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

[House_Harkonnen]

That is Lutheran Personal Interpretation, because Lutherans don’t want to see Christ
passing on authority to one man whose successor lives today. “Oh no, Jesus hand–
ing the Keys of Heaven to ‘Peter’ has NOTHING to do with Second Chronicles 26:21
or Isaiah 22.” “It’s Fine! It works for our non-papist Church!”

We are all successors of Peter. Or at least all who confess Christ. Me, you, all of us. We still live today. I don’t have a problem with it.

 

[PurgerOfHeresy]

I see. Well here is my hero Martin Luther’s take on it. It’s not dogmatic for Lutherans but I think its pretty standard Lutheran interpretation,
The Lord then says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.” In St. John 1 :42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek, Rupes in Latin, all of which mean rock in German—like the high rocks the castles are built on. Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you.” In plain German one would say, “You say (on behalf of all) that I am the Messiah or Christ, the Son of the living God; very well then, I say to you, you are a Christian, and I shall build my church on a Christian.” For in German the word “Christ” means both the Lord himself, as one sings, “Christ the Lord is risen, Christ ascended to heaven,”127 and he who believes in the Lord Christ, as one says, “You are a Christ.” Thus Luke in Acts 11 :26] says that the disciples in Antioch were first called Christians, which is why names have survived such as, “Christians, Christendom, Christian faith,” etc. So here our Lord gives Simon, son of Jona, the name “man of rock” or “Christian” because he, from the Father, recognized the rock, or Christ, and praised him with his mouth on behalf of all the apostles.

From this it is clear enough that by the building of his church on the rock or on himself, Christ meant nothing else but (as was said above, from the apostles Peter and Paul) the common Christian faith, that whoever believes in Christ is built on this rock and will attain salvation, even against all the gates of hell; whoever does not believe in Christ is not built on this rock and must be damned, with all the gates of hell. This is the simple, single, certain understanding of these words, and there can be no other. This the words clearly and convincingly prove, and they agree with the words in the last chapter of Mark [16:16], “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” and with John 11 :26], “Whoever believes in me shall never die.” Yes, I say, remember well and mark diligently that the Lord in Matthew 16 does not speak of laws, Ten Commandments, or the works we should or could do, but of the Christian faith or the work of the Father, which he, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, performs in us, namely, that he spiritually builds us on the rock, his Son, and teaches us to believe in Christ, that we might become his house and dwelling, as is proven in I Peter 2 :4–7] and Ephesians 2 :19–22].

Further, “And 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” [Matt. 16:19]. The Lord wants to provide well for his churches, built on him and believing in him. Because they should preach and confess the gospel before the whole world and govern on the basis that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, he wants to have their words honored and not scorned, as though he were speaking personally from heaven. Now he who hears the gospel from the apostles or churches and does not want to believe should be sentenced to be damned. Again, if he should fall after he has believed and will not convert back to faith, he should be sentenced in the same way—he should keep his sins and be damned. On the other hand, he who hears and believes the gospel, or turns from his sins back to faith, should have his sins forgiven and should attain salvation. And he will consider such a verdict in heaven as if he had spoken it himself. See, these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven and they should be used to give eternal retention and remission of sins in the church, not just at the time of baptism, or once in a lifetime, but continuously until the end—retention for the unrepentant and unbelievers, remission for the repentant and believers.

And here remember once again, and write it upon your heart, that the Lord does not speak here of laws or the works we should do, but of his works, namely, of retention and remission of sins. To retain or forgive sins is the work of the divine majesty alone. But he wants to perform and accomplish these works of his through his church; that is why he says that whatever it will bind or loose on earth should be bound or loosed by him in heaven. That is why, too, the two items follow one another in the Children’s Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins”; so, where the church is, namely, the building on the rock, there are the keys to the forgiveness of sins. [LW 41:314-315]
*

Christ did not say any of that, Luther is making up and trying to find different interpretation of something that is clear, YOU are ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build MY Church, he never said “my people, my Christendom” or “I’m the rock, and you are my man”. It’s just typical of protestants, it’s like when Christ said “This IS my body” and Luther says “This represents His body”.

 

[Nine_Two]

If the foundation falls, so does the entire structure.

I agree. But as I said, we do not believe he was speaking strictly of the Papacy.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Christ did not say any of that, Luther is making up and trying to find different interpretation of something that is clear, YOU are ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build MY Church, he never said “my people, my Christendom” or “I’m the rock, and you are my man”. It’s just typical of protestants, it’s like when Christ said “This IS my body” and Luther says “This represents His body”.

Where did Luther say “this represents my body”?

 

[livingwordunity]

Where did Luther say “this represents my body”?

Luther believed in a doctrine about Communion which he called “consubstantiation” (that Jesus is present WITH the bread and wine while the bread and wine still remain bread and wine) which is not the same as the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation (the bread and wine substantially transforms into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ while keeping the appearance of bread and wine). Luther considered the “consubstantiation” doctrine to be believing in the real presence, but he meant “real presence” in a totally different way than the way the Catholic Church has always believed.

Edited: After looking it up, Luther wasn’t the one who invented the doctrine. It was someone else. But, Luther was one of the Protestant Revolutionists who adopted the doctrine.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Luther invented his own doctrine about Communion which he called “consubstantiation” (that Jesus is present WITH the bread and wine while the bread and wine still remain bread and wine) which is not the same as the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation (the bread and wine substantially transforms into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ while keeping the appearance of bread and wine).

Where did Luther or any Lutheran theologian call the doctrine “consubstantiation”?

 

[livingwordunity]

Where did Luther or any Lutheran theologian call the doctrine “consubstantiation”?

Consubstantiation

After looking it up in the encyclopedia (linked above), I see that Luther wasn’t the one who invented the doctrine of “consubstantiation”.
It was Berengarius (1000-1088). But, Luther was one of the Protestant Revolutionists who adopted the doctrine.

 

[adrift]

It is not simply infallibility I am talking about. That is a relatively new issue.

Rome has created a system by which its bishop cannot be corrected on anything, no matter what.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but you focused more on the keys than what I am asking.

What significance does Jesus’s “you are Peter” and “on this rock” is there? Why did Jesus say that Peter is Peter and on such a rock the Church shall be built. I’m interested in the linguistics and the history of such a statement. Was Jesus saying Peter is the rock? If not, why “you are Peter”? Did Jesus use the same words for “rock” each time?

Yes,

He said, You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my church.

In Aramaic, You are Kephas and upon this Rock I will build my church.

In Geeek. You are Petros and upon this Petra I will build my church.

The Greek is where Protestants come up with their “arguments” that Peter is not the Rock. Unfortunately this is a case of protestant theology coming first and the text second. The Aramaic that Jesus spoke had no difference in the words for Rocks. True protestant scholars will admit that Peter is the rock because there is no way around it.

Some say that the word Petra means little stone and Petros means boulder. Thus a difference, but that is only in ancient poetic Greek. Not the Greek the NT was written in.

In this case it is simply a feminine word made masculine for a males name.

In Spanish, If I named you “house” the word is Casa, but I might change it to Caso since you are male.

You are Caso and upon this Casa I will build my church.

Same thing in Greek.

It’s an interesting side note, that this was done in Cessarea Philipi, which has a huge monolith that it’s known for. It gave a good visual aid I am sure.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is not simply infallibility I am talking about. That is a relatively new issue.

Rome has created a system by which its bishop cannot be corrected on anything, no matter what.

That is not really accurate…

Tell me who corrects your Patriarchs?

 

[PurgerOfHeresy]

Yes. Luther taught that the keys are given to the church. Since he is a member of the church, he has the keys as much as any other member of the church. This would be consistent with Luther’s theology that I quoted above.

Of course, protestantism is arrogance in itself, it’s a faith on which you are God yourself, you don’t need church, you don’t need sacraments, you don’t need priests, you don’t need bishops, you don’t need the saint’s intercession, you don’t need the Mother of God, you don’t need anything, you go to God directly has if he was your pal, so it doesn’t impress me Luther would have said that, arrogant as he was. Right indeed was the Blessed sister Maria Serafina Micheli when she had a vision of Luther in hell, suffering for his crimes against God.

Whereas I might not be much humble, my faith is humble it teaches me to bow before the altar, kneel to receive the body of Christ, kneel and kiss my bishop’s hand, bow before the Church authority.

 

[josie_L]

House Harkonnen

I have read Martin Luther’s explanation before. What it doesn’t take into account is the name change that is dismissed without comment. Why the name change? There are only three name changes in Scripture none of them were meaningless

Abram to Abraham Meaning Father of a multitude
and his wife
Sarai to Sarah meaning princess

Jacob to Israel I have heard multiple meanings.

The change of name was significant and I doubt if Peter was any different.

You forgot Saul to Paul.

 

[josie_L]

It is not simply infallibility I am talking about. That is a relatively new issue.

Rome has created a system by which its bishop cannot be corrected on anything, no matter what.

And how would you know this, are you privy to the conversations that our bishops have with the pope??

 

[josie_L]

The Orthodox Church in its patristics understands the verse to mean both Peter personally, as well as the faith which he demonstrated it.

I should think that in light of patristic support ,and grammar, Peter as rock would take precedence over the rock referring to Peter’s faith (but both are correct). I think it was John of Damascene who said it best when he wrote:

Peter’s faith is undoubtedly the unshakable rock upon which the Church rests, but this faith is not separable from Peter’s person: it is indeed Peter who is the Rock.

 

[Cathoholic]

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

It concerns St. Peter (“Cephas”) directly. It concerns his confession of faith in a secondary layered meaning.

Why does the Church teach this? I am not trying to take the second part of the question flippantly, but the Church teaches this because it is a fact.

Why do I as a Catholic see the Church teach this might be more what you are getting at?

It looks like we are getting to the “why” here and I will add more later on the “why” I think the Church is correct (but here is the quick version).

Context is

• St. Peter gets the blessing
• St. Peter is the Rock
• St. Peter gets the keys

Despite what other people think, nobody else gets the keys from Jesus in Scripture. Jesus of course is the keyholder behind St. Peter the keyholder. Jesus also of course is the foundation behind the foundation. In another sense all the Apostles are the foundation and even in another sense the Apostles and prophets are the foundation. This is all part of the new foundation for the New Temple.

We Christians are the “living stones” in the rebuilding of the Temple.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Consubstantiation

After looking it up in the encyclopedia (linked above), I see that Luther wasn’t the one who invented the doctrine of “consubstantiation”.
It was Berengarius (1000-1088). But, Luther was one of the Protestant Revolutionists who adopted the doctrine.

Luther did deny transubstantiation and say that Christ is substantially present with the bread and wine, which retain their natural essence. You are correct there. However, Lutherans do not like the term consubstantiation for various reasons. Lutherans instead prefer the term sacramental union, taking the analog of the Incarnation as the basis for their doctrine. Catholics believe that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. Lutherans reject this and say that the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally united to the bread and wine. If you want to see what they teach, the most thorough exposition is found in the Formula of Concord. Consubstantiation is not an inaccurate name for their doctrine, but it is not a Lutheran term.

What our Lutheran friend is getting at is that Lutherans do not have a merely symbolic view of the Eucharist. They believe with Catholics that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist. They also rejected the Calvinist (or “sacramentarian”) view of a mere “spiritual presence” an go through great lengths in the FOC to condemn the view of a mere symbolic presence and the simplistic Calvinist contention that “Christ can’t be really present in the sacrament because he’s stuck in heaven.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Despite what other people think, nobody else gets the keys from Jesus in Scripture.

Nobody else received the Keys!

I don’t think we can “assume” others have the Keys, doesn’t say that in scripture.

So if it true which Josie and Nine propose above which from my reading and comprehension I agree with. Then we have to admit these Keys were given in the same way, that’s on Peters Faith and Person.

And I tell you that you are Peter,

and on this rock I will build my church,

and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,

and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Further Matthew 18:18

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Absent is…

And I tell you that you are Peter,

and on this rock I will build my church,

and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

I contend its a check and balance of the Bishops with like authority which leans to the greater authority of the Councils which is the check and balance of consensus of the charisma of the teaching authority “Keys”.

The Church’s independently are adept in function, they are incomplete in communion. I see no sense to labor the point of communion with Rome, communion is mandatory to expect the supernatural outcome. Christ returned to save the lost and reestablish communion.

Communion is imperative, its “the” obstacle of man and historically and biblically from Adam forward.

In 18:18 while its true the Bishops receive the like authority and to act independent, the word “you” here is “also” plural, which indicates imho the push to seek unity through the consensus of the greater authority.

“The power to intrude upon the relation between men and God cannot have been given by Christ to His ministers in any but a ministerial or declarative sense—as the authorized interpreters of His word, while in the actings of His ministers, the real nature of the power committed to them is seen in the exercise of church discipline.”

And all the more greater in Gods desired outcome-communion.

 

[classical_hero]

Where is the gates of hades? Sunnydale?

I also wonder how a Jew could be in Rome when they were barred from being in Rome and we see the result of this in Acts 18 with Aquila and Priscilla being forced from Rome. It is simply historically accurate for Peter to anywhere near Rome, but to the fact he was very much Jewish and Rome was a place for the Gentiles,

The whole point of the whole passage which Jesus spoke to Peter was a play on words. Because Jesus is the foundation of the Church, not Peter, sine Jesus gave his life, not Peter.

 

[adf417]

Another bump. I sure would like to see other perspectives on the root of the OP.

Peace to all!!!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

We are all successors of Peter. Or at least all who confess Christ. Me, you, all of us. We still live today. I don’t have a problem with it.

Oh of course you don’t have a problem with that, no pope.
There is nothing in Scripture indicating that we all are Peter’s successors.

That treatise I was criticizing is again, Personal Interpretation, something novel, more recent.