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

[mardukm]

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

Thanks for the heads up. I normally think that when people quote, and then give a link, they are giving the pertinent portion in the quote already, so often do not bother to read the link. I see that in the link, the author admits that the SPIRITUAL rock is Christ.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Excellent answer, brother Jon, done in a very concise and iirenic spirit, I might add.

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Excellent answer, brother Jon, done in a very concise and iirenic spirit, I might add.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for the affirmation! I really hope and pray that we will see All Orthodox churches come into communion with Rome in the near future. Such wonderful steps are being made, lifting the excommunications, attending Pope Francis’ inaugural mass, etc…

and it is so hopeful that a long standing division, a division that has legitimate issues that seem to be overshadowed by misunderstandings, will soon be reunited.

I imagine your church will play a large role in this process.

God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

You are welcome, brother. Did you see my clarification on the “keys” in post #55? I hope that if you ever join the Catholic Church, you will be in the High Petrine camp.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for the affirmation! I really hope and pray that we will see All Orthodox churches come into communion with Rome in the near future. Such wonderful steps are being made, lifting the excommunications, attending Pope Francis’ inaugural mass, etc…

and it is so hopeful that a long standing division, a division that has legitimate issues that seem to be overshadowed by misunderstandings, will soon be reunited.

I imagine your church will play a large role in this process.

God Bless.

 

[JamesTheJust]

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.

I’ve heard that, in a discussion with Zwingli, Luther refused to answer his arguments against the Real Presence and just continually wrote “hoc est corpus meum” on the table.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I’ve heard that, in a discussion with Zwingli, Luther refused to answer his arguments against the Real Presence and just continually wrote “hoc est corpus meum” on the table.

Luther and the Lutheran theologians who completed the Book of Concord were extremely adamant about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and not a symbolic presence against Zwingli, or a spiritual presence against Calvin.

Lutherans today are still adamant about it, we receive on the tongue while kneeling in reverence.

Some of my fellow Protestants have deemed me not to be Christian because of this teaching.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Luther and the Lutheran theologians who completed the Book of Concord were extremely adamant about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and not a symbolic presence against Zwingli, or a spiritual presence against Calvin.

Lutherans today are still adamant about it, we receive on the tongue while kneeling in reverence.

Some of my fellow Protestants have deemed me not to be Christian because of this teaching.

I am sorry that that has happened to you. I think that Catholicism and Lutheranism are as close as “Papism” and a Protestant denomination can get, and I see a bright future in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue.

A question: Would it be appropriate for a Lutheran to believe in transubstantiation, or are you bound to confess that the way Christ is present in the Sacrament is incomprehensible to man?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks for the heads up. I normally think that when people quote, and then give a link, they are giving the pertinent portion in the quote already,

And to whom the post was intended that’s exactly what occurred.

BTW I don 't see what your referring to here post #55, I give you credit though.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: “You shall be called Cephas” [42], that the Lord, after his confession, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God,” spoke these words: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. 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” [43].
3. For “no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives” and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors” the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
4. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. “So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received” [47].

or here, Canon one I assume you are referring to? post #55

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

Also I disagree that your understanding of the Keys as suggested is confined to the absolute petrine view. That’s perhaps a defining aspect, but many believe the same in the high petrine view.

Traditionally I don’t see either where you made your point with the Keys, certainly not from post #55.

Peace

.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I am sorry that that has happened to you. I think that Catholicism and Lutheranism are as close as “Papism” and a Protestant denomination can get, and I see a bright future in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue.

A question: Would it be appropriate for a Lutheran to believe in transubstantiation, or are you bound to confess that the way Christ is present in the Sacrament is incomprehensible to man?

It depends. A Lutheran that holds to the confessions cannot agree with Transubstantiation.

Part III, Article VI of the Smalcald Articles specifically reject it.
5] As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.
*

Of course there are some Lutherans who don’t hold fully to the confessions.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It depends. A Lutheran that holds to the confessions cannot agree with Transubstantiation.

Part III, Article VI of the Smalcald Articles specifically reject it.
5] As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.
*

Of course there are some Lutherans who don’t hold fully to the confessions.

I think there is some error here on understanding of Transubstantiation.

It is not as if it is an illusion, that it is body and blood but looks like bread and wine.

No, instead the substance is transformed into body and blood but the accidents remain. This means it IS still bread and wine. If examined by a lab they will confirm. But the TRUE Substance, the body and blood of our savior is Truly and Really there as well.

It is in fact changed in its nature, although physically it appears the same.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

Nowhere does Pastor Aeternus state that Jesus gave the keys to Peter ALONE. It only states that Peter alone had the primacy.

Here is the teaching of Lateran IV -
“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.”

And as pointed out in past threads, the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration contained a request for God to grant the keys to the new bishop (the Rite was changed in the 1960’s).

Also, this was the explicit teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great.

So it is impossible for Catholics who adhere to the High Petrine doctrine of the Catholic Church, which she has taught for 2 millenia, to claim that ONLY the Pope holds or received the keys, or that Jesus gave the keys ONLY to St. Peter.

I can conceive that within the High Petrine camp, there can be a distinction on this matter - namely, either:
(1) God gave the keys to Peter, who then shared it with the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys (IIRC, this is the form of it taught by Pope St. Leo); OR
(2) God gave the keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys.

But it is outside the boundaries of the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church to claim that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys, or ONLY Peter received the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

And to whom the post was intended that’s exactly what occurred.

BTW I don 't see what your referring to here post #55, I give you credit though.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence,Also I disagree that your understanding of the Keys as suggested is confined to the absolute petrine view. That’s perhaps a defining aspect, but many believe the same in the high petrine view.
   .

 

[benjohnson]

A question: Would it be appropriate for a Lutheran to believe in transubstantiation, or are you bound to confess that the way Christ is present in the Sacrament is incomprehensible to man?

I’ve used transubstantiation as a explanation to my children with the proviso that the description in no way bounds God’s grace within.

But as a Lutheran, I think this simple adherence to God’s word and leaving the remainder as a mystery is one of the thing that I’m adamant about - for if we were able to truly comprehend it, it would no long be Him.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nowhere does Pastor Aeternus state that Jesus gave the keys to Peter ALONE. It only states that Peter alone had the primacy.

“It was to Simon “alone”, to whom he had already said” above text:

Here is the teaching of Lateran IV -
“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.”

Canon one is in reference to the Sacraments the properly ordained of the one Church in which there is one teaching authority(Keys) and many Bishops who indeed bind and lose. .

And as pointed out in past threads, the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration contained a request for God to grant the keys to the new bishop (the Rite was changed in the 1960’s).

Sacramental ordination same thing above with the Bishop. Administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, its what the Keys are a charisma of the teaching authority.

Also, this was the explicit teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great.

He was a very humble Pope.

Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

So it is impossible for Catholics who adhere to the High Petrine doctrine of the Catholic Church, which she has taught for 2 millenia, to claim that ONLY the Pope holds or received the keys, or that Jesus gave the keys ONLY to St. Peter.

Biblically he did give the “Keys” ONLY to Peter? The Keys are as I contend the charisma of the teaching authority of which as the Pope states above. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior

I can conceive that within the High Petrine camp, there can be a distinction on this matter - namely, either:
(1) God gave the keys to Peter, who then shared it with the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys (IIRC, this is the form of it taught by Pope St. Leo); OR
(2) God gave the keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys

Pope Damasus
.

But it is outside the boundaries of the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church to claim that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys, or ONLY Peter received the keys

.
Its a Biblical fact of which you can not prove otherwise yes or no? Only Peter received the Keys …yes or no? Do you know another verse where he gave them specifically to another?

Biblically the Keys are given to Peter. In reality that’s where they are today? Historically the preponderance of evidence favors this position?

 

[mardukm]

Dear benjohnson,

I agree with the principle you state (bolded below). But if you think about it, it is a MUCH greater mystery that something can be what it appears not to be, rather than for something to simply really co-exist side-by-side (which I think is the Lutheran position).

Transubstantiation itself, I truly believe, is a formal teaching of just how great a mystery the Mystery (i.e., Sacrament) of the Eucharist is.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ve used transubstantiation as a explanation to my
children with the proviso that the description in no way bounds God’s grace within.

But as a Lutheran, I think this simple adherence to God’s word and leaving the remainder as a mystery is one of the thing that I’m adamant about - for if we were able to truly comprehend it, it would no long be Him.

 

[benjohnson]

Dear benjohnson,

I agree with the principle you state (bolded below). But if you think about it, it is a MUCH greater mystery that something can be what it appears not to be, rather than for something to simply really co-exist side-by-side (which I think is the Lutheran position).

Frankly for me, the Orthodox position on this is of great comfort - that it’s ok to leave things a mystery is good news indeed!

The Lutherans position is that the Body and Blood fully and completely a mystery and is unknowable.

We will say “in, with, and under” to make it known that it’s the true Body and not just a symbol for those that would like to question this mystery of faith - but the definition is not what we eat, we eat and drink the Body and Blood.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

“It was to Simon “alone”, to whom he had already said” above text:"

It was to Simon alone that he said that, but he didn’t give him the keys at that point (or is that what you are claiming?). I believe he gave him, and the rest of the Apostles the keys when he breathed on all of them after the Resurrection, when he stated he gave them all the power to bind and loose.

Canon one is in reference to the Sacraments the properly ordained of the one Church in which there is one teaching authority(Keys) and many Bishops who indeed bind and lose. .

Sacramental ordination same thing above with the Bishop. Administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, its what the Keys are a charisma of the teaching authority.

Indeed, the Sacramental authority of the Church.is the essence of the keys, along with its government. The Sacramental authority is exercised through that divinely established government of the Church.

Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Quoting a Father who merely quotes the Scripture at issue does not really resolve anything. Obviously, the keys are bound up with the government of the Church (according to the Isaiah 22 verse), as noted above.

Biblically he did give the “Keys” ONLY to Peter? The Keys are as I contend the charisma of the teaching authority of which as the Pope states above.

If you admit that it is the charism of the teaching authority, then it cannot possibly have been given to Peter alone (and to his particular successors alone). That is certainly not what Pope St. Damasus was claiming. Are you claiming that the Pope is the only true teacher in Christendom, and that the rest of the bishops are just his yes-men? That is the only possible conclusion if one claims that the keys are the teaching authority and Jesus gave the keys ONLY to St. Peter.

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior. Pope Damasus

That the giving of the keys signifies that St. Peter is at the forefront is very far from claiming that the keys were given to St. Peter ALONE.

Vatican 1 makes sense of this confusion. It affirmed in Pastor Aeternus, contrary to the claims of the Absolutist Petrine neo-ultramontanists, that the primacy of the Pope is episcopal. The primacy does not make the Pope any more of a bishop than any of his brother bishops. The primacy is a NATURAL and INHERENT feature of the government of the Church (episcopate) which it obtained by Jesus passing on the keys to the Apostles. The Pope does not hold the primacy because he ALONE holds the keys, but because, according to Christ’s divine institution, primacy is an essential feature of the episcopacy that possesses the keys.

Its a Biblical fact of which you can not prove otherwise yes or no? Only Peter received the Keys …yes or no? Do you know another verse where he gave them specifically to another?

It is a biblical fact that in Mt. 16:18, Jesus did not actually give the keys at that moment to him,. Since he said he would give it to him, we need to determine from the biblical record when that occurred. The only logical time would be when he gave all of them the power to bind and loose.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. For any non-Catholic claiming there is no distinction between the Absolutist and High Petrine views within the Catholic Church, I hope this debate between myself and brother Gary obliterates that illusion.

 

[josie_L]

Dear brother Gary,

Nowhere does Pastor Aeternus state that Jesus gave the keys to Peter ALONE. It only states that Peter alone had the primacy.

Here is the teaching of Lateran IV -
“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.”

And as pointed out in past threads, the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration contained a request for God to grant the keys to the new bishop (the Rite was changed in the 1960’s).

Also, this was the explicit teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great.

So it is impossible for Catholics who adhere to the High Petrine doctrine of the Catholic Church, which she has taught for 2 millenia, to claim that ONLY the Pope holds or received the keys, or that Jesus gave the keys ONLY to St. Peter.

I can conceive that within the High Petrine camp, there can be a distinction on this matter - namely, either:
(1) God gave the keys to Peter, who then shared it with the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys (IIRC, this is the form of it taught by Pope St. Leo); OR
(2) God gave the keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys.

But it is outside the boundaries of the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church to claim that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys, or ONLY Peter received the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

“It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in “Dict. Christ. Antiq.”, s.v.).** There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church’s hierarchy throughout the world.”**

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s Pope St. Leo the Great in question.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/454/St._Peter_and_the_Keys__St._Leo_the_Great.html

"The authority vested in this power passed also to the other apostles, and the institution established by this decree has been continued in all the leaders of the Church.

But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church"

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

I’m not sure that helps. The “keys” naturally involves three inherent elements (government and sacramental authority, among the three, which is what brother Gary and I are discussing). These three elements cannot be separated from the concept of the “keys.” In any case, the government of the Church belongs to all the bishops, not just the Pope, so even in that sense, it is not correct to claim that only the Pope has the keys or only the Pope was given the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

“It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in “Dict. Christ. Antiq.”, s.v.).** There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church’s hierarchy throughout the world.”**

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[mardukm]

Frankly for me, the Orthodox position on this is of great comfort - that it’s ok to leave things a mystery is good news indeed!

The Lutherans position is that the Body and Blood fully and completely a mystery and is unknowable.

We will say “in, with, and under” to make it known that it’s the true Body and not just a symbol for those that would like to question this mystery of faith - but the definition is not what we eat, we eat and drink the Body and Blood.

But how does the dogma of Transubstantiation deprive the Eucharist of its “mysterious” character, since, as stated, it is certainly more mysterious that something can be what it appears not to be, than simply for two things to coexist side-by-side.