Mt. 16: 18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Sure sounds like Jesus is giving some kind of 'power' to Peter.
Love in Christ Jesus. His Grace. V.J.
Here is EndureToLive's post in another thread:
Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them "I will build upon myself, I will not be built upon thee."
-St. Augustine (430 a.d.)
If you believe that God has raised the whole building of His Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the Son of Thunder? What will you say of each of the apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail against the others...? Are not the words addressed to them all?
-Origen, Commentary on Matthew
The Church, the House of the Lord, is built upon the foundation of the faith of the apostles and prophets.
-St. Basil of Caesarea (379 a.d.), Second Chapter of Isaiah
Faith is the foundation of the Church. For it is not of the person, but of the faith of St. Peter of which it is said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail."
-St. Ambrose (397 a.d.)
For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose...when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come
-St. Cyprian (258 a.d.)
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman Bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdiction over those faithful who are under them.
-First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325 a.d.), canon 6
In the administration of the Church, each Bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power: as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.
-St. Cyprian (258 a.d.)
These are but a few of the quotes from the church fathers, none of whom recognized the primacy claimed by Rome. In fact, it was because of this very claim of primacy that the Roman Church left the Faith, thereby breaking communion with the true Church of Christ.
Also, reading from the first ecumenical council, I see that the eastern church conformed to the Roman practice of easter, so as to not to have divisions in the church. Much the same as the decree that prayers were to be given in a standing position. Some people stood, and some people knelt. The council decreed for all to stand, so as to remove inconsistency. The important part being that the easter issue was settled by the council so as to remove a minor division, not out of allegiance or consideration to the Pope.
From the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea - 325 a.d.
We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you.
Peace to you disciple. . . haven't heard from you for a while. Have you been away on vacation perhaps?
anyway. . . I read the post. But I'm curious why you chose to quote only the Fathers to oppose Peter's primacy. I'd be interested in your exegisus (sic) of the above scripture passage. . .
Still I don't see these quotes as problematic. The Church Fathers were learned bishops, theologians, and writers of the first 8 centuries of Christianity, who were known for their holy lives, orthodoxy, and witness to the faith of the Church. When they speak with unanimity, they express the authentic mind of the Church, though their individual writings are not necessarily free from error.
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastatius sits today?" Augustine (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [AD 402]
Irenaeus held the Catholic "Scripture and Tradition" view. Here's
part of what he says in his book "Against Heretics" (the pages follow each
other in order):
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103304.htm
He points out that the heretics of his time denied the authority of both
Scripture and Tradition (implying that they're both important). Eventually
he says that if there's a dispute among Christians, we can turn to the
Church of Rome to clarify things. I'd guess it's the most famous section of
Irenaeus' writings.
Come Holy Spirit. . . V.J.
Last edited by Victor Joseph; 07-16-2002 at 01:08 PM.
yes. away on business and busy studying for my professional engineer's license.Originally posted by Victor Joseph
Peace to you disciple. . . haven't heard from you for a while. Have you been away on vacation perhaps?
i was just reading his post and then read yours. i posted that because it applied better to this thread. as far as my exegesis here's the gist:anyway. . . I read the post. But I'm curious why you chose to quote only the Fathers to oppose Peter's primacy. I'd be interested in your exegisus (sic) of the above scripture passage. . .
Mt. 16: 18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
v. 18 - "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
1) this this is a response to Peter's confession on the identity of Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (v. 16).
2) v. 18 is a play on words with Simon's new name (peter given by Jesus). "I also say to you that you are Peter (petros - rock; small stone or rock), and upon this rock (petra - large bedrock)..." view the parallelism:
you = Petros - small rock
this = Petra - large bedrock
this (Gr. houtos) is not Petros but something else. if Christ wanted to tell Peter (since that's who He was addressing and speaking to) that he was the Petra or bedrock then He should have said, "upon you I will build My church." the language requires that "this rock" upon which the church will be built is not peter. other options are Peter's confession which he just uttered (v. 16) or He could be referring to Himself (perhaps if we put ourselves in the context, Jesus was pointing to Peter when He said, "you are Peter" and was pointing to Himself when He said, "upon this rock.") other Scripture clearly supports that Jesus is the rock on which the church is built [ro 9:33; 1 Co 3:10ff, 10:4; eph 2:20 (support for all the apostles and prophets and not just peter); 1 pe 2:4-9]. there is no other NT support for Peter being the rock upon which the church is built.
3) KJV doesn't translate this word correctly - "gates of Hades" or in the aramaic/hebrew "gates of Sheol" refers to death and not satan or hell. Hades or Sheol in the OT was the realm of the dead and gates were how you got in ("powers of death" in RSV is a good translation). Jesus is telling them that even persecution to death of His followers would not destroy or dissolve this new fellowship. in fact as history shows, it only made the church grow and become stronger and more committed. people saw their faith and commitment to the Lord and other converts joined because of the strong devotion of the followers.
v. 19 - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
1) the keys of the kingdom of heaven
As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these "keys," on the day of Pentecost, he first "opened the door of faith" to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles. Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named. thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles.
[JFB Commentary]
2) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven - very soon afterward extended to all (Mt 18:18, John 20:23) and it is evident that this wasn't meant to be something possessed by peter alone. to claim otherwise is to contradict Mt 18:18 and what is evidenced in the NT in the rest of the gospels (after this statement), in the epistles, and particularly in the book of Acts.
What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ...He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.
[Robertsons Word Pictures]
and it appears in this area they speak with unanimity. how does this apply to your understanding of the primacy of st. peter over all the apostles? they seem to speak with unanimity in this area yet you imply that they are not necessarily free from error (presumably they are in error in this point). so where they speak in unanimity here do they not express the authentic mind of the Church?When they speak with unanimity, they express the authentic mind of the Church, though their individual writings are not necessarily free from error.
John Gill's Exposition of Matthew 16:19
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...t=020&prev=018
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven…
By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Gospel, which comes from heaven, declares the king Messiah to be come, speaks of things concerning his kingdom, is the means of setting it up, and enlarging it, displays the riches of his grace, and gives an account of the kingdom of heaven, and of persons' right unto it, and meetness for it. "The keys" of it are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, (Acts 2:1-47) and then to the Gentiles, (Acts 10:1-48) (15:7,14) and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from (Matthew 18:18) wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David, with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none. Peter is not the door-keeper of heaven to let in, nor keep out, whom he pleases; nor has his pretended successor the keys of hell and death; these also are only in Christ's hands: though it has been said of the pope of Rome, that if he sends millions of men to hell, none should say to him, what dost thou? but the keys here mentioned are the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or of the Gospel, which was shut up in the Jewish nation, through the ignorance, malice, and calumnies of the Scribes and Pharisees, who would neither embrace it, or enter into the kingdom of God themselves, nor suffer others that were going to enter into it; and through their taking away the key of knowledge, or the right interpretation of the word of God; and through a judicial blindness, which that nation in general was given up to: and this was shut up to the Gentiles through the natural darkness that was spread over them, and through want of a divine revelation, and persons sent of God to instruct them: but now Christ was about, and in a little time he would (for these words, with what follow, are in the future tense) give his apostles both a commission and gifts, qualifying them to open the sealed book of the Gospel, and unlock the mysteries of it, both to Jews and Gentiles, especially the latter. Keys are the ensigns of treasurers, and of stewards, and such the ministers of the Gospel are; they have the rich treasure of the word under their care, put into their earthen vessels to open and lay before others; and they are stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God, and of these things they have the keys. So that these words have nothing to do with church power and government in Peter, nor in the pope, nor in any other man, or set of men whatever; nor to be understood of church censures, excommunications, admissions, or exclusions of members: nor indeed are keys of any such similar use; they serve for locking and unlocking doors, and so for keeping out those that are without, and retaining those that are within, but not for the expulsion of any: but here they are used in a figurative sense, for the opening and explaining the truths of the Gospel, for which Peter had excellent gifts and abilities.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.
This also is not to be understood of binding, or loosing men's sins, by laying on, or taking off censures, and excommunications; but only of doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful, free, or prohibited to be received, or practised; in which sense the words, (rtwmw rwoa) , "bound and loosed", are used in the Talmudic writings, times without number, for that which is forbidden and declared to be unlawful, and for that which is free of use, and pronounced to be so: in multitudes of places we read of one Rabbi (rowa) , "binding", and of another (rytm) , "loosing"; thousands, and ten thousands of instances of this kind might be produced; a whole volume of extracts on this head might be compiled. Dr. Lightfoot has transcribed a great many, sufficient to satisfy any man, and give him the true sense of these phrases; and after him to mention any other is needless; yet give me leave to produce one, as it is short, and full, and explains these phrases, and points at the persons that had this power, explaining (Ecclesiastes 12:11) and that clause in it, "masters of the assemblies".
``these (say they F20) are the disciples of the wise men, who sit in different collections, and study in the law; these pronounce things or persons defiled, and these pronounce things or persons clean, (Nyrytm Nllhw Nyrowa) (wllh) , "these bind, and these loose"; these reject, or pronounce persons or things profane, and these declare them right.''
And a little after,
``get thyself an heart to hear the words of them that pronounce unclean, and the words of them that pronounce clean; the words of them (Nyrowa) , that "bind", and the words of them (Nyrytm) , that "loose"; the words of them that reject, and the words of them that declare it right''
But Christ gave a greater power of binding and loosing, to his disciples, than these men had, and which they used to better purpose. The sense of the words is this, that Peter, and so the rest of the apostles, should be empowered with authority from him, and so directed by his Holy Spirit, that whatever they bound, that is, declared to be forbidden, and unlawful, should be so: and that whatever they loosed, that is, declared to be lawful, and free of use, should be so; and accordingly they bound some things which before were loosed, and loosed some things which before were bound; for instance, they bound, that is, prohibited, or declared unlawful, the use of circumcision, which before, and until the death of Christ, was enjoined the natural seed of Abraham; but that, and all ceremonies, being abolished by the death of Christ, they declared it to be nothing, and of no avail, yea, hurtful and pernicious; that whoever was circumcised, Christ profited him nothing, and that he was a debtor to do the whole law: they affirmed, that the believing Gentiles were not to be troubled with it; that it was a yoke not fit to be put upon their necks, which they, and their fathers, were not able to bear, (Galatians 5:1,3,6) (Acts 15:10,19) . They bound, or forbid the observance of days, months, times, and years; the keeping holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, which had been used in the Jewish church for ages past; such as the first day of the new year, and of every month, the day of atonement, the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, the jubilee year, the sabbatical year, and seventh day sabbath, (Galatians 4:9,10) (Colossians 2:16,17) . They loosed, or declared lawful and free, both civil and religious conversation between Jews and Gentiles; whereas, before, the Jews had no dealings with the Gentiles, nor would not enter into their houses, nor keep company with them, would have no conversation with them; neither eat, nor drink with them; but now it was determined and declared, that no man should be called common, or unclean; and that in Christ Jesus, and in his church, there is no distinction of Jew and Gentile, (Acts 10:28) (11:2,3,18) (Galatians 3:28) . They also loosed, or pronounced lawful, the eating of any sort of food, without distinction, even that which was before counted common and unclean, being persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ, by the words he said, (Matthew 15:11) . They asserted, that there is nothing unclean of itself; and that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; or that true religion does not lie in the observance of those things; that every creature of God is good, and fit for food, and nothing to be refused, or abstained from, on a religious account, provided it be received with thanksgiving, (Romans 14:14,17) (1 Timothy 4:4) . And these things now being by them bound or loosed, pronounced unlawful or lawful, are confirmed as such by the authority of God, and are so to be considered by us.
The keys are a metaphor taken from stewards who carry the keys. Christ is giving His apostles (not just Peter, cf. 18:18) stewardship and this is further seen in God inspiring the later writings by these same apostles and in their authority (as a group) in the book of Acts. the authority was delegated (e.g., stewardship) to the apostles and not just to peter. peter is never given supreme authority on earth as a supposed vicar of Christ (which by the way is translated into Greek as anti-Christ and can mean in the place of or against Christ; in the NT, antichrist is used with the latter meaning).
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...mt&chapter=016
16:19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
1. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Continuing his metaphorical language, Jesus promised to Peter the keys, that is, the authority to lay down the rules or laws (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, however) for admission to or exclusion from the kingdom or church. This office was, of course, given to Peter in a secondary sense, since it must ever belong to Christ in a primary sense (Revelation 3:7). The figure of key-bearer is taken from Isaiah 22:22. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost to open the church to the Jews, and about seven years afterward, at Caesarea Palestinae, he used them again to admit the Gentiles. In fixing the terms of admission, he also fixed the terms of exclusion, for all who are not admitted are excluded. The keys as used by Peter have never been changed; that is to say, the terms of admission abide forever. Plurality of keys is merely part of the parabolic drapery, since cities were accustomed to have several gates, thus requiring a plurality of keys. The kingdom was not opened to Jews and Gentiles by different keys, since both were admitted on the same terms.
2. Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . whatsoever thou shalt loose. The words "bind" and "loose" were commonly used among the Jews in the sense of forbid and allow. Abundant instances of this usage have been collected by Lightfoot. They relate to the binding and annulling of laws and rules. In this sense the Greek word "luo", rendered "loose", is used very many times in the New Testament, but it is translated by the word "break" or "broken" in Matthew 5:19; John 7:23; John 10:35. The power here given to Peter was soon after extended to the rest of the apostles (Matthew 18:18). The apostles were to lay down, as they afterward did, the organic law of the new kingdom, defining what things were prohibited and what permitted. Their actions in this behalf would of course be ratified in heaven, because they were none other than the acts of the Holy Spirit expressed through the apostles.
People's NT
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...mt&chapter=016
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.... In order to settle what the Savior does mean by the rock, we must consider the 18th and 19th verses together, and keep in mind the entire figure. This figure portrays (1) a Builder, Christ; (2) a temple to be built, composed of lively stones, the church; (3) a foundation for that temple, the rock; (4) the gates of an unfriendly city or power which shall seek its destruction, hell, or more correctly, Hades, the unseen abode of the dead, the grave; (5) a door-keeper of the church, or spiritual temple, with his keys, Peter. Peter's place in the figure is not that of the foundation, but that of the key-holder, or turnkey.
he gates of hades shall not prevail against it. From the gates of the city always marched forth its armies. The powers of hades are represented by its gates. Hades is not hell (Gehenna), but the unseen abode of the dead that holds the departed within its gates. Just after these words the Lord talks of his death, or entering hades. Six months later the Sanhedrim sent him to death for making the same confession Peter had just made. See Matt. 26:64-67. They expected to demonstrate that the confession of his divinity which he had made was false by sending him to hades, which they supposed would hold him and prevail against the confession of the ROCK. He was sent there from the cross, but the gates of hades did not prevail, for they could not hold him, and the living Savior, rising triumphant from the tomb, was the unanswerable argument that his own and Peter's confession was a rock that could never be moved. His resurrection demonstrated that he is the Rock. Hades did not prevail.
disciple. . . you said a mouthful.
There are not enough hours in the day for me to respond to all of this at once . . . so let's look at this issue of the "rock/ROCK". . .
Here's the Catholic take on this. . . Peter was the natural leader of the apostles. . . the formal nature of his office as the first pope--- the visible, earthly head of the Church is hinted at in Jn 1:42, was more fully revealed by Jesus in Mat. 16:17-19 when the Lord says. . .
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Seems pretty obvious that Jesus is saying that he is establishing his Church on Peter himself.
I have heard your argument before and it appears to have a 'flaw' in its logic. . . . Your argument states that the passage was written in Greek and the Greek would read as "You are petros (a little stone) and on this petra (massive rock) I will build my church." The petra, goes the argument, referes to a prior verse. Mt 16:16, in which Peter declares that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus, therefore is actually making a contrast between Peter and his profession of faith. He is establishing his Church on this truth and not on the person of Peter.
Here's where it falls apart. . . Jesus and the other Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic as their everyday language. What he actually said was, "Youn are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church," which in English would become "You are rock, and on this rock I will build my Church." The words would be exactly the same. The reason for the different word forms in Greek--petros and petra -- is not a distinction in meaning, for by the time Matthew's Gospel was translated into Greek, the two words were synonyms, both meaning rock. The 'little stone' -massive rock distinction in these terms did not exist in first century Greek (as admitted by Protestant Bible Scholar D.A. Carson in the Expositor's Bible Commentary), The reason the words are different in the passage is that 'petra' is feminine in gender, therefore, it would not have been appropriate as a man's name. "Petros' a masculine synonym, avoids that problem.
Another point. . . If the rock really did refer to Christ based on 1 Cor 10:4, "and the rock was Christ" . . . why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English that is a closer parallel to it thn is the Greek, the passage seems clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock. . . rock". If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock. . . why did he not say so? Why did he construct his sentences so awkwardly that 'contortions' would be required to elicit the typical fundamentalist interpretation? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text (presuming of course, that 1 Cor was written after Matthew. . . as most biblical scholars assert; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it)? The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. . . It was Simon-- weak, Christ -denying Simon-- who was chosen to be the first link in the chain of the papacy. . . God has a track record of working through the lowly and weak. G.K. Chesterton when writing of the succession of popes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
('Catholicism and Fundamentalism' Karl Keating Peter & the Papacy p. 209-10).
Peace in the Lord. . . V.J.
the problem is not only in the differentiation between petra and petros but also in the language. when addressing someone it doesn't work to say "this" rock when talking to the person. if i said to you, "hey VJ, you are Peter and upon this rock...", this does not and cannot be referring to you in the grammar. if i were referring to you (saying that you were the rock) i would say "hey VJ, you are Peter and upon you I will build my Church. it makes no sense whatsover grammatically if the this is the person of Peter. or in the words of Karl Keating, "Why did he construct his sentences so awkwardly that 'contortions' would be required to elicit the typical Catholic interpretation?" no matter how you slice it, Peter cannot be the antecedent to this no matter what "contortions" you do.
the only way that this rock could be referring to peter grammatically is if Jesus was speaking to someone else (e.g., the other disciples). but we know he was addressing peter and speaking directly to him (v. 16ff) and this would ruin the whole RC interpretation that only Peter got the keys and could bind and loose (if He was speaking to them rather than peter). if Christ was trying to tell peter that he was the rock on which He would build His church then the way He said it is tautology and makes no sense. He would have said, "And I tell you, that you are Peter, the rock upon which I'm going to build my church." instead He says (as if refer to something/someone else entirely), "upon this rock..."
for the sake of argument let's pretend that there is no distinction between petra and petros and that Christ is really saying that peter is the foundation of the church. do we have any other NT passages (analogy of faith) that say this? can this be supported anywhere else? and if we assume this, why must we assume that Christ meant for this papacy to carry on through succession (through only the person of peter)? does anything in the text suggest anything remotely close to this? to me it seems that He is speaking to Peter and the apostles alone here and in Mt 18:18. we cannot just arbitarily extend this statement of Christ to others because there is nothing that suggests that He meant for this authority to transfer to anyone else. it seems more likely that He is speaking of the penning of the NT text and to the fact that He would establish laws, etc. for this new fellowship--the Church, through these individuals. this has much support in our reading of the book of Acts and the NT epistles. and we know that it wasn't just peter but all the apostles that held equal authority and they faithfully did just as He said they would in Mt 16:18, 18:18:
Acts 1:2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.
Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 4:35 and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need...37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue...4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them...6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter...22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
Acts 16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
1 Thess 2:6 nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.
2 Pet 3:2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
Jude 1:17 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,
quote: disciple
"the problem is not only in the differentiation between petra and petros. . ."
Sounds to me that you do see the possible validity of the petra/ petros argument from the Catholic perspective. . . . am I right?
quote: disciple ". . . but also in the language. when addressing someone it doesn't work to say "this" rock when talking to the person. if i said to you, "hey VJ, you are Peter and upon this rock...", this does not and cannot be referring to you in the grammar. if i were referring to you (saying that you were the rock) i would say "hey VJ, you are Peter and upon you I will build my Church. it makes no sense whatsover grammatically if the this is the person of Peter. or in the words of Karl Keating, "Why did he construct his sentences so awkwardly that 'contortions' would be required to elicit the typical Catholic interpretation?" no matter how you slice it, Peter cannot be the antecedent to this no matter what "contortions" you do."
I think we should stick with the scriptural text and try not to add our own 21st century vernacular. And what do you mean "this rock" doesn't work? If others were there at Cesarea Philippi (home of a giant rock formation by the way. . .) it seems "this" would make perfect sense. . . I can see Jesus addressing Peter. . . then looking to the followers and then back to Peter and saying 'upon this rock I will build my church. This seems plausable.
As for awkward contruction. . . I think you know as well as I that translation in the context of the culture (which you do not adress at all) has a berring on our understanding 20 centuries later. . .
It's pretty obvious also that Jesus is changing Simon's name and in doing so is signifying in a big way a change of status as is the case elsewhere in Scripture.
Peace. V.J.
Last edited by Victor Joseph; 07-17-2002 at 01:11 PM.
no what i meant was that the only problem with the catholic interpretation is not in the distinction of petra/petros but moreso in the whole construction of the grammar. i don't see any possible validity in any argument from the Catholic perspective.Originally posted by Victor Joseph
Sounds to me that you do see the possible validity of the petra/ petros argument from the Catholic perspective. . . . am I right?
the greek is clear and the understanding and translation that i'm giving is based on the greek. it has NOTHING to do with my 21st understanding or vernacular. grammatically when Christ said, "this rock" He could not be referring to peter because He was speaking to peter. when speaking to a person you do not address them to them as this. can you at least appreciate that much?I think we should stick with the scriptural text and try not to add our own 21st century vernacular.
The Word of God says that Jesus. . . addresses Peter. . . "And I tell you, (Peter). . . you (Peter) are Peter (Rock) and on this rock I will build my church. . . . "
As for awkward contruction. . . I think you know as well as I that translation in the context of the culture (which you do not adress at all) has a berring on our understanding 20 centuries later. . .
It's pretty obvious also that Jesus is changing Simon's name and in doing so is signifying in a big way a change of status as is the case elsewhere in Scripture.
so clearly when Jesus said, "upon this rock" to peter that he would not be referring to the person of peter. otherwise he would have said clearly, "I'm going to build my church upon you...so here's the keys." furthermore the picture doesn't make sense if peter is the foundation:Gr. kago de soi lego hoti su ei Petros (sing. masc.), kai epi tautei tei petrai (sing. fem.) oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian, kai pulai haidou ou katischusousin autes
Lit. I also but to you I say that you are Peter, and upon this the rock I will build my the church, and gates of hades not will overcome it.
Mt 16:18, (KJV), And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:18, (NKJV), "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:18, (ASV), And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:18, (NAS), "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Mt 16:18, (NIV), And I tell you that you are Peter,
Mt 16:18, (RSV), And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:18, (NRSV), And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
Mt 16:18, (DT), And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:18, (YLT), `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
Mt 16:18, (WEB), I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
BTW, have you found any other NT support for peter alone being the rock and foundation of the church?In order to settle what the Savior does mean by the rock, we must consider the 18th and 19th verses together, and keep in mind the entire figure. This figure portrays (1) a Builder, Christ; (2) a temple to be built, composed of lively stones, the church; (3) a foundation for that temple, the rock; (4) the gates of an unfriendly city or power which shall seek its destruction, hell, or more correctly, Hades, the unseen abode of the dead, the grave; (5) a door-keeper of the church, or spiritual temple, with his keys, Peter. Peter's place in the figure is not that of the foundation, but that of the key-holder, or turnkey.
http://www.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html
The main argument I have presented in the past, and to which Sungenis and Scott Butler are attempting to respond in JP&K, is this: when one reads the text as it stands (i.e., when one does not immediately abandon the Greek and run to a mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original"), one is struck with how strange it is that Jesus takes the "long way around" to get to making the equation "Peter = rock" if in fact that is His intention. It would have been much simpler to say, "You are Peter, and on you I will build My church." But He didn’t say that. Instead, here are His words:
kavgw. de, soi le,gw o[ti su. ei= Pe,troj( kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra| oivkodomh,sw mou th.n evkklhsi,an
As we simply translate the passage and attempt to ascertain the meaning, we note that Jesus begins with direct personal address to Peter. "And I say to you (soi)" is singular, addressed to Peter and to Peter alone. This is continued in the first part of the main statement, "You (su,) are (singular) Peter." This is known as direct address. Jesus is speaking in the first person, and Peter is in the second person, being directly addressed by the Lord. Up to this point, all is clear and understandable.
Then we run into the phrase at issue. kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra is indeed singular; there is only one "rock" in view. The issue is, to what does tau,th| refer? As a pronoun, it has an antecedent, a referent that it is pointing back to. Rome insists the referent is Peter.* But if it is, why use a demonstrative pronoun at all? Jesus has used two personal pronouns of Peter already in this sentence, soi and su,. He could have easily said, "and upon you the rock," (evpi. se, or evpi. soi, th/| pe,tra). But again, He didn’t. Instead, he switches from direct address to the demonstrative "this." I have expressed this, in non-technical language, as going from second person, "you, Peter," to third person, "this rock." "This rock" is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. A natural reading of the passage (one that I truly believe would be nigh unto universal if history had not fallen out as it did, with only one "apostolic see" in the West, the continuance of the Empire in the East, etc.) makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun:
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
The confession that Peter gives of the Messiahship of Jesus is the central thought of the entire passage. It is the reason for the trip to Caesarea Philippi. Jesus indicates that Peter has just been the recipient of divine revelation. God, in His grace, has given to Peter an insight that does not find its origin in the will of man, but in God the Father Himself. The content of that confession is, in fact, divine revelation, immediately impressed upon the soul of Peter. This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis. Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter’s confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him! Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th| is Peter’s confession. Such not only commands the most logical grammatical sense, but it also commands the obvious teaching of the rest of the New Testament itself! While Peter falls out of view by Acts 15, the centrality of the Messiahship of Jesus continues in the forefront throughout the recorded history of the primitive Church.
...
First, we note that the authors of JP&K are quite in error in stating that anyone is wishing to turn someone aside from "the traditional Christian interpretation" of this passage. Unless our authors are wanting to redefine "traditional" to merely "Roman," they need to deal with the conclusions of von Döllinger, in his work The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), 74:
Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the church. The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard the power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred on all the Apostles, as any thing peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing.
And Oscar Cullman in Peter, Disciple, Apostle, and Martyr (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), p. 162, rightly concluded regarding Matthew 16:18, "We thus see that the exegesis that the Reformation gave . . . was not first invented for their struggle against the papacy; it rests upon an older patristic tradition."
...
*We are glad that many Roman exegetes acknowledge that Peter’s confession of faith must be taken into account in this passage. Indeed, the Council of Trent even made reference to this! However, modern Roman dogma, in attempting to elevate the Pope to the height of "Infallible Head of the Church," has had to rely so strongly on this singular passage, that allowance of other viewpoints or interpretations is difficult for the Roman apologist to accept.
perhaps you could provide another example (from an actual ancient text as it was used around the time of this saying) in greek (or hebrew or aramaic) where this construction is used as you claim. so far all we have is this text and what "experts" have to say about it.
disciple. . .
quote: disciple
"no what i meant was that the only problem with the catholic interpretation is not in the distinction of petra/petros but moreso in the whole construction of the grammar. i don't see any possible validity in any argument from the Catholic perspective."
Are you talking about 'any' validity toward any position the Catholic Church puts forth. . . I give 'you' credit. . .
quote: disciple
"perhaps you could provide another example (from an actual ancient text as it was used around the time of this saying) in greek (or hebrew or aramaic) where this construction is used as you claim. so far all we have is this text and what "experts" have to say about it."
I'm not trying to dodge your challenge. . . something like this could take a while. . . but as with other efforts I've put forth in the past (the tracing of a Catholic Bishop comes to mind) I've heard nothing from you . . . so I don't think that would get us very far.
quote: disciple
"(i.e., when one does not immediately abandon the Greek and run to a mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original"),
Take a deep breathe disciple. . . I'm not talking about the language Our Blessed Lord spoke. . . would you deny that it was Aramaic. . . the commercial language of His land and time. . . I think you are making some big jumps here. . . You seem to address me as one might an LDS talking about golden tablets. . .
Again disciple. . . I don't claim to be any scholar. . . and I don't know Greek but I run across these arguments and thaey make sense to me (through my Catholic grid of course). And I make no appologies for this. . . I just don't see your argument making sense. I was merely saying that there is another possibility. . . that perhaps you haven't looked at . . . that being 'how' Jesus spoke those words. . . "You are Peter (Peter wasn't even a name. . . It would be like me calling someone in our time 'lightbulb'). . . stop. . . . then looking at all gathered. . . and on this rock I will build my church. I've read there is no punctuation in these ancient manuscripts.
Peace & Joy in Jesus. . . V.J.
no. just in this case at the moment.Originally posted by Victor Joseph
Are you talking about 'any' validity toward any position the Catholic Church puts forth. . . I give 'you' credit. . .
i'm not trying to send you on some wild goose chase. i really want to know if you can provide evidence to your claims.I'm not trying to dodge your challenge. . . something like this could take a while. . . but as with other efforts I've put forth in the past (the tracing of a Catholic Bishop comes to mind) I've heard nothing from you . . . so I don't think that would get us very far.
these aren't my words. they're from http://www.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html. perhaps if you went to the link or read my post you'd gather that. the point is, the text is in Greek and the Greek is all we have to go from. we cannot surmise and assume what it might have said in aramaic. at least you can agree to that.quote: disciple
"(i.e., when one does not immediately abandon the Greek and run to a mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original"),
Take a deep breathe disciple. . . I'm not talking about the language Our Blessed Lord spoke. . . would you deny that it was Aramaic. . . the commercial language of His land and time. . . I think you are making some big jumps here. . . You seem to address me as one might an LDS talking about golden tablets. . .
how often to you hear or use the phrasology that you are proposing? when was the last time you spoke as such?Again disciple. . . I don't claim to be any scholar. . . and I don't know Greek but I run across these arguments and thaey make sense to me (through my Catholic grid of course). And I make no appologies for this. . . I just don't see your argument making sense.
uhhh...peter was a name. but names had meaning and that's what the name Jesus gave him meant.I was merely saying that there is another possibility. . . that perhaps you haven't looked at . . . that being 'how' Jesus spoke those words. . . "You are Peter (Peter wasn't even a name. . . It would be like me calling someone in our time 'lightbulb'). . . stop. . . . then looking at all gathered. . . and on this rock I will build my church.
depends on what manuscripts you're talking about. there are thousands and there are different types. some are in all caps with no accents (uncials i believe) and some have some caps and accents. there are myriads of different fragments and full manuscripts. i'm not sure what you're referring to by talking about this.I've read there is no punctuation in these ancient manuscripts.
please don't get defensive and so quick to discard my argument. just think about more than this one verse and consider all that i'm saying. try not to focus on just one minor issue. thanks
quote: disciple
". . .and it appears in this area they speak with unanimity. how does this apply to your understanding of the primacy of st. peter over all the apostles? they seem to speak with unanimity in this area yet you imply that they are not necessarily free from error (presumably they are in error in this point). so where they speak in unanimity here do they not express the authentic mind of the Church?"
Let me respond by addressing our previous dialogue. . .
d) Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and
Christ said to them "I will build upon myself, I will not be built upon
thee."
-St. Augustine (430 a.d.)
You'll note that he does say here that the Pope has a primacy: "Peter had...
a primacy... among the apostles". The point is that his primacy didn't mean
he stopped being an apostle - he still remained one of them, and exercised
his primacy as such. This primacy is based on God, and not on Peter
himself ("for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my
Father" (Matt. 16:17)), so Peter should exercise it humbly, considering
himself one among his brothers (cf. the Pope is called: "the servant of the
servants of God").
Here are other quotes by St. Augustine on the papal primacy that indicate
what he actually thought:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent
the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only
he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of
heaven'" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter,
and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which
he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy
which he bore among the disciples. Such is 'I will give unto you the keys of
the kingdom of heaven,' and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas
represents those Jews who were Christ's enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1
[A.D. 415]).
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?"
(Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
d) If you believe that God has raised the whole building of His Church on
Peter alone, what will you say of John, the Son of Thunder? What will you
say of each of the apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of
hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail
against the others...? Are not the words addressed to them all?
-Origen, Commentary on Matthew
Origen is wrong here, the words aren't addressed to all, but to Peter (Matt.
16:18) Jesus himself said that Peter was to strengthen his brethren (Luke
22:32), so apparently he was indeed more immune to being "prevailed against"
than the others.
d) The Church, the House of the Lord, is built upon the foundation of the
faith of the apostles and prophets.
-St. Basil of Caesarea (379 a.d.), Second Chapter of Isaiah
Faith is the foundation of the Church. For it is not of the person, but of
the faith of St. Peter of which it is said, "the gates of hell shall not
prevail."
-St. Ambrose (397 a.d.)
Check out this paper on this subject. . .
http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebe...a/petercon.htm
d) For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose...when Paul disputed with
him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself
insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
the primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately
come
-St. Cyprian (258 a.d.)
Here, the three dots (...) indicate that something was deleted. What was
deleted is that the Church was built on Peter! Check it out for yourself
(near the beginning of this paragraph):
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-95.htm
Be careful disciple. . . I don't know if you overlooked this or it was deliberate.
certainly it is not helpful. . .
"3. Neither must we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom
by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, ***and upon
whom He built His Church***, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about
circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume
anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to
be obeyed by novices and those lately come."
In any case, Cyprian says here that Peter **does** hold the primacy, but he
didn't use it to arrogantly impose his will on everyone else. Read the rest of the
paragraph, if you want. The point is that even Peter was open to listening
to what other people said, even though he was the Pope.
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdiction over
Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman Bishop over those as
are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the
bishops shall have complete control and jurisdiction over those faithful
who are under them.
-First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325 a.d.), canon 6
That's a bad translation. Here's another translation:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/nicea1-sel.html
"LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the
Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is
customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other
provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be
universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent
of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not
to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of
contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable
and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the
majority prevail."
I've seen an article about this somewhere, but I can't find it at the
moment. The point of it was that what's being said here is that it is the
custom of the bishop of Rome to acknowledge that the Bishop of Alexandria
has jurisdiction over Egypt, and so everyone should agree with the Roman
custom on this issue.
d) In the administration of the Church, each Bishop has the free discretion
of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None
of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to
obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power:
as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.
-St. Cyprian (258 a.d.)
This is made up of two parts of a single quote, but reversed in order. The
first sentence from the above seems to be a loose paraphrase, rather than a
direct quote. Here's the actual text, in the correct order:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3818.htm
"For no one [of us] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops ],
or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to
him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own
will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge
another.
But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who
one and alone hath the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his
Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position]."
In any case, here he contradicts what he says and does elsewhere, since
Cyprian does indeed judge and condemn heretical bishops... So I don't think
what he says here can be given much weight.
By the way, I found a lengthy article on Cyprian and the Papacy, which
discusses this:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm
d) These are but a few of the quotes from the church fathers, none of whom
recognized the primacy claimed by Rome. In fact, it was because of this
very claim of primacy that the Roman Church left the Faith, thereby
breaking communion with the true Church of Christ.
Plenty of Fathers recognized the Roman primacy, including a few from the
very quotes given here... See the following:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm
In all humility and love. V.J.
Here are some quotes from the Fathers on Peter's Primacy from www.catholic.com should anyone care to check them out.
PETER'S PRIMACY
In another Fathers Know Best tract, Peter the Rock, we showed that the early Church Fathers recognized that Peter is the rock of whom Christ spoke when he said, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church." This tract highlights some of the implications of that fact.
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, he had practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
*
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
*
Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
*
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
*
Origen
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
*
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
*
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).
*
Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
*
Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
*
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
*
Jerome
"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).
*
Pope Innocent I
"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
*
Augustine
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
*
Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).
*
Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).
...
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).
"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
Sure seems these folks thought Peter had primacy. . .
In love & humility. V.J.
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself.
- Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 1)
My good man, your exegesis and statements such as, "Sure sounds like Jesus is giving some kind of 'power' to Peter," are truly worthy of a proponent of sola Scriptura. And indeed you have used the holy fathers as any good protestant would. The issue, of course, is not primacy, but authority. Truly, Peter did enjoy a place of honor, as I have stated. That place of honor, or primacy if you will, did not give Peter or any following Popes higher authority than the other bishops. You mentioned the difference between the individual writings and the unanimity of the Church - let's take that route.
First, by reason of clarification, the Orthodox Church only really acknowledges the first seven ecumenical councils (the ones before Rome left the Church), because they were the only ones that were truly "ecumenical". That is to say that they involved the entire Church, and were acknowledged by all. So, without further aduo, let's take a look at the mind of the Church in 325 a.d.:
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman Bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdiction over those faithful who are under them.
-First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325 a.d.), canon 6
Notice that this gives a clear definition of Rome's scope of authority, which did not include Antioch, Alexandria, or any of the other areas that had a bishop.
Also, as a reminder, the Easter issue was settled by that same council so as to maintain unity, not out of any obligation to the bishop of Rome.
And then, again for all the sola scripturians, it is a profound point that the matters in Acts 15 were brought to the council of elders and apostles (as stated in the scriptures) to be decided, and not to Peter, though Peter was present - and it wasn't Peter that gave the final decision. Hence also the ecumenical councils, rather than a consultation of the Bishop of Rome. (Neither did the rulings of the councils need to be ratified by the bishop of Rome.)
I know I am hitting a few things all in a rush, but I don't have much more time to spend on this topic. But, finally, one must look at the very cause of the split between Rome and the Eastern Churches. Though it had been building for some time, Rome finally broke communion with the Church of Christ in 1054 a.d. due to two primary dogmas introduced by Rome, yet contrary to the teachings of the Church:
1. Episcopus episcoporum (bishop of bishops)
2. Filioque
The first is, of course, the current topic. Interestingly, no matter how you use the writings of the fathers, if all the Church answered to the bishop of Rome then this would not have been an issue to split over. The very fact that the Church rejected Romes claim, and indeed is even now willing to receive Rome back into the Body of Christ if they would but abandon their unjustifiable claim, claims it's falseness.
The second refers to Rome's alteration to the Nicene Creed, (indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, thereby making the HS inferior to the others), which has never been accepted by the Church. Apparently the other bishops did indeed challenge the Roman bishops claim of authority. Now, the filioque issue was around for a couple of centuries before the split. It was when Rome finally decided to draw back the curtain on what had been building, that is to say they finally had the nerve to plainly state their claim to supreme authority, that the Church had tolerated enough false dogma and Rome had to repent or go. They went. No longer part of the Church of God - no longer part of the Body of Christ - no longer attended by the Holy Spirit. Not to say that in His grace and mercy God has not saved any catholics (for you yourself truly sound like a man of God), but that the Roman Catholic church is not the Church of God, but a schismatic heresy. Please forgive my bluntness.
Last edited by EndureToLive; 07-18-2002 at 12:35 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks