Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[YADA]

How does Col 1:18 contradict my verse from Hebrews 12? Actually it agrees with my point: Jesus is pre-emminant in everything.

And the Cathoic Church [and all of the Catholics of which the Church is made] agree that Jesus is pre-emminant in every thing … Are you saying we do not hold our Lord and Savoir pre-emminant?

Has God done away with Israel? Is Revelation about Israel or the church? What is Romans chapter 9 & 11 about?

God has not sone away with Isreal or any nation nor any people … Jesus came to redeem the world. God reveals Himself to us in HIs own way … The Isrealites were to be a ‘Light to the Nations’ … in many ways they still are today … the Church is the embodiment of the Kingdom that Jesus ushered intot he world … The Kingdom is here … why are you fussing over the Church v Isreal … both are of God … Jesus founded a Church - as His followers we are called to listen to the Church - if we fail to do so we are in peril - as the scriptures tell us …

The church founded by Jesus and that existed for the first 1500 yrs was bigger than the CC (as we know it, most likely started in the 3rd or 4th century).

this is a mere conjecture on your part and a denial of the historical record comprised of the writings extant through time, archeology and the living witness of the people who make up the Church that has continued from Pentacost to this day - as witnessed to by the faith, beliefs and practices through that same period of time.

Any tradition, oral or written, should be rejected as inspired, if it is in any in contradiction to the Bible or taught that one must hold to that and to Bible teachings, IMO.

At least you recognize that this is just you opinion. Since the Church predates the New Testament writings, they [the New Testament Writings] are in fact a product of the Traditions as witnessed to and lived by the Church, the community of believers - even as they are in fact inspired by God. Not everything was written into those New Testament writings - as even the scriptures -themselves- give testimony to.

I though he ordained his accessor?

Did you not witness the ‘process’ through which we selected the most recent successor - what about that process would lead you to believe that JPII selected his successor Perhaps you just are not observant?

BTW, there’s no evidence that the early church looked to Peter as their leader (after pentacost, which didn’t make him the leader).

This too is your interpretation of the Scriptures … I see much in them that illustrates the leadership that Peter exercised … It ws Peter who decried that a successor was to be chosen for Judas … obviously - even though Jesus - never used the term ‘office’ as He selected the Apostles they got that clue [perhaps the selection of Peter to be the Prime Minister of the Church echoing Isaiah 22 was the clue for them - but alas I know yu don;t get that ] … Peter says "let another his office take’ … no one says “*hey Peter who died and made you Pope?” *… they collectively go about the process - just as it is done to this day… Peter is the first to speak at Pentacost.

Peter was not set up to be the Bishop of Jerusalem bcause his destiny was to serve the entire Church - that Church that Jesus commanded was to be spread throughout the world … Hint at that time Rome was considered to be the center - the heart - of the entire world. Peter is the one [and yes I know that paul calls himself the apostle to the gentiles] that first [and after a direct vision] opened up the faith to the Gentiles without regard to obedience to the Mosaic Laws [Dietary, Circumcision, etc] … Peter was the head of all the Church not just what was a newly formed Christian sect within the jewish tradition.

So you interpret and read into the scriptures your view point - which is an individualized “me and Jesus” theology … Is Jesus Christ you personal Lord and Savior? … [to which I - and the Church - would answer ‘yes’ by the way ] … you can be inspired to believe one “truth” while another acan be inspired by the same passage to an opposite “Truth” … But Jesus cannot be One Truth for you and a Different Truth for another … the Holy Spirit is not the God of Confusion and Disharmony … Jesus did not enter into individual relationships teaching one truth to Judas and one truth to Peter or Thomas … Jesus founded a Church - one community of beievers for which He prayed - prayed so hard he sweat Blood - over that community remaining "unified’ He prayed that we remain “ONE” … for each person to have a differing “Truth” is not One … which is why one Early Church Father wrote that if you seprated yourself from the Boat of Peter could you be assurd that you remained a follower of Christ? because where Peter is - there is the Church … You see in that passage is found your Christ who is the Fountain and Well Spring our our Christian Life - in Whom we have our identity - within the Community that Christ Himself established and promised to preserve from the evil of the Devil who desired to snare Peter over all the rest.

 

[Carlan]

Fellowship and friendship. Jesus said they (none believers) would know Him by our love (brothers and sisters in Christ) one for another. While we’re arguing who or what is the church Jesus founded, *there are many heading to a Christless eternity.
-*Also, maybe to set straight what some of your misunderstandings are about non-catholic Christians.​

BTW, I’ve only posted in the non-catholic part of this board.

Dorkimas this is after all a CA forum, this particular tread is for our separated brothers to visit and learn the truth of what we believe. You are most welcome to share what you believe. When it is all said we either accept as truth what is said or we do not and move on.
Perhaps we should all leave that up to God to judge
of course is does help to personally look in the mirror,occasionally,Carlan

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m getting ready to go to Church and a thought came to mind and I wanted to take a minute to try and articulate something to one of the posters who has said that the Holy Spirit interprets scriptures for those that are ‘saved’.

I was raised Protestant. When I got married, I wanted to attend the Church Christ built and began researching, reading and praying for guidance. I truly believe the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church, some of which was due to the interpretation of scriptures the Holy Spirit led me through.

Now, for a person to come here and say that the Holy Spirit will lead someone through the scriptures and interpretation, if they are truly saved, and my interpretation is wrong, is telling me the Holy Spirit is not leading me and insinuating that I am without salvation. How am I supposed to receive that message? I want proof! I want documentation! I want to know where they get their authority!

If that’s the message you have for me, expect tough questions and demands for proof. I will be more than happy to do my best to explain my beliefs, which are given to me by the Holy Spirit. AMEN.

 

[Dokimas]

And the Cathoic Church [and all of the Catholics of which the Church is made] agree that Jesus is pre-emminant in every thing … Are you saying we do not hold our Lord and Savoir pre-emminant? Nope.

God has not sone away with Isreal or any nation nor any people … Jesus came to redeem the world. God reveals Himself to us in HIs own way … The Isrealites were to be a ‘Light to the Nations’ … in many ways they still are today … the Church is the embodiment of the Kingdom that Jesus ushered intot he world … The Kingdom is here … why are you fussing over the Church v Isreal … both are of God … Jesus founded a Church - as His followers we are called to listen to the Church - if we fail to do so we are in peril - as the scriptures tell us …

this is a mere conjecture on your part and a denial of the historical record comprised of the writings extant through time, archeology and the living witness of the people who make up the Church that has continued from Pentacost to this day - as witnessed to by the faith, beliefs and practices through that same period of time.

At least you recognize that this is just you opinion. **And I also recognize you and your church has a right to your opinion that may or may not be in accordance with the Word of God. **Since the Church predates the New Testament writings, they [the New Testament Writings] are in fact a product of the Traditions as witnessed to and lived by the Church, the community of believers - even as they are in fact inspired by God. Not everything was written into those New Testament writings - as even the scriptures -themselves- give testimony to. And not a mention of the Holy Spirit. Interesting.

Did you not witness the ‘process’ through which we selected the most recent successor - what about that process would lead you to believe that JPII selected his successor Perhaps you just are not observant? ** I observed that if Peter was the 1st pope and he ordained the 2nd pope, the way the CC selects popes now is different that the way it was done in the early church by the early church fathers.**

This too is your interpretation of the Scriptures … I see much in them that illustrates the leadership that Peter exercised Peter sure was a leader, not the leader … It ws Peter who decried that a successor was to be chosen for Judas A good argument can be made that the poor man they ‘chose’ to replace Judas was wrong and that God’s choice was Paul (Saul of Tarsus). To my knowledge, Jesus never used lots to pick the original 12. … obviously - even though Jesus - never used the term ‘office’ as He selected the Apostles they got that clue [perhaps the selection of Peter to be the Prime Minister of the Church echoing Isaiah 22 was the clue for them - but alas I know yu don;t get that ] … Peter says "let another his office take’ … no one says “*hey Peter who died and made you Pope?” *… they collectively go about the process - just as it is done to this day… Peter is the first to speak at Pentacost.

Peter was not set up to be the Bishop of Jerusalem bcause his destiny was to serve the entire Church - that Church that Jesus commanded was to be spread throughout the world … Hint at that time Rome was considered to be the center - the heart - of the entire world. Peter is the one [and yes I know that paul calls himself the apostle to the gentiles] that first [and after a direct vision] opened up the faith to the Gentiles without regard to obedience to the Mosaic Laws [Dietary, Circumcision, etc] … Peter was the head of all the Church not just what was a newly formed Christian sect within the jewish tradition.

So you interpret and read into the scriptures your view point - which is an individualized “me and Jesus” theology Your theology is the CC theology. … Is Jesus Christ you personal Lord and Savior? … [to which I - and the Church - would answer ‘yes’ by the way ] … you can be inspired to believe one “truth” while another acan be inspired by the same passage to an opposite “Truth” … But Jesus cannot be One Truth for you and a Different Truth for another … the Holy Spirit is not the God of Confusion and Disharmony (True. Nor does He cause confusion and disharmony. All churches have and do cause some confusion and disharmony)… Jesus did not enter into individual relationships teaching one truth to Judas and one truth to Peter or Thomas Neither did He teach what you teach about Mary His mother. … Jesus founded a Church - one community of beievers for which He prayed - prayed so hard he sweat Blood - over that community remaining "unified’ He prayed that we remain “ONE” … for each person to have a differing “Truth” is not One … which is why one Early Church Father wrote that if you seprated yourself from the Boat of Peter could you be assurd that you remained a follower of Christ? because where Peter is - there is the Church … **Wow. I thought Jesus said that where two or three of us are gathered in HIS Name there He’d be. ** You see in that passage is found your Christ who is the Fountain and Well Spring our our Christian Life - in Whom we have our identity **Look carefully at what you’ve said - it’s not Jesus only but Jesus as taught by the CC by sacred tradition **- within the Community that Christ Himself established and promised to preserve from the evil of the Devil who desired to snare Peter over all the rest.

 

[Dokimas]

Dorkimas this is after all a CA forum, this particular tread is for our separated brothers to visit and learn the truth of what we believe. You are most welcome to share what you believe. When it is all said we either accept as truth what is said or we do not and move on.
Perhaps we should all leave that up to God to judge
of course is does help to personally look in the mirror,occasionally,Carlan

Are you saying I’m dorki?​

Good point about letting God do the judging and also that we should look into a mirror.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Dorkimas,

Why do you require that Peter appointed his successor, when that’s not the way it’s done. Yes, Peter and the Popes do ordain people, but they do not pick their successor. See how they replaced Judas? By casting lots, after praying for God to place who He wanted in the position.

 

[Carlan]

Are you saying I’m dorki?​

Good point about letting God do the judging and also that we should look into a mirror.

Good heavens No! I have a dreadful habit or cutting names short The xtra letter was a mistake, and I’m a bad speller to boot, sorry.)Carlan

 

[Dokimas]

Good heavens No! I have a dreadful habit or cutting names short The xtra letter was a mistake, and I’m a bad speller to boot, sorry.)Carlan

Just teasing. I’m a poor speller.

 

[Dokimas]

Dorkimas,

Why do you require that Peter appointed his successor, when that’s not the way it’s done. Yes, Peter and the Popes do ordain people, but they do not pick their successor. See how they replaced Judas? By casting lots, after praying for God to place who He wanted in the position.

I don’t require it. That’s what I’ve been told by others on this board.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Never heard of any of these scholars and if this is the most prominent on your list, then the other 15 would be of little use or authority to me.

That’s because these are real scholars and not Televangelists. If you stop by your local Lifeway Christian Bookstore, you’ll find these men in the reference books and not in the pulp spirituality aisles.

Also, I asked you a few questions in previous posts that have not been addressed, I thought maybe you may have left the thread, but I see you have not. Start on post #583 on page 39 than move forward.

I think I reviewed your questions previously, but I’ll check them out again to see if there is anything of interest there.

I’m not sure who denies that “Petros” is a small stone or rock. That would show a blindness beyond understanding given the tools we have to look at the actual Greek meaning of the word.

An argument which has been disproven. By the time the NT was written, the “little pebble” connotation no longer existed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have looked into these people/books via ChristianBook.com to see if any of these are still published and what kind of comments or ratings; the results were as I suspected. Most have no comments or ratings, which means few read it. The one that did have 11 reviews in positive manner was D.A. Carson.

And obviously, if Scott Hahn is endorsing Carson’s work, it is because his scholarship is enlightening for those non-Catholics who continue clinging to a discredited interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

I’m sorry if the website you visited does not sell the books I referenced, but this does not change the fact that some really bright men admitted that Peter, not Peter’s confession, is the rock upon which Jesus built the Church.

Here are a few more for now:

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)
“The play on words – ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ – requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical – Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world…” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)

John Broadus (Baptist)
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession”

“Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.”

*“But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” *[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356JPK page 20]

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
“Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252, JPK pages 31-32)

M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ)
“**16:18, Peter as Rock. **Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros)… There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church…On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)

 

[YADA]

Dokimas-

You have posted enough times here that you should really know how to use the quote feature … please take some time to learn it …

*At least you recognize that this is just you opinion. ***And I also recognize you and your church has a right to your opinion that may or may not be in accordance with the Word of God. **Since the Church predates the New Testament writings, they [the New Testament Writings] are in fact a product of the Traditions as witnessed to and lived by the Church, the community of believers - even as they are in fact inspired by God. Not everything was written into those New Testament writings - as even the scriptures -themselves- give testimony to. **And not a mention of the Holy Spirit. Interesting. **

What is it about "even as they are in fact inspired by God." in the above statement that makes you believe that I did not mention the “Holy Spirit” … the Trinity is One God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit … thus here is another case where the meaning was clear but because the writer [me] used different terms - you intepreted those terms to mean that I do not recognize the Holy Psirit’s role … :tsktsk: See the problems we have with a common language during contemporary times … how much more difficult is it some 2000 years later, different languages filtered through various linguistic translations and an entirely different culture …

*? *I observed that if Peter was the 1st pope and he ordained the 2nd pope, the way the CC selects popes now is different that the way it was done in the early church by the early church fathers.

… Well perhaps before you make an observation you should educate yourself … observing from a position of ignorance is never pretty my friend … the Church [as much as some - even Catholics complain of as being changed] is very much the same today as she was at Pentecost … I fact that I attribute to the intervention of God [and yes that includes the Holy Spirit - the Paraclete… PLUS the Father, the Creator and Jesus Christ - the God-Man of History, the Word who was at the Beginning and Will be at the End]

Peter sure was a leader, not the leader

And this is just you opinion that is totally unsupported by scripture and hisorical writings and I would say archeological evidence …

---

A good argument can be made that the poor man they ‘chose’ to replace Judas was wrong and that God’s choice was Paul (Saul of Tarsus). To my knowledge, Jesus never used lots to pick the original 12

**. … *
And this remark barely deserves a response. How Jesus selected the 12 Apostles is not the issue and obviously would not be replicated by the Church He established. Jesus knew the men He selected to lead the Church. Just as the Jewish priests were selected through temporal means [guided by God through prayer] - so too would the Church thhrough the ages after Jesus Ascended into Heaven.

Paul had his own vocational role in the Church - given a vision of the Church [Jesus the Head of the Church and the people of Christ - the body] Saul was called to account for his persecution and murder of Christians, he repented and joined the Community … and as such was compelled to meet with Peter to ensure that his message was received as being in communion the Church …

 

[Randy_Carson]

I though he ordained his accessor? BTW, there’s no evidence that the early church looked to Peter as their leader (after pentacost, which didn’t make him the leader).

It’s “successor” not “accessor” and “Pentecost” not “Pentacost”.

Here is the evidence that you are unaware of:

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

---

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen (248 A.D.)

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

That takes us up to about AD 250. Need more?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s teaching like this, not found in the Bible, I find hard to embrace.

Here’s a boatload of scriptural evidence:

Peter – The Rock and the Keeper of the Keys

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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.” (Matthew 16:13-19)

1. Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own. Instead, God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon this humble fisherman. Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way and declared, “Blessed are you.” The Father had blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son.
2. Jesus gave him the name, “Kepha”, an Aramaic word that means “rock”. In the original, the passage would read, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus also announces the establishment of His Church, and clearly delineates Kepha as its leader. Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”. Petros is more suitable for a man. Therefore, from “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
3. The Church to be built was not of human origin. Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, and upon this rock you must build a church.” He said, “I will build my church.” Inaugurated by the Father, built by the Son and led by the Holy Spirit, the Church is a human institution of divine origin.
4. For this reason, “the gates of Hell will not overcome” the Church, and for over 2,000 years the Church, lead by the Apostolic Successors of Peter, has faithfully borne witness to the gospel.
5. Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Finally, Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this passage mean? There are two possible interpretations. First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put himself in the impossible situation of affirming that which is not true. A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

 

[YADA]

***DOKIMAS

Your theology is the CC theology

.*** … *I am not sure what you mean by CC theology. I am a Christian. I am a member of the Church that Jesus established. I submit myself to the teachings of the Church [no one becomes a Christian in a vacuum]. I am educated, I read the scriptures, I study history, cultures and read the writings that predate Christ and that have been preserved through the ravages of the ages to our time … And though I am not a world class traveler - I have traveled outside the country and spent time working in developing countires. ANd those ancient manuscripts, books, inscriptions - not just religious but many writings on many topics, and I like archealogy.- though I am a civil engineer and a land surveyor. …

---

True. Nor does He cause confusion and disharmony. All churches have and do cause some confusion and disharmony

• **You say all have disharmony and confusion - how does that statement square with the promise that the Church would be preserved from the GAtes of Hell? If the Church is not preserved from error and each individual is free to interpret [as they feel inspired and lead by the Holy SPirit … what does that gain? How can you know Jesus and Him Crucified for you … How does one receive then the Heavenly Food, the very Body and Blood of Jesus or have the information to remain in the “Race” - the necessities to assure that you are not “running in vain”? … What you are prescribin gis exactly the recipe for Confusion into which the Lier of Lies can take hold of the human race .[/COLOR]

---

Neither did He teach what you teach about Mary His mother

***.
I am fairly certain that Jesus held His Mother in very high esteem and loved her greatly. Enough so that He gave her to the Church as Mother [as my mother - leading me to her Son “Do whatever He tells you” … Yes, Lord, let it be done unto me - according to Your Word" - while He hung on the Cross dying for my sins. Mary is the Mother of God - the Theotokos and there is nothing in the teachings of the Church on Mary that Jesus would not affirm …

.

Wow. I thought Jesus said that where two or three of us are gathered in HIS Name there He’d be**.*** That my friend is the Truth of the Chruch, a community - gathered in unity - in the Name that is above all Names and at whose Name every knee shall bend in heaven and on earth… not “Me and Jesus” … not “Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior” … but an “Us and Jesus” … and gathered together - as one body, one church and onepeorple of God

---

**Look carefully at what you’ve said - it’s not Jesus only but Jesus as taught by the CC by sacred tradition **

***- Jesus founded a Church - Jesus did not ask Peter “Who do you say that I Am?” … “You are correct - I Am” … No Jesus said I will build MY CHURCH [the Church - Christ’s Church] … and to Peter he said “Strengthen your brethren, Feed My sheep, Feed my Lambs” Jesus prayed that “they be One” One in what? In Jesus? Amen, Let it be So - It is Truth - … But we are ONE when we are members of the Church Christ founded … As Paul says … “hold fast to the Traditions that have been handed on whether by Word or Letter” … so that you may know how to behave in the Church …

 

[Dokimas]

It’s “successor” not “accessor” and “Pentecost” not “Pentacost”.

Here is the evidence that you are unaware of:

**Clement of Alexandria **

Thanks for the spelling lesson.​

Please tell ProdicalSon that Peter ordained his Successor. That was my point.

 

[Dokimas]

***DOKIMAS

**** … *I am not sure what you mean by CC theology. CC teaching. I am a Christian. I am a member of the Church that Jesus established. I submit myself to the teachings of the Church [no one becomes a Christian in a vacuum]. I am educated, I read the scriptures, I study history, cultures and read the writings that predate Christ and that have been preserved through the ravages of the ages to our time … And though I am not a world class traveler - I have traveled outside the country and spent time working in developing countires. ANd those ancient manuscripts, books, inscriptions - not just religious but many writings on many topics, and I like archealogy.- though I am a civil engineer and a land surveyor. … Very nice resume. Truly impressive compared to mine.

*** ***You say all have disharmony and confusion There’s enough disharmony and confusion to go around; protestants don’t have a corner on them- how does that statement square with the promise that the Church would be preserved from the GAtes of Hell? **Jesus’ church will be preserved in spite of us all; and it’s not the CC as the only church, IMO. **If the Church is not preserved from error and each individual is free to interpret [as they feel inspired and lead by the Holy SPirit … what does that gain? [COLOR=“blue”]Did Jesus say His church would be free from error? How can you know Jesus and Him Crucified for you … How does one receive then the Heavenly Food, the very Body and Blood of Jesus or have the information to remain in the “Race” - the necessities to assure that you are not “running in vain”? … What you are prescribin gis exactly the recipe for Confusion into which the Lier of Lies can take hold of the human race .

---

I am fairly certain that Jesus held His Mother in very high esteem Me too. and loved her greatly. Me too. Enough so that He gave her to the Church as Mother Not me. [as my mother - leading me to her Son “Do whatever He tells you” … Yes, Lord, let it be done unto me - according to Your Word" - while He hung on the Cross dying for my sins. Mary is the Mother of God - the Theotokos and there is nothing in the teachings of the Church on Mary that Jesus would not affirm …

**. That my friend is the Truth of the Chruch, a community - gathered in unity - in the Name that is above all Names and at whose Name every knee shall bend in heaven and on earth… not “Me and Jesus” … not “Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior” … but an “Us and Jesus” … and gathered together - as one body, one church and onepeorple of God

******- Jesus founded a Church - Jesus did not ask Peter “Who do you say that I Am?” … “You are correct - I Am” … No Jesus said I will build MY CHURCH [the Church - Christ’s Church] … and to Peter he said “Strengthen your brethren, Feed My sheep, Feed my Lambs” Jesus prayed that “they be One” One in what? In Jesus? Amen, Let it be So - It is Truth - … But we are ONE when we are members of the Church Christ founded … As Paul says … “hold fast to the Traditions that have been handed on whether by Word or Letter” … so that you may know how to behave in the Church …​

Jesus founded His church on the truth of the saying of Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for the spelling lesson.​

Please tell ProdicalSon that Peter ordained his Successor. That was my point.

This is uncertain. Scripture inidicates that Linus and Clement were known to Paul but others make the connections to Peter. Most probably, both Linus and Clement were known to both of the Apostles.

[2 Timothy 4:21](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=2 Timothy+4:21&version=NIV)
Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote:“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”[1] The Oxford Dictionary of Popes interprets Irenaeus as saying that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.[2] Linus is presented by Jerome as “the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church”,[3] by Eusebius, as “the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter”[4] by John Chrysostom as “second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”,[5] while the Liberian Catalogue[6] presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office. The Liber Pontificalis;[7] also presents a list that makes Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, after Peter; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor. Tertullian too makes Clement the successor of Peter.[8] And while, in another of his works, Jerome gives Clement as “the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter” (i.e., fourth in a series that included Peter), he adds that “most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle”.[9]
The Apostolic Constitutions[10] says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus’s successor by Irenaeus and the others cited above who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus

The official list of Popes reads as follows:

1. Peter
2. Linus
3. Anacletus
4. Clement
   etc.

 

[YADA]

Thanks for the spelling lesson.​

Please tell ProdicalSon that Peter ordained his Successor. That was my point.

Dokimas - Is english not your native tongue?

Peter ordained priests and consecrated bishops.

Peter did not ordain his sucessor because his successor was selected by the leadership of the Church after he died …

Peter [or any successor to the Petrine Office] may have ordaind a man to the priesthood, consecrated him a bishop and then after his death for that man to be selected to become the successor to Peter [or his successors]… but that is not the same as saying Peter ordained his successor …