Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[chrisb]

My Pastor teaches exclusively from the Bible.

You know the Jews of St. Paul’s day could have stated a very similar claim and yet St. Paul had to repeatedly point out how to interpret the Sacred Text to reveal Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Our Lord appeared to the Disciples on the way to Emmaus to taught them how to ‘see’ Our Lord within the texts of the Sacred Scriptures.

You could say that part of Holy Tradition, the life of the Church, is this sacred exegesis past on from the very beginning and is part of the Liturgy and prayers of the Church of the Living God. Reading the ‘Bible’ outside of this life of the Church, which we call Holy Tradition is like the Jews without the help of St. Paul or the Disciples with the help of Our Lord on the way to Emmaus.

We must follow the consensus of the Fathers and the Church from the beginning or we truly miss the finer points of our faith not clear in the New Testament. The written record of our faith was never meant to be exhaustive but to be a part of the Living Tradition of our Faith, Holy and Complete the deposit from the Apostles.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Paul’s rebuke of Peter does nothing to undermine Peter’s authority as head of the Church. Infallibility is not the same as impeccability. Let me know if you have questions about that.

Head of the Catholic church; right?

On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy

In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

How does your church define “primacy”? Why is the Catholic church appear to me to be hung up on whether one accepts or reject this “primacy/succession of Peter”? It is your religion and God is fair and just and will decide the fate of all based on His perfect justice.

CUT

In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.

However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:

Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?

This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:

Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.

However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.

You are correct in you interpretative reality as you have perceived it by your understanding; which makes Paul a hypocrite. I doubt Paul acted out of fear, I did not see that in the record. But Paul was interested in Soul winning and made a statement to the effect that he would be like a chameleon in order to reach people with the gospel. Like any missionary that goes to a different culture, you must adapt to that culture, w/out violating the Word of God, in order to be able to impact the culture with the gospel.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Yes, the Bible is Word of God - the written portion, anyway. Here is an explanation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
[81](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/81.htm’) "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
**"And [Holy] *Tradition ***transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
[83](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/83.htm’) The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
[84](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/84.htm’) The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46
The Magisterium of the Church
[85](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/85.htm’) "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
[86](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/86.htm’) "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48 [87](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/87.htm’) Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The Catholic church has been given extra divine revelation through the church magesterium and called “sacred tradition”, which is the Word of God not written, but passed down through the Apostles, especially Peter and his successors through the Bishop of Rome, who through divine tradition eventually received the title of Pope and vicar of Christ on earth. But although this "sacred tradition is divine revelation from God’ it can be modified or disregarded all together. Hope I got that all right; correct what I don’t or add what I left out. Good information and good reference as well…thank you.

 

[chrisb]

Head of the Catholic church; right?

Yes. You seem to think just because St. Peter erred in one personal act, favoring the Jews over the Greeks in this particular example that he cannot be the Head of the Catholic Church… that is like saying because a Pastor of a local congregation erred in judgment on one occasion, that he cannot be the Pastor of that local congregation. If someone falls short of their office, as St. Peter did in this example, it is right and just to call him out. That doesn’t undermine of Office of Pastor as every pastor is also a human being with personal sins that need to be checked especially if they are causing scandal.

How does your church define “primacy”? Why is the Catholic church appear to me to be hung up on whether one accepts or reject this “primacy/succession of Peter”? It is your religion and God is fair and just and will decide the fate of all based on His perfect justice.

Honestly, it’s not the Catholic Church that has a problem with ‘primacy’…

Obedience to one’s spiritual fathers and to the Pastors of the Church is part and parcel with our pursuit to imitate Christ and the Apostles. Humility is one of the chief marks of a Christian.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Little pebble, small stone…I’ve seen all of these desciptions used to minimize Peter. But this attempt fails as knowledgable Protestant scholars admit.

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]

So, a Baptist Greek Scholar agrees. Peter is the Rock.

So a Baptist preacher who help found two seminaries and was influential in Baptist history; I missed the title of “Greek Scholar”, do you have a reference? I don’t know why you are pushing this trail; i’m more interested in Catholicism and its doctrines and theology; otherwise there is no point in being here. As I have noted I am very fascinated by the doctrinal beliefs of your religion. Perhaps I need to do in some other more general thread since my questions are getting off topic. I understand that Catholics believe that Matthew 16 speaks of Peter as the foundational rock which Christ is building His church. I s there more i should or need to understand in regards to Matthew 16, trying to stay on the topic that you think is important for me to understand?

 

[Masters_Servant]

There is no mention of keys anywhere in Matthew 18.

However, since you asked about this…

Luther on the Keys

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” (*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) *

Now I have seen you and other Catholics reference the Keys as authority and used the “loose and bind” in conjunction with that and now you deny the association with the other posters? What is that all about?

 

[Masters_Servant]

Protestant Greek scholars.

Their you go assigning titles toward a bias. It is fine to be bias, we all are, but don’t add titles that is being deceptive in the eyes of the Lord.

The number and quality of these men are not small.

What is that number and compared to the whole number of opposition and what does the percentage amount to and does it have statistical significance or prove an interpretation? The quality part is interesting, I would assume most if not all would also say that the Pope does not equate from this passage nor any other passage at which point their “quality value” would be nothing to you. But none is the point; I just want to understand the Catholic position and where it originates from according to the Catholic teaching and you have been very helpful in this regard ,which I thank you for.

This error results from mixing metaphors. Consider carefully:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.”

Who wrote that? A Protestant.

(George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

I don’t see the problem with Peter and the rest of the Apostles laying the foundation upon the rock bed or after the cornerstone is laid, which is Christ Jesus. That foundation being laid is the Gospel of Christ and it had to begin somewhere and in God’s sovereignty decided to use 12 Apostles to lay the foundation of the Gospel, which is where the power of God is manifested by the manifestation of Jesus as Lord and Savior of the sinner; to the Jew first, then to the gentile.

This is simply a dismissive attempt to ignore what you do not want to hear.
Apparently, the Catholic Church is not the only source of this teaching, and that is what has you vexed.

I believe it is a poor argument and somewhat troubled by the picking and choosing of when to apply Aramaic over the Greek on an inconsistent basis, which only demonstrates one’s attempt to show something they want to be there, which you do not need to do. You perception and understanding is your reality, just not mine, but I am not here to understand or learn mine, but the Catholics, which I am making slow progress mainly because of you so far. Again I thank you for your help.

 

[Masters_Servant]

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

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.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

God is the one who ordains, which is why we have so many failures attempting to preach and teach the Word of God regardless of their Christian affiliation. Men appoint, even some of who Paul appointed were false teachers because it is from God. I would take a faithful person concerning the things of God that never went to seminary nor had hands laid on them, than an apostate that has gone through all the formalities of men. Wouldn’t you?

I had to edit to also say that the formalities are not to be thrown to the wind, for it is taught in god’s word, but the actual ordained are of God’s calling regardless of the formalities. if a person is truly called by God to be a preacher-teacher, then he will do the formalities just as many who are not called will do the formalities.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Thank you for your many informative posts, Randy.

In my opinion, the instances where Peter is called by the Aramaic name Cephas (which is Rock in Aramaic), totally destroy the argument of those who play the Petros-Petra distinction, or try to deny that the Rock refers to the person of Simon whose name was changed by Jesus into Cephas (Rock). You can’t get much clearer than what Jesus foretold in John 1:42, and did in Matthew 16:18.

It’s amazing how far we fallen humans will go to deny the truth when we don’t like it, no matter how clearly it is presented to us.

I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your posts; I learned a lot from them.

Considering Peter’s name is used in the NT 160 plus times, 4 times is a very small number, so based on that reasoning you should toss out the four times it is used. I’m not saying to actually do that, but only based on your rationale. In other words the because it was used 4 times has no bearing in and of itself and proves nothing in regards to the actual topic or position you stand firm on just going by “numbers”.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Of course the Church believes the Bible is the word of God it goes without saying to the enlightened. BTW where do you think the Bible came from if not from the early successors of Christ’s Apostles.Excuse my crassness but did you think it dropped out of the sky ?

Yes in the sense it is from Heaven. Not only that but although the NT was not altogether into a single book, the message of the Gospel was written in letters and given orally and distributed around the various churches at the time.

MS, I believe Catholic Answers is a wonderful source for us to share the Truth of what we believe as Christians. Everyone is welcome to the discussion. But in the end you either accept the Truth we share or you don’t and then move on. What is the point of arguing?

It is not a matter of accepting your truth for me; I just want to know more about the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic church. Much of what I have learned is foreign to me, but that is why I am here is to learn and understand your religion better. I have thanks to some of the posters responses.

 

[Masters_Servant]

You know the Jews of St. Paul’s day could have stated a very similar claim and yet St. Paul had to repeatedly point out how to interpret the Sacred Text to reveal Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Our Lord appeared to the Disciples on the way to Emmaus to taught them how to ‘see’ Our Lord within the texts of the Sacred Scriptures.

You could say that part of Holy Tradition, the life of the Church, is this sacred exegesis past on from the very beginning and is part of the Liturgy and prayers of the Church of the Living God. Reading the ‘Bible’ outside of this life of the Church, which we call Holy Tradition is like the Jews without the help of St. Paul or the Disciples with the help of Our Lord on the way to Emmaus.

We must follow the consensus of the Fathers and the Church from the beginning or we truly miss the finer points of our faith not clear in the New Testament. The written record of our faith was never meant to be exhaustive but to be a part of the Living Tradition of our Faith, Holy and Complete the deposit from the Apostles.

Thank you for the post and your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Yes. You seem to think just because St. Peter erred in one personal act, favoring the Jews over the Greeks in this particular example that he cannot be the Head of the Catholic Church… that is like saying because a Pastor of a local congregation erred in judgment on one occasion, that he cannot be the Pastor of that local congregation. If someone falls short of their office, as St. Peter did in this example, it is right and just to call him out. That doesn’t undermine of Office of Pastor as every pastor is also a human being with personal sins that need to be checked especially if they are causing scandal.

No; I’m just asking for clarification, which you gave…thank you.

Honestly, it’s not the Catholic Church that has a problem with ‘primacy’…

Obedience to one’s spiritual fathers and to the Pastors of the Church is part and parcel with our pursuit to imitate Christ and the Apostles. Humility is one of the chief marks of a Christian.

I agree within the bounds of Scripture, we are not told to blindly follow a pastor, he may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There is good reason for the many warnings concerning false teachers in Scripture; we are to be very discerning in that regard, which we can’t as Christians unless we understand the teaching from the Holy Spirit on this matter. This** is in no way to be considered a reference to the Catholic church; just an addendum to what you have posted with Scripture in view.**

 

[Dokimas]

The only issue with your statement at all, is that you won’t be satisfied until we agree with your own individual thoughts. It won’t happen, so I would stop looking for it.

I have no doubt you are a Christian man, and hold Christ dear. So never doubt that I believe that please. I am simply trying to help show you what we believe. Arguments against what we believe will get little ground. Even if one of us stops believing in what we believe, the Church will always stand strong, and pray for those that would speak words of ill against it.

So you want me to put aside my convictions and what I read in the Bible and believe what you are telling me??? It’s not me being satisfied with you agreeing with me (BTW, be honest, you’d want me to agree with you; correct) but having God satisfied with me and the decisions I make with my life. That’s hard enough so I don’t worry what you agree with or not.

 

[onenow1]

I believe it is a poor argument and somewhat troubled by the picking and choosing of when to apply Aramaic over the Greek on an inconsistent basis, which only demonstrates one’s attempt to show something they want to be there, which you do not need to do. You perception and understanding is your reality, just not mine, but I am not here to understand or learn mine, but the Catholics, which I am making slow progress mainly because of you so far. Again I thank you for your help.

John 1: 41, He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ).

42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Probably St.Johns reality also,wouldn’t you say ?

I think John terminates your argument, by actually defineing{ interpreting} for us the name Cephas, the first time Jesus changes his name to Peter.

What’s really interesting is th original name Caesare’a Philip’pi, was {Ponus I think?} dedicated to the god Pan. Herod had the name changed, to probably gain favor with Caesar,the god of Rome.

Peace, onenow1opcorn:

 

[YADA]

Okay so here is something I just don’t quite get …

Protestants in all of their varied churches with multiple and often times conflicting interpretations of scriptures can [and do] hire pastors for their churches … and that is okay - acceptable - they have no problem with that …

Protestants can gather their churches into a collective [Missouri Synod, Assembies of God - America] and that is okay … they have no problem with that …

All of these churches or collectives can have individually or collectively a process [formal or informal -as they see fit] credentials for selecting pastors, to identify the necessities of faith, etc …

Each and everyone Christian member of these Churches is free to remain and abide with the faith as established, submit to the teachings, the pastor - or not [and either find a ‘better’ fit or remove themselves totally from the Christian community] …

Depending upon the denomination [or non-denomination, bible believing, fundamnetal, evanglical etc] they can follow long held ‘traditions’, abandon those traditions or formulate new traditions - and all of that is Okay …

You can even subscribe to the everyone is inspired [by the Holy Spirit] to interpret Scriptures [thus making everyone a Pope] if you want …

BUT:

Catholics cannot decide to select a leader [the Pope], and Bishops, and Priests and Deacons without being told that they are in error …

Catholics are united in a faith that is defined by the Scriptures and 2000 years of traditions but we are told that all that we believe is ‘wrong’ …

Catholics have scriptures and an understanding of what those scriptures meanand how they form the Christian life … but we are wrong …

Catholics are free to remain in the Church or leave - no one is being forced to stay against their will.

Catholics have a process for bringing people into the family of God the Church [and for training those who serve the Church] but we are ‘wrong’ …

No on is forcing any Catholic here to follow Christ [or that to do so means to listen tot he Word of God, to His Church and to the Leadership - pope, bishop or priest]. Catholics make a choice to follwo Christ and to do so through the Church.

Why do you get to have all of the liberty of faith and we [the Catholics and/or the Catholic Church] can’t have that same freedom?

Why are you so threatened by following Jesus [especially if you are so convinced that you are in doing what Jesus is leading you to?] …

Why are you afraid of the Scriptures, the Church, the Churches teachings and the Pope?

Do you not see that Catholics love Jesus? Catholics follow Jesus. We minister to the poor, educate people, provide medical care, some even giving up the chance at marriage and children, and even their very lives in service to Jesus! Praying unceasingly for others. Operating orphanages, hospitals, schools, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, parish ministry - all walks of life are touched by Catholics - sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ …

Why do you care if we look to the Pope for leadership on our walk of faith with Jesus ?
We Christians have been doing so for 2000 years and we have far more unity in faith and practice, less confusion, less division.

You have Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and Bishop Spong to choose from - just to name three of the thousands … and they each have a unigue take on wht it means to be Christian - And on who Mary is and the conption of Jesus [just those three - will give you everyting from a virgin birth to rape by a Roman soldier ]

And you wonder why we want to remain in the Boat of Peter …

 

[Bill_Pick]

Just teasing. I’m a poor speller.

No one on this board is bad a speller as me I have a hard time spelling my name Bill Picg Sorry make that That Bill Pick

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry if I seem a bit dense – Just trying to trying to sort all this out- see how much of a heathen you believe me to be!

Why do you come to our forum and insult us by portraying us so poorly?

Randy Carson-“*There is no mention of keys anywhere in Matthew 18.” *

Yes, you are right the words Keys of Heaven are not in the later discussion but then that argument shoots many Catholic arguments for other doctrines in the foot.

Please give an example.

Your statement and Prodigal Son1 comment about the statement of truth can not receive keys. Makes me wonder-What do you believe the Keys of Heaven to be?

What is the connection between Matthew 16:18 and Is. 22:20? Jesus inherits the kingdom of His father David, and Jesus establishes Peter as His royal steward signified by the keys. The Steward acts with the authority of the king in the king’s absence.

Right now today- does only the Pope hold the Keys to Heaven or does this include Bishops and Priests?

Only the pope holds the keys. However, the Bishops are successors of the Apostles and have Apostolic Authority by virtue of Apostolic Succession. Priests and deacons are helpers of the bishops.

*Luther on the Keys- *Yes I see Luther does believe this, Luther was ordained as a Priest. Did he receive the Keys of Heaven through laying on of the hands?

Priests do not receive the “keys”.

Yet Luther was excommunicated trying to correct a horrible man-made tradition of selling indulgences for money?

An unfortunate practice that was not authorized by Rome. But okay…for your purposes this is accurate enough…

Do Catholics have a list of all the people that were ordained-laying on of the hands by the first disciples and each succession after that?

Popes, yes. The records of the ordinations of the Bishops is largely complete. Priests would not be necessary since they are ordained by Bishops and cannot ordain others.

[www1.church-of-god.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=18200](http://prodigal Son1)
Pheme Perkins, a Boston College professor and a Roman Catholic, made the following summary in her award-winning book, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church: “Since we have no evidence of when Peter arrived in Rome or the circumstances that led to his execution, later claims that he was bishop in a Roman community must rest on traditions about the apostle which emerged in the second century. For the first century of its existence, there was probably not a single bishop in the Roman church.” Perkins opines that Anicetus (ca. 154–165 C.E.) was probably the first bishop over the entire church at Rome, whereas others listed before him oversaw individual house churches—small groups meeting in people’s homes.

Interesting speculation. However, scripture suggests Peter’s presence in Rome, so I think Perkins is in error.

I asked - Why was Paul writing Epistles to the Romans if Peter was there as Pope? As in Romans 1:*11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. *

And I answered. Paul was planning on visiting Rome on his way to Spain, so he sent a letter of introduction ahead of his visit. The lengthy introduction and closing suggest that he was personally unknown to the believers in Rome.

We are talking apples and oranges here-
“The canon of the NT which you have today was determined by the Catholic Councils beginning in the fourth century.”
The 4 Books of the Gospel, really all we need to be Christians was always considered to be “approved” scripture even when first written. It never had to be decided on.

So, you don’t need the other books of the New Testament? In that case, why bother with four when only one is necessary. In fact, all you really need is John 3:16, right?

*The Catholic Church has never taught doctrinal error. *

Are you saying here that the Pope has never instituted something that was not mentioned in the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or are you including the Apocrypha?

No. I am saying that the Catholic Church has never taught doctrinal error. Period. Just because something is not mentioned in the four gospels, it is not automatically error.

Do Catholics believe that Peter was infallible when he was refusing to eat with the uncircumcised Gentiles in Galatians 2:11-16?

Peter taught that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, and he did so infallibly. His personal practice was at odds with this, and thus, Paul rightly pointed out the hypocrisy. However, what a pope does and what a pope teaches are two different things. No pope has ever formally taught doctrinal error.

Do Catholics believe the divisions of Christianity to be that we simply celebrate the one universal church of Jesus differently? Or that we do not follow the basic truths that Jesus taught?

Both in varying degrees depending upon the denomination in question.

“Not according to Protestant Greek scholars

”-Some

Only one is necessary to make the point. Peter is the rock.

When I say we- I am saying all those people that profess that the One True GOD is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that GOD gave HIS Son Jesus, GOD’s WORD incarnate to die for us that we all be saved.

And for this, we recognize that you are rightly called Christians even if you are not in full communion with the one Church Jesus promised to build upon Peter, the rock.

Well I’m off to Praise GOD with some heathens, but I’ll be back later!!

Another insulting comment offered for what purpose?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Head of the Catholic church; right?

Yes.

How does your church define “primacy”? Why is the Catholic church appear to me to be hung up on whether one accepts or reject this “primacy/succession of Peter”?

Hmmm…I don’t know if this is an accurate portrayal of the Church’s focus. However, in an apologetics forum, one can expect communion with Rome and the Pope to come up somewhat frequently.

Here’s my question: if you were Timothy, how would you feel about being circumcised BY PAUL knowing that Paul said, “If you let yourself be circumcised, Christ is of no value to you”?

C’mon…Paul acted prudently in this matter just as Peter had acted prudently when confronted by the Judaizers sent by James.

There shouldn’t be a double-standard.

 

[Masters_Servant]

John 1: 41, He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ).

42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Probably St.Johns reality also,wouldn’t you say ?

** I think John terminates your argument, by actually defineing{ interpreting} for us the name Cephas, the first time Jesus changes his name to Peter.**

What’s really interesting is th original name Caesare’a Philip’pi, was {Ponus I think?} dedicated to the god Pan. Herod had the name changed, to probably gain favor with Caesar,the god of Rome.

Peace, onenow1opcorn:

I have no argument as I have shown from the post which you are partially responding to, If it makes you happy to argue, then have at it. I am here to understand Catholicism from the people who claim to practice it. Also, Simon means Peter.

I wish you God’s very best.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have no argument as I have shown from the post which you are partially responding to, If it makes you happy to argue, then have at it. I am here to understand Catholicism from the people who claim to practice it. Also, Simon means Peter.

I wish you God’s very best.

Learning does not consist of continually pointing out how YOU think we are wrong, does it?

Beginning to suspect someone who’s been here before, and been banned…npatrol: