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

[JamesTheJust]

Where is the gates of hades? Sunnydale?

The gates of Hades are not a place, they signify evil and death. Almost all the Fathers are behind this.

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,

I’ll answer this by referring you to the “Biography of St Peter’s activities in Rome” section of this article:
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_bishop_of_rome_primacy.php

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.

Sure, you can say that, if you don’t mind ignoring reason, sound exegesis, and patristics.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hades is all of the evil that Lucifer has at his disposal to use against the Church which He(God) built on the faith and person of Peter and to whom He gave the Keys. I don’t see where this Biblical verse gives way to a literal place. The magnitude of literal sin, mortal sin, which translates to transgressions of the spiritual law, which indeed exist, those don’t prevail.

From further reading of Hades.

1. a proper name, Hades, Pluto, the god of the lower regions; so in Homer always.
2. an appellative, Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead (cf: Theocritus, idyll. 2,159 schol. τήν τοῦ ᾅδου κρούει πύλην. τουτ’ ἔστιν ἀποθανεῖται. In the Sept. the Hebrew שְׁאול is almost always rendered by this word (once by θάνατος, 2 Samuel 22:6); it denotes, therefore, in Biblical Greek Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark (Job 10:21) and dismal place (but cf. γέεννα and παράδεισος) in the very depths of the earth (Job 11:8; Isaiah 57:9; Amos 9:2, etc.; see ἄβυσσος), the common receptacle of disembodied spirits: Luke 16:23; εἰς ᾅδου namely, δόμον, Acts 2:27, 31, according to a very common ellipsis, cf. Winers Grammar, 592 (550) (Buttmann, 171 (149)); (but L T Tr WH in Acts 2:27 and T WH in both verses read εἰς ᾅδην; so the Sept. Psalm 15:10 ()); πύλαι ᾅδου, Matthew 16:18 (πυλωροί ᾅδου, Job 38:17; see πύλη); κλείς τοῦ ᾅδου, Revelation 1:18; Hades as a power is personified, 1 Corinthians 15:55 (where L T Tr WH read θάνατε for R G ᾅδῃ (cf. Acts 2:24 Tr marginal reading)); Revelation 6:8; Revelation 20:13f. Metaphorically, ἕως ᾅδου καταβαίνειν or) καταβιβάζεσθαι to (go or) be thrust down into the depth of misery and disgrace: Matthew 11:23 (here L Tr WH καταβαίνειν); Luke 10:15 (here Tr marginal reading WH text καταβαίνειν). (See especially Boettcher, De Inferis, under the word ἀϊδής in Greek index. On the existence and locality of Hades cf. Greswell on the Parables, Appendix, chapter x, vol. v, part ii, pp. 261-406; on the doctrinal significance of the word see the BB. DD. [Hades] and E. R. Craven in Lange on Revelation, pp. 364-377.) Biblehub/hades

Revelation I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

and

Job 16 "Have you entered into the springs of the sea Or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17"Have the gates of death been revealed to you, Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? 18"Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.…

Hades as a power is personified

.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because Jesus is the foundation of the Church

Three views have been held on the interpretation of this passage.

(1) That Christ himself is the Rock on which the Church should be built.

(2) That Peter’s confession of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or God incarnate, is the Rock.

(3) That St. Peter is the rock

(1) The first explanation is supported by passages where in Christ speaks of himself in the third person, e.g. “Destroy this temple;” “If any man eat of this bread; Whoso falleth on this stone,” etc. In the same sense are cited the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 28:16), “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.” Almighty God is continually called “a Rock” in the Old Testament (see 2 Samuel 22:32; Psalm 18:31; Psalm 62:2, 6, 7, etc.), so that it might be deemed natural and intelligible for Christ to call himself “this Rock,” in accordance, with the words of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:11), “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid (κεῖται), which is Jesus Christ.” But then the reference to Peter becomes unmeaning: “Thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my Church.” It is true that some few eminent authorities have taken this view. Thus St. Augustine writes, “It was not said to him, ‘Thou art a rock (petra),’ but, ‘Thou art Peter,’ and the Rock was Christ” (‘Retract.,’ 1:21). And commentators have imagined that Christ pointed to himself as he spoke. In such surmises there is an inherent improbability, and they do not explain the commencement of the address. In saying, “Thou art Peter,” Christ, if he made any gesture at all, would have touched or turned to that apostle. Immediately after this to have directed attention to himself would have been most unnatural and contradictory. We may safely surrender the interpretation which regards Christ himself as the Rock. Biblehub

biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

 

[maryj]

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?

How about the proper grammar?

You are Peter(Kephas) and on this rock(kephas) I will build my church

The adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the proceeding noun. His declaration was two verses earlier.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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

I understand your feelings towards Protestantism, but that is a false generalization of us.

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.

The Pope emeritus Benedict seemed to have a pretty positive view of my hero Luther. Besides, and correct me if I am wrong, but the Catholic Church doesn’t make any pronouncements about who is in hell.

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.

You can keep patting yourself on the back, congratulating yourself for how humble your faith is. Hey at least your not like an arrogant Protestant right?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

The author of this commentary evidently has no awareness of incarnational/sacramental theology.

Blessings

(1) The first explanation is supported by passages where in Christ speaks of himself in the third person, e.g. “Destroy this temple;” “If any man eat of this bread; Whoso falleth on this stone,” etc. In the same sense are cited the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 28:16), “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.” Almighty God is continually called “a Rock” in the Old Testament (see 2 Samuel 22:32; Psalm 18:31; Psalm 62:2, 6, 7, etc.), so that it might be deemed natural and intelligible for Christ to call himself “this Rock,” in accordance, with the words of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:11), “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid (κεῖται), which is Jesus Christ.” But then the reference to Peter becomes unmeaning: “Thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my Church.” It is true that some few eminent authorities have taken this view. Thus St. Augustine writes, “It was not said to him, ‘Thou art a rock (petra),’ but, ‘Thou art Peter,’ and the Rock was Christ” (‘Retract.,’ 1:21). And commentators have imagined that Christ pointed to himself as he spoke. In such surmises there is an inherent improbability, and they do not explain the commencement of the address. In saying, “Thou art Peter,” Christ, if he made any gesture at all, would have touched or turned to that apostle. Immediately after this to have directed attention to himself would have been most unnatural and contradictory. We may safely surrender the interpretation which regards Christ himself as the Rock. Biblehub

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dear brother Gary,

The author of this commentary evidently has no awareness of incarnational/sacramental theology.

Blessings

Did you read the entire commentary? Scroll down to Matthew 16:18-19. I’m assuming your referring to the cut and paste?

biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/matthew/16.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Daniel 2:34

New Living Translation
As you watched, a rock was cut from a mountain, but not by human hands. It struck the feet of iron and clay, smashing them to bits.

English Standard Version
As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.

“On the other band, Jerome adds de monte. It may be noted, as at least a curiosity, that the Peshitta, instead of the אבן (aben),” a stone," gives kepha, from which Cephas, the name of the Apostle Peter, is derived. As the monarch gazes at the huge image, he sees behind the image a mountain towering above the image, huge as it is. From this mountain he sees a boulder detach itself, as if it were being cut with chisel and wedge, but no hands are risible. Once set loose from the mountain’s side, it came by bounds and leaps down the declivity, “and smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay.” Every bound that the stone makes down the mountain is larger, and raises it higher and makes it strike the earth with more of force, till with a bound greater than any it had made before, it strikes the feet of the image, “which were of iron and clay” mingled, yet separate - and at once they are broken in pieces: “utterly crushed” is the meaning of the word דוּק (duq)".

 

[GaryTaylor]

commentary?

biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/matthew/16.htm

Above the commentary also leaves out Augustine’s opposite translation of Matthew, found in Retractions. Perhaps not intentionally, nevertheless there are two, in which both he elaborates on and he leaves determination to the authority of the Church.

Augustine Retractions

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter:
“On him as on a rock the Church was built.” This idea
is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the
verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about
the crowing of the cock: “At its crowing he, this rock
of the Church, washed away his guilt.”

 

[adrift]

You forgot Saul to Paul.

This was not a name change. Saul was his hebrew name and Paul his Roman name. God did not change it.

 

[adrift]

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.

Do you also wonder how Paul could be in Rome or do you believe he wasn’t?

Peter was a play on words. The play on words was rock. Today we have strange names but back then to be called a rock was unusual. The play on words was that He had just called Simon rock and on that rock He would build His Church. Scripture says in Ephesians 2:20 that the cornerstone.

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

.

 

[Nine_Two]

That is not really accurate…

Tell me who corrects your Patriarchs?

The Holy Synod.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Holy Synod.

IE the Magesterium in the Catholic Church.

My point to you is you greatly misunderstand the role of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Nine_Two]

IE the Magesterium in the Catholic Church.

My point to you is you greatly misunderstand the role of the Bishop of Rome.

The Magisterium is not synonymous with a Holy Synod.

I have mentioned little about the Bishop of Rome, but would you mind telling me what has changed since the Great Western Schism in regards to Papal accountability? Because it was caused by exactly the issue I’m taking.

 

[josie_L]

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.

Christ is rock too but He has chosen to make Peter rock as well, so that he could share in his rock-solidness, that is why the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ’s Church, i.e., Jesus promised that this foundation that He would lay upon Peter will never be separated from Him.

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head–that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]–of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.” St. Optatus (“The Schism of the Donatists,” c. 367 A.D.)

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . .** pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.** At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.” St. Jerome (“Lives of Illustrious Men,” c. 396 A.D.)

catholic-defense.com/papacy2.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

1 Corinthians 3 “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”

later…

“For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”

The foundation is Christs public revelation or the corner stone. Which He builds upon the faith and person of Peter, and the apostles…His Church, His public revelation, in which He is with them always, and with the Church always. And the gates hades won’t prevail.

They the apostles were not to be there always, but Christ is with them always and as with Timothy above who reminds of Christs public revelation which agree’s with Pauls and is in the Church they all belonged to, there were no varieties of public revelation or they wouldn’t have agree’d, and because they all agree’d there is but one Chruch, and one gospel in the Church in which Paul taught everywhere in every Church the same.

Point being is it isn’t strictly symbolic as in each one of us is the Church, its a physical reality. In fact I would suggest a Sacrament itself and then the further thinking of the body being the temple of the Lord and held up by the sacraments of the Church and through apostolic succession in every Church still the same, and a physical reality.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Magisterium is not synonymous with a Holy Synod.

I have mentioned little about the Bishop of Rome, but would you mind telling me what has changed since the Great Western Schism in regards to Papal accountability? Because it was caused by exactly the issue I’m taking.

You are correct, they are not synonyms. And I suppose it must be asked which Holy Synod? Just as in Protestantism, orthodoxy has fallen victim to division with no real unifying body.

You said the following about the pope,

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

This was not an issue at the time of schism, nor now, and is a complete misunderstanding of the pope’s role.

He cannot say anything no matter what…For example, he could not say “Catholicism is in error, the Presbyterians have it right so we are becoming Presbyterian”.

An extreme example, but emphasizes the point that the Pope is subject to not only God, but the church. The church’s dogma and doctrines handed to her by Christ and the Apostles.

This is why since the schism, like before, the Pope has convened councils to settle matters of doctrine and dogma.

The popes role as servant of the church, is to, when called upon, be the final authority on a matter of faith and morals. This would be an issue that was discussed at length among the bishops, and a clear consensus could not be determined, then when called upon to settle the dispute, as in Matt 18, there is a voice to settle it. This way, the church stays unified. It is the Holy Spirit that protects and acts through the pope, exercising this special charism as needed and as history has shown, very rarely.

In fact only two times has it been used, and both were just to declare something dogmatically that was widely accepted in the church. It was in essence to formalize the informal teaching.

 

[Nine_Two]

You are correct, they are not synonyms. And I suppose it must be asked which Holy Synod? Just as in Protestantism, orthodoxy has fallen victim to division with no real unifying body.

You said the following about the pope,

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

This was not an issue at the time of schism, nor now, and is a complete misunderstanding of the pope’s role.

He cannot say anything no matter what…For example, he could not say “Catholicism is in error, the Presbyterians have it right so we are becoming Presbyterian”.

An extreme example, but emphasizes the point that the Pope is subject to not only God, but the church. The church’s dogma and doctrines handed to her by Christ and the Apostles.

This is why since the schism, like before, the Pope has convened councils to settle matters of doctrine and dogma.

The popes role as servant of the church, is to, when called upon, be the final authority on a matter of faith and morals. This would be an issue that was discussed at length among the bishops, and a clear consensus could not be determined, then when called upon to settle the dispute, as in Matt 18, there is a voice to settle it. This way, the church stays unified. It is the Holy Spirit that protects and acts through the pope, exercising this special charism as needed and as history has shown, very rarely.

In fact only two times has it been used, and both were just to declare something dogmatically that was widely accepted in the church. It was in essence to formalize the informal teaching.

I think you misunderstand what I write. I spoke of the Great Western Schism, not the Great Schism. Two very different events that happened hundreds of years apart.

I also already clarified that I was not speaking strictly of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, though that certainly comes under it - as a small part of the issue, nor does the specifics of the Catholic doctrine play into the Orthodox belief regarding Matt 16:18.

As well, our decentralized structure also has no role to play in this discussion. I was asked who holds the Patriarch (and my answer is valid for any Primate) accountable, and I gave the answer. I could expand on that by saying that there is the additional protection of the other Primates holding each other accountable.

I gave an honest answer to the question being asked in this thread, I’m not here to debate what Catholics believe or the correctness of it. While I would encourage you to correct me if I have misrepresented your beliefs, I would ask that you do so in charity and that you make sure you actually take the time to read what I have said.

 

[benjohnson]

But, Luther was one of the Protestant Revolutionists who adopted the doctrine.

I would say that’s a common Catholic mis-conception of Lutheran understanding - we simply that that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood and leave any explanations as unnecessary for this mystery of faith

Luther famously ended the debates about “what” and “what” with “ist! ist! ist!” - trusting in the Lord’s promise that “This is my body.”

Specifically, Lutherans reject consubstatiation or any explication for that matter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother House Harkonnen,

I am not sure if the Treatise in this portion is intending to say that what it is stating is in opposition to what it perceives the Catholic Church to be teaching, or it is just relating the traditional position of the Church. But just for clarification, it is the Traditional position of the Catholic Church that the keys were given to the Church and to the Apostles, not JUST to St. Peter.

It is important to note that while Pastor Aeternus states that the keys were given to St. Peter, and therefore he alone (and his successors) hold the primacy in the Church universal, Pastor Aeternus states nowhere that the keys were ONLY given to St. Peter. One needs to look at the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church to interpret this properly. The 4th Lateran Council, one of the Councils that the Latin Catholics deem “Ecumenical” (sorry, my Latin brethren, but I’m not inclined to regard that Council as Ecumenical, though I certainly accept its doctrinal statements), explicitly asserted in its Exposition of Faith that the keys were given to the Apostles and the Church. So it cannot be blithely assumed by both Catholics and non-Catholics that when Pastor Aeternus states that the keys were given to St. Peter, it was given to St. Peter ALONE - though, it indeed states that he ALONE (as well as his successors in the Chair) has the primacy in the Church universal - which only makes sense, since the term “primacy” by definition can only refer to one.

This is one of those “High Petrine” distinctions to which I often refer. Absolutist Petrine advocates prefer to insist that the Pope ALONE has the keys. High Petrine advocates, following the traditional Tradition of the Catholic Church, do not claim that.

But, but to be perfectly clear, I believe the CC would disagree with two points of the excerpt from the 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.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. OP, sorry for bringing this up in this thread, but the thread in which this topic originated (about the keys) seems to have diverged significantly from its original intent.

Here is our teaching from “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”:
23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18:18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20:23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].

24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]

Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles].

25] However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.]
*

Read more:
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php