Jesus says to St. Peter . . .

    ** . . . “And I tell you, you are Peter (“petros” [Rock]),
    and on this rock (“petra” [Rock]), I will build my church” . . .**

    . . . that our Lord Jesus actually means what He says about Peter being named “Rock”.
 
Jer. 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesies that David with always have a successor or representative throughout history. 👍

Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed.

Course then Isaiah, anyway…

Here’s more on the Rock person/faith.

philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

CONCLUSION ON “ROCK” OF MATTHEW 16:18

(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’ Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;

(B) Peter’s name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);

(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;

(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning;

(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;

(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man’s name, so Petros was used;

(G) Only because of past “Protestant bias” was the Peter is Rock identification denied;

(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;

(I) Jesus says “and on this rock” not “but on this rock” – the referent is therefore Peter personally;

(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular “you”) shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;

(K) Peter’s revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus’ declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;

(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).
 
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

"Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, “Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, ‘I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.’” This is Jesus talking, “‘Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.’” Luther even saw it, “‘They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.’” The only thing that Luther won’t admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background. "

Scott Hahn is a good read on this.
 
We have been talking about the “Keys” but I think it is time to talk about St. Peter as “the Rock” too which more directly concerns Matthew 16:18 (although the “Keys” concept is utterly important and integral with the context of St. Peter as “the Rock”).

I will try to get back to “the Keys” issue later too, as I’d like to discuss the reflections of Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22.

Here are some of the common denials I run across about St. Peter being the Rock.


  1. *]Context issues
    *]Petros/Petra issues
    *]Closely related “Original Greek manuscripts” issues
    *]Peter’s confession of faith as the Rock issues
    *]Jesus is the only Rock and Foundation issues
    *]“Get thee behind me satan” issues
    *]No evidence of Petrine primacy in Scripture so Jesus CAN’T be naming Simon “Rock”

  1. Actually, Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek (so there is no “original Greek” manuscript per se), i.e., the whole petros/petra is a non-issue really because rock in aramaic is “Kephas” (in Greek the word for rock is petra, but that is a feminine noun, which of course could not be a name attributed to a male, thus the change to Petros/pebble).

    catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top