Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[rev_kevin]

Right. The CC told you that Jesus said we are saved by believing in Christ, by baptism, by proclaiming with our mouth, etc etc etc. *Unless you’re claiming that Jesus appeared *to you and told you you are saved, then you only know anything that Jesus told you because the CC declared it so (just like St. Augustine said)

If the CC had declared that the Protoevangelium of James were inspired you would be sitting here today telling me that Mary’s parents were Joachim and Anne. However, the reason you’re not saying that is because the CC decided that this ancient text was not inspired.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about. The CC put the Bible so are you saying because they put the Bible that they told us. Jesus told us not the CC. It was in Scripture before the CC put it all together.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think you know what you are talking about. The CC put the Bible so are you saying because they put the Bible that they told us. Jesus told us not the CC. It was in Scripture before the CC put it all together.

All I’m saying is historical fact, kevin.

You would not know that Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” unless the CC told you so. (Infallibly, BTW, they did this.)

If the CC had declared this to be inspired, then you would be reading it at your Sunday services as well as the Gospel of John:

**Originally posted by the Protoevangelium of James>**In the records of the twelve tribes of Israel was Joachim, a man rich exceedingly; and he brought his offerings double, saying: There shall be of my superabundance to all the people, and there shall be the offering for my forgiveness to the Lord for a propitiation for me.

 

[YADA]

I don’t think you know what you are talking about. The CC put the Bible so are you saying because they put the Bible that they told us. Jesus told us not the CC. It was in Scripture before the CC put it all together.

Your sentnce is slightly incoherent … but lets look at this historically …

The first century Jewish community worshiped in JErusalem at the temple and in the local Synogogues … in their worship they read from hebrew writings - we refer to these as the Old Testament [the Septuagint - Greek version - being one collection of writings known to be used] … these writings - and specifically the Septuagint - were commonly used by the Christian community as they seperated themselves from the Jewish community and incorporated the gentile Christian converts - especially as they spoke Greek …

In addition to the scriptural foundation adopted from our jewish roots, the early Christian community began to compose their own writings … the first being letters written to various communities and a few letters that circulated to many communities … and other works like the Gospels - those writings that espoused the foundational teachings of Christ …

The early Church began to incorporate these writings into the worship of the local Christian communities and as time progressed and more and more writings were created - some teaching authentically Christian beleifs held byt he Church and some not - some taugh in authentically, some espoused heretical beliefs, some were forgeries, etc …

The Church decided which writings would be considered canonical - as in they were authentic in their teachings of the faith as handed down in the tradition. These writings were declred to be inspired by God and to be accepted as the Canon of the Church and it was through this process that these “New Testament” writings became “Scripture” … now who comprised this “Church” and what did this collection of Christians believe when they decided the New Testament Canon?

Did they beleive in the Eucharist - the True body and Blood of Jesus? … yes
Did they believe in apostolic succession? … Yes [they did not believe that any person could self appoint themselves leaders in the Church, they discussed matters of belief and held believeers to that … no Sola Scriptura, no Sola Fide, no I can believe this but you can interpret the faith differently … ]

So you can only know it is ‘scripture’ if you accept the teachings of the Church on what was and what was not included in the New Testament …

for example … Paul did not sit down to write a “Scriptural Letter to the Ephesians” … what he wrote was esteemed and held to be scripture because the content - once written - and undderstood and used by the Church faithful became to be understood as inspired by the Holy Spirit …

 

[rev_kevin]

All I’m saying is historical fact, kevin.

You would not know that Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” unless the CC told you so. (Infallibly, BTW, they did this.)

If the CC had declared this to be inspired, then you would be reading it at your Sunday services as well as the Gospel of John:

So what it all comes down to is the CC but the Scriptures together in Biblical form and if it wasn’t for that we would not know about salvation. I could agree with that. But the CC can’t save anyone only Jesus can. Agreed?

 

[gospelofmark]

So what it all comes down to is the CC but the Scriptures together in Biblical form and if it wasn’t for that we would not know about salvation. I could agree with that. But the CC can’t save anyone only Jesus can. Agreed?

the catechism #169answers this one, salvation comes from God alone but the life of faith comes from the church etc…

 

[PRmerger]

So what it all comes down to is the CC but the Scriptures together in Biblical form and if it wasn’t for that we would not know about salvation. I could agree with that. But the CC can’t save anyone only Jesus can. Agreed?

Agreed! With the caveat that Jesus IS his church–the CC. Again, we do not serve a decapitated Christ, a Christ apart from his body.

 

[rev_kevin]

Agreed! With the caveat that Jesus IS his church–the CC. Again, we do not serve a decapitated Christ, a Christ apart from his body.

Well you had me with the Agreed part then comes the Jesus is his church–the CC. Jesus is the church the only church not the CC, or anyother denomination. So now we’re going to get into a discussion on the true church, I can feel it in my bones.

 

[PRmerger]

The early Church began to incorporate these writings into the worship of the local Christian communities and as time progressed and more and more writings were created - some teaching authentically Christian beleifs held byt he Church and some not - some taugh in authentically, some espoused heretical beliefs, some were forgeries, etc …

'zactly!

And, as I told kevin in another thread:

Kevin, the canon of Scripture was not determined *until 400 years after Christ’s death *and resurrection. [SIGN1]400 years![/SIGN1]

[SIGN1]That’s like from the time the Pilgrims arrived until present day! [/SIGN1]No Bible.

Can you imagine? Doesn’t that give you some perspective about how Sacred Tradition kept Christianity grafted to Christ and the Truth when there was no Bible yet!

 

[rev_kevin]

'zactly!

And, as I told kevin in another thread:

I don’t see what that has to do with my answer.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see what that has to do with my answer.

I’m just trying to paint a picture of what existed before the CC canonized the Bible.

For 400 years there was no Bible.

That fact kind of boggles my mind when I put it in terms of Pilgrims/present day.

I dunno–I thought you’d be impressed by that.

For 400 years the early Christians relied on Sacred Tradition only. Not Sacred Scripture only. (Yes, I understand that Sacred texts existed, and these early Christians used these writings in their liturgy, but it was only through the Oral Preservation of the Teachings of the Apostles that Christianity was able to be preserved for the first 400 years–for there was no Bible.) For 400 years. Amazing!!

 

[rev_kevin]

I’m just trying to paint a picture of what existed before the CC canonized the Bible.

For 400 years there was no Bible.

That fact kind of boggles my mind when I put it in terms of Pilgrims/present day.

I dunno–I thought you’d be impressed by that.

For 400 years the early Christians relied on Sacred Tradition only. Not Sacred Scripture only. (Yes, I understand that Sacred texts existed, and these early Christians used these writings in their liturgy, but it was only through the Oral Preservation of the Teachings of the Apostles that Christianity was able to be preserved for the first 400 years–for there was no Bible.) For 400 years. Amazing!!

Ok 400 years I get it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A quote from Martin Luther:

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Kevin,

If Catholics defined the canon of the New Testament, who else’s interpretation should you believe? Don’t you realize that they had to cross reference and research to decide which books were to be included and which were to be excluded?

Below is a sample list of writings from the same time period as the books that were chosen.

New Testament Apocrypha
Dead Sea Scrolls
Community Rule
The ‘Zadokite’ Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES’ CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA’s to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Secret Gospel of Mark
Book of Marcion
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
The Letter of Aristeas
The Didache

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

A quote from Martin Luther:

Kevin,

If Catholics defined the canon of the New Testament, who else’s interpretation should you believe? Don’t you realize that they had to cross reference and research to decide which books were to be included and which were to be excluded?

Below is a sample list of writings from the same time period as the books that were chosen.

New Testament Apocrypha
Dead Sea Scrolls
Community Rule
The ‘Zadokite’ Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES’ CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA’s to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Secret Gospel of Mark
Book of Marcion
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
The Letter of Aristeas
The Didache

Please allow me to use your fascinating post as a starting point to recall something perplexing I experienced. When I was dabbling in yoga and New Age stuff (including pan-theism and gnosticism) many years ago, my yogi friends told me that “there is proof in the early Christian writings for reincarnation, and you should read the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and some other Gnostic writings. These were in the Bible originally, but the Catholic Church decided at one of their Councils some 400 or 500 years after Christ, to throw these books out from the Canon of the Bible.”

So, even in our days, some 2000 years after Christ, New Agers will take some of the Gnostic and heretic writings that were compiled during the first centuries after Christ, and argue that these were recognized, or should have been recognized, as the authentic teaching of Christ. And apparently these writings, which are NOT a part of the Canon of New Testament because the Catholic Church infallibly rejected them, contain all kind of strange and un-Christian views including pan-theism, gnosticism, and reincarnation.

Today I understand that you cannot put the carriage before the horse. And it shouldn’t be the tail wagging the dog, it should be the other way around. The Catholic Church, the Pope and Bishops, they are the primary authority, who can infallibly decide which writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were not. And so, even such thing as the Canon of the New Testament can only be trusted because the infallible Catholic Church said so. Moreover, what the Catholic Church rejected as un-inspired, including the Gospel of Thomas, stays rejected for the same reason - because the Catholic Church’s decisions are infallible. But at the time, I was deeply troubled by my yogi friends’ claims.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok 400 years I get it.

Do you have any emotion attached to that fact? Does it astonish you, impress you, give you pause when you consider this 400 year period without a Bible to guide these Christians?

 

[AwGusTeen]

The CC didn’t tell me Jesus told me and once again the CC put the Bible together they did not write the Bible.

That would be St. Augustine’s opinion.

And you have expressed yours… Thus, who’s opinion should carry more weight - yours or St. Augustines?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please allow me to use your fascinating post as a starting point to recall something perplexing I experienced. When I was dabbling in yoga and New Age stuff (including pan-theism and gnosticism) many years ago, my yogi friends told me that “there is proof in the early Christian writings for reincarnation, and you should read the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and some other Gnostic writings. These were in the Bible originally, but the Catholic Church decided at one of their Councils some 400 or 500 years after Christ, to throw these books out from the Canon of the Bible.”

So, even in our days, some 2000 years after Christ, New Agers will take some of the Gnostic and heretic writings that were compiled during the first centuries after Christ, and argue that these were recognized, or should have been recognized, as the authentic teaching of Christ. And apparently these writings, which are NOT a part of the Canon of New Testament because the Catholic Church infallibly rejected them, contain all kind of strange and un-Christian views including pan-theism, gnosticism, and reincarnation.

Today I understand that you cannot put the carriage before the horse. And it shouldn’t be the tail wagging the dog, it should be the other way around. The Catholic Church, the Pope and Bishops, they are the primary authority, who can infallibly decide which writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were not. And so, even such thing as the Canon of the New Testament can only be trusted because the infallible Catholic Church said so. Moreover, what the Catholic Church rejected as un-inspired, including the Gospel of Thomas, stays rejected for the same reason - because the Catholic Church’s decisions are infallible. But at the time, I was deeply troubled by my yogi friends’ claims.

Some writings may seem correct to us, 2000+ years later, but for whatever reason the early Church fathers decided what was inspired and what was not to be trusted as inspired. There were forgeries, writings that could not be attributed to the author shown on the document or writings that did not ‘exactly’ match up with those books chosen.

Just as God inspired the writings, God inspired the process to define the canon.

While Protestants recognize that the Bible is the infallible word of God, they seemingly fail to recognize that the canon was defined by fallible men, not only defined but written by fallible men. If God could inspire His word through, define the canon and protect His word through the ages using, fallible men, He has the power to protect His truth in any fashion given including the oral tradtion.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[AwGusTeen]

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

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?

What? How could you possibly squeeze that out of what I posted? Bizzare.

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.

That’s another non-sequitor schaick. We were discussing Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This concerns the authority on Earth over the Church that Jesus built and takes nothing away from Christ super-abundant salvation.

What exactly does bind and loose mean to the Catholic?

Binding and loosing means the authority granted by Jesus for the apostles to forgive or not to forgive sin respectively as confessed to them.

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.

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

One cannot give away what one doesn’t posses. Of course Jesus was given the keys to the Kingdom - he’s the King. However, if you go back and re-read what I posted, you will see the relevance to Jewish culture in this arrangement.

If the Pope believed that he alone held the Keys, and was infallible why wouldn’t he choose his successor.

Oh boy… Please go look at the definition of Papl infalliblilty. (I.e. speaking ex-cathedra)This is diconnected from the Pope having ability to delegate authority.

snip…
but I see that the College of Bishop also holds the Keys.

No! The Pope holds the Keys. (see the above)

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

You understand that much correctly. However, they are assigned from Rome. The early Church was not a representative democracy – that’s a modern day contrivance.

 

[tweetymom]

And you have expressed yours… Thus, who’s opinion should carry more weight - yours or St. Augustines?

The answer to your question is Jesus!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The answer to your question is Jesus!

I believe the question was, who’s opinon about Jesus, through the inspired word of God, should carry more weight, yours or St. Augustine’s?

 

[tweetymom]

I believe the question was, who’s opinon about Jesus, through the inspired word of God, should carry more weight, yours or St. Augustine’s?

I believe I answered, Jesus