Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[AwGusTeen]

Did I miss the answers to my questions on a previous post?:

What exactly did holding the Keys of Heaven give to Peter?

Culturally and politically speaking, holding the keys imbued special authority to one person.

“In accent times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate, and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city, - an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost – meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible. (cf. Is 22:222; Rev. 1:18)” The Essential Catholic Survival Guide; Catholic Answers San Diego, 2005

What is the duty as Jesus’ royal steward? To bind and loose?

There is more than one duty. (I.e. To tend his sheep, to bind and to loose, etc.)

Are you saying that Catholics believe the Isaiah prophecy to be about Peter?

See the above…

If Jesus didn’t give the Keys of Heaven to the disciples in Matthew 18 when and how did the group- the college of Bishops instead of just the Pope receive them?

It’s called Apostolic Authority. Jesus granted that authority to Peter, who passed it on to others, who passed it on to others, etc… The structure of the Church developed as needed over time. One can see much of this development through the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Are Cardinals the college of bishops? Or is it College of Cardinals? When did Cardinals come about?

I don’t have an answer to those questions. I’m certain someone here can answer it though.

I am surprised that Popes aren’t chosen instead of “elected” the way Catholics say Jesus chose Peter.

Why does that surprise you? Just look at how Matthias was chosen.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve seen some in this discussion argue that Christ was the foundation and not the Apostles. Today, in another discussion, I came across another verse that applied to that specific point.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord.

It seems verse 20 states what we have been attempting to get across…

 

[Bill_Pick]

the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

 

[Javl]

Originally Posted by schaick
Are Cardinals the college of bishops? Or is it College of Cardinals? When did Cardinals come about?

In answer to your questions, the Cardinals are NOT the College of Bishops, although they are part of the College. The college of Bishops consist of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church. This includes both Eastern and Western Catholic Churches.

Cardinals came about in the early church. They are named such from 'cardo" the latin word for hinge. In the early Church the Cardinals were the “hinge” for the Bishop of Rome ( Pope ). He depended upon the Cardinals in the administration of help for the poor, such as food,clothing, etc. Originally they were not listed as clergy, but in time they assumed clerical duties.The Cardinals form the College of Cardinals whose function it is to elect the Pope. There are three ranks of Cardinals, and to be consecrated a Cardinal, one must be an ordained priest. For complete information on Cardinals, use this link.

       [newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm)

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Dokimas]

the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

There is no evidence that Matthias was God’s choice. I’m not saying he wasn’t God’s choice. Seeing that Jesus called all the original 12 without lots, and that He appeared to Saul (later to be called Paul) on the road to Damascus, a good argument can be made for Paul being God’s choice to replace Judas.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no evidence that Matthias was God’s choice. I’m not saying he wasn’t God’s choice. Seeing that Jesus called all the original 12 without lots, and that He appeared to Saul (later to be called Paul) on the road to Damascus, a good argument can be made for Paul being God’s choice to replace Judas.

Then we have to read Acts 1, when the number became 120…

 

[mmmcounts]

Well, that would be your opinion…

And by what authority do you ask that or anything else of the Catholic Church?

Protestants don’t do the “authority” thing. That’s not a game we play. Most Protestants don’t even know why it’s such a big deal for you and yours.

Are you making that argument? If so, I would like to see you prove that one.

If you come to the conclusion that the counter-Reformation was a widespread attempt to force people to stay in the CC against their will, that would be all the proof you need.

We? I’m glad to see that you have the authority to speak on behalf of all Protestants.

Some things within Protestantism are universal. The absence of leadership that claims infallibility is one of them.

Unlike you, however, I reserve the right to pass honest judgment on doctrines held by any Protestant denomination, and if they differ from those handed down from the Apostles via scripture/tradition and preserved by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then I will say so.

You mean you’ll repeat what your leadership tells you to say on any given matter. And what of the traditions that were not handed down by the apostles? For example, none of the apostles pretended to be priests. Are you going to imagine that all the things Catholics do were handed down from the Apostles even though virtually every Catholic tradition/practice that makes you different from me was not handed down from the apostles?

No, it goes back to Peter

No it doesn’t. There is no apostolic support for papal infallibility- or, for that matter, a papacy. Furthermore, there is no patristic support for papal infallibility. It doesn’t come up at all until about 5 centuries after the RC started referring to anyone as “pope.”

Really, I think many Protestants (notice that I didn’t lump all Protestants together as you have routinely done) are confusing Papal infallibility with impeccability.

What do you take me for? I have absolutely no confusion as to the difference between infallibility and impeccability, and the distinction is fairly irrelevant in this particular case. A more relevant distinction would involve the differences between patristic support for papal primacy (which was far from universal) and patristic support for papal infallibility, which was completely non-existent.

If you happen to look at some Catholic tracts while coming up with another response, I can summarize what you’ll see on this topic. Patristic support for papal primacy will be quote-mined in order to give the illusion that everyone supported it and the move from “primacy” to “infallibility” will be presented as if it were a natural development that grew out of Rome’s growing ability to clarify things. Your Catholic tracts will be careful to avoid saying something like “There is no patristic support for the current doctrine and dogma of papal infallibility, and the idea never existed until the 9th century.” It’s absolutely true, but you won’t find any Catholic tracts that say it.

I know that you were addressing this statement to another poster, but I would like to jump in on it if I may.

Sure thing. That’s usually how it goes- I wind up having to do three times as many responses as anyone else. But it comes with the territory when there’s this many Catholics on here and so few Protestants.

I was a Protestant of the Southern Baptist flavor for 40 years before comming into the Catholic Church and - yes - I too have a low regard for some individuals who claim to represent much (but not all) of Protestantism. In order to come to that conclusion, all one needs do is to turn on TBN.

Sorry to hear you were Southern Baptist. That sometimes winds up being ok, but I guess you got into a situation where it was kind of bad. Tell me something: Did your experience as a Southern Baptist help ease your transition by having some things in common with Catholicism? For example- the idea that your particular group possesses the fullness of Christian truth and all others must come to you in order to have it. Was that helpful?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Protestants don’t do the “authority” thing. That’s not a game we play.

On the contrary you do. What I mean is, you have set yourself up to be the authority. This is especially evident when one go out to tell others how they are wrong.

If you come to the conclusion that the counter-Reformation was a widespread attempt to force people to stay in the CC against their will, that would be all the proof you need.

Rather than just throw out a statement like that, why wouldn’t you provide the sources to support such a claim?

Some things within Protestantism are universal. The absence of leadership that claims infallibility is one of them.

There is no absence of leadership in most Protestant circles. As I’ve already pointed out, you all have claimed right to the leadership.

Are you going to imagine that all the things Catholics do were handed down from the Apostles even though virtually every Catholic tradition/practice that makes you different from me was not handed down from the apostles?

Another statement, evidently based on your opinion since you provide no resources to backup your claim.

What do you take me for? I have absolutely no confusion as to the difference between infallibility and impeccability, and the distinction is fairly irrelevant in this particular case. A more relevant distinction would involve the differences between patristic support for papal primacy (which was far from universal) and patristic support for papal infallibility, which was completely non-existent.

That’s according to your private interpretation and the authority you have given yourself to make such an assertion, especially without any supporting sources.

Sure thing. That’s usually how it goes- I wind up having to do three times as many responses as anyone else. But it comes with the territory when there’s this many Catholics on here and so few Protestants.

That is your choice. I’ve done the same thing on an Assemblies of God website. The biggest difference, I see is, I provided scriptures and explanations of interpretations and I tried to avoid being condescending.

Sorry to hear you were Southern Baptist. That sometimes winds up being ok, but I guess you got into a situation where it was kind of bad. Tell me something: Did your experience as a Southern Baptist help ease your transition by having some things in common with Catholicism? For example- the idea that your particular group possesses the fullness of Christian truth and all others must come to you in order to have it. Was that helpful?

The Catholic Church existed first. Even secular history supports that statement. History also tells us when the Protestant reformation took place and where those that protested came from. When they left the Catholic Church they took some, not all, beliefs with them. With thousands of more splits, those truths have been diluted even more. Was that helpful?

This thread is full of scriptures and explanations of interpretations, yet you bounce in making assertions with no scriptures or any other supporting resource, other than your opinion and what seems to be an anti-Catholic attitude. I’d like to recommend you try a different approach.

 

[Dokimas]

Then we have to read Acts 1, when the number became 120…

I don’t understand; a little dense I guess.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t understand; a little dense I guess.

**Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): **

 

[Dokimas]

Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):

I got that part; it was how you tied that in with my post you ‘quoted’ that I didn’t understand.

 

[Bill_Pick]

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 …

A+

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I got that part; it was how you tied that in with my post you ‘quoted’ that I didn’t understand.

You had mentioned the 12 that Jesus chose and you mentioned Matthias and that maybe Saul was more a choice as a replacement. I was trying to show that the men of the Church had grown in numbers. With that growth in numbers, Saul and others received appointments from the Church.

A second point to notice is that Peter rose up and called for the replacement, as a leader would do…

 

[Dokimas]

You had mentioned the 12 that Jesus chose and you mentioned Matthias and that maybe Saul was more a choice as a replacement. I was trying to show that the men of the Church had grown in numbers. With that growth in numbers, Saul and others received appointments from the Church.

A second point to notice is that Peter rose up and called for the replacement, as a leader would do…

I guess I understand.​

How many apostles in the CC?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I guess I understand.​

How many apostles in the CC?

That I cannot answer specifically… They are called Bishops now and in 2009 there were approximately 5100.

 

[Dokimas]

That I cannot answer specifically… They are called Bishops now and in 2009 there were approximately 5100.

Thank you. Have a great day, friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You mean you’ll repeat what your leadership tells you to say on any given matter.

As an intelligent man and a Christian, I believe you can do better than this. Or do you actually believe what you wrote above?

Sorry to hear you were Southern Baptist. That sometimes winds up being ok, but I guess you got into a situation where it was kind of bad. Tell me something: Did your experience as a Southern Baptist help ease your transition by having some things in common with Catholicism? For example- the idea that your particular group possesses the fullness of Christian truth and all others must come to you in order to have it. Was that helpful?

And here…taking a shot at both Baptists and Catholics at the same time?

Did you have a bad day or something?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No it doesn’t. There is no apostolic support for papal infallibility- or, for that matter, a papacy. Furthermore, there is no patristic support for papal infallibility. It doesn’t come up at all until about 5 centuries after the RC started referring to anyone as “pope.”

Which makes the doctrine of infallibility about 10 centuries older than sola scriptura and *sola fide - *a fact your tracts will undoubtedly omit.

What do you take me for? I have absolutely no confusion as to the difference between infallibility and impeccability, and the distinction is fairly irrelevant in this particular case. A more relevant distinction would involve the differences between patristic support for papal primacy (which was far from universal) and patristic support for papal infallibility, which was completely non-existent.

If you happen to look at some Catholic tracts while coming up with another response, I can summarize what you’ll see on this topic. Patristic support for papal primacy will be quote-mined in order to give the illusion that everyone supported it and the move from “primacy” to “infallibility” will be presented as if it were a natural development that grew out of Rome’s growing ability to clarify things. Your Catholic tracts will be careful to avoid saying something like “There is no patristic support for the current doctrine and dogma of papal infallibility, and the idea never existed until the 9th century.” It’s absolutely true, but you won’t find any Catholic tracts that say it.

Saying that there is “no patristic support” is not the same thing as saying that a specific doctrine is simply untrue, is it?

The formal undertanding of the Trinity and the canon of scripture itself were not fully developed until the fourth century…Mary as Mother of God was ironed out in the fifth.

Why is this a problem?

God has been a Trinity of Persons forever, but mankind has only come to an understanding of this relatively recently. The truth was there all along even if we didn’t see it.

Similarly, the infallibility of the Church and the Pope were facts from the beginning of Christianity, but it took awhile for theologians to work it out formally. Peter was just as infallible as Benedict XVI; the latter knows this while the former did not.

Why is this a problem?

Jesus said, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you” (John 16:12-15).

The Spirit continues to reveal things to the Church that the earliest disciples could not bear.

 

[AwGusTeen]

You mean you’ll repeat what your leadership tells you to say on any given matter. And what of the traditions that were not handed down by the apostles? For example, none of the apostles pretended to be priests. Are you going to imagine that all the things Catholics do were handed down from the Apostles even though virtually every Catholic tradition/practice that makes you different from me was not handed down from the apostles?

Sweet…

No it doesn’t. There is no apostolic support for papal infallibility- or, for that matter, a papacy. Furthermore, there is no patristic support for papal infallibility. It doesn’t come up at all until about 5 centuries after the RC started referring to anyone as “pope.”

Please pay special attention to St. Augustine…

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . .’”
—Tertullian, On the Prescription against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200)

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. . .”
—Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232)

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.”
—Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235)

“‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . It is on him that he builds the Church and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. . . . If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”
—Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251)

“We have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by 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.’ . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.”
—Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382)

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… **Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus **… “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

What do you take me for? I have absolutely no confusion as to the difference between infallibility and impeccability, and the distinction is fairly irrelevant in this particular case. A more relevant distinction would involve the differences between patristic support for papal primacy (which was far from universal) and patristic support for papal infallibility, which was completely non-existent.

Well, for one thing, I take you as someone who needs to read with a little more caution. If you go back and look at my post, you will see that I did not place you into the group of Protestants who confuse infallibility with impecability… I said SOME protestants.

If you happen to look at some Catholic tracts while coming up with another response, I can summarize what you’ll see on this topic. Patristic support for papal primacy will be quote-mined in order to give the illusion that everyone supported it and the move from “primacy” to “infallibility” will be presented as if it were a natural development that grew out of Rome’s growing ability to clarify things. Your Catholic tracts will be careful to avoid saying something like “There is no patristic support for the current doctrine and dogma of papal infallibility, and the idea never existed until the 9th century.” It’s absolutely true, but you won’t find any Catholic tracts that say it.

I believe you are arguing from a position of silence there, mmmcounts.

Sure thing. That’s usually how it goes- I wind up having to do three times as many responses as anyone else. But it comes with the territory when there’s this many Catholics on here and so few Protestants.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

snip… Tell me something: Did your experience as a Southern Baptist help ease your transition by having some things in common with Catholicism?

If by that you mean that my 40 year involvment with a rabid-antiCatholic SB church helped open my eyes to the fullness of the truth, then – yes – the experience did ease my transition into the CC.

 

[schaick]

Thank you for the answers, I do just a few more questions.

Culturally and politically speaking, holding the keys imbued special authority to one person.

“In accent times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate, and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city, - an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost – meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible. (cf. Is 22:222; Rev. 1:18)” The Essential Catholic Survival Guide; Catholic Answers San Diego, 2005.

This sounds very much as if the Catholic Church and Pope are saying that no one can get into Heaven without going through the locked gate which only the Catholic Church holds the Keys to. Is this the case?

The following doesn’t mention Keys, just faith in Jesus:

John 10
7Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.

There is more than one duty. (I.e. To tend his sheep, to bind and to loose, etc.)

What exactly does bind and loose mean to the Catholic?

See the above…

Very interesting:

Isaiah 22
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 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. 22 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. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

25 “In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.

It’s called Apostolic Authority. Jesus granted that authority to Peter, who passed it on to others, who passed it on to others, etc… The structure of the Church developed as needed over time. One can see much of this development through the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Ok so Catholics believe that Peter gave the Keys to the Apostles and not Jesus as in Matthew 18?

Why does that surprise you? Just look at how Matthias was chosen.

If the Pope believed that he alone held the Keys, and was infallible why wouldn’t he choose his successor, but I see that the College of Bishop also holds the Keys.

This is actually how we call and vote on ordained Pastors for our churches, if I understand correctly Priests are assigned to the parish.