- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,677
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Matthew 16:18 and the RCC's Claim of a Papacy of Itself
- Thread starter Josiah
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,677
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
The following comes from a Greek Orthodox friend of mine.... Please view the first video in Post #1 first.
Thoughts about Matthew 16:18
The Roman Church directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for the foundational claim. Let's consider what needs to be proven for this to have any credibility...
1) The promise of Matt 16:18 has reference specifically to "Peter."
Response: Matthew 16:18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church. In 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching and the faith that Jesus is the Savior and Lord. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (5:19-20; 28:19).
2) The promise of Matt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.
Response: There a the power-sharing arrangement in Matthew 18:17-18 and John 20:23. The Roman Church itself is confused on this, insisting Jesus gave all this to PETER and then that He didn't.
3) The promise of Mtt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."
Response: The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter, says the Roman Church. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect.
4) This office is "perpetual"
Response: In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the church, and not to a church office or a given Apostle.
5) Peter resided in "Rome"
.
Response: there is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5). Peter was in MANY locations (most we can better confirm than Rome). Why just the bishop of Rome?
6) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome
Response: Even if Peter ever was in Rome, an Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office. Peter was equally and fully an Apostle everywhere - not especially or solely in Rome. Peter was a bishop nowhere, not ever.
7) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome
Response: The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2; Romans 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. When Paul is in Rome, he makes no mention of Peter at all - as an Apostle there, as a bishop there, as a pastor there, as the Pope, or as "there" at all. In any capacity. Nor does he indicate that Peter founded the congregation there or that the ministers in that city had any special role or function or rank.
8) There was only "one" bishop at a time
Response: There is no historic confirmation of this in the Early Church.
9) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."
Response: Peter presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1), but there's no evidence he was a BISHOP there, either. Peter was an Apostle - and this was universal, not limited to one small geographical area.
10) Peter "ordained" a successor
Response: There is no textual support for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors. Apostles, bishops, priests or otherwise. There's no contemporary historical support for this, either. This is entirely made up.
11) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.
Response: The Roman popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor, not an Apostle or Pope.
12) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.
Response: There is no straight-line deduction from Matt 16:18 to the papacy of the Roman Church. What we have is, at best, a long chain of possible inferences, much "connecting the dots of assumptions." It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument and the whole "house of cards" to come tumbling down. Also, the "list" of the bishops in Rome is retroactively created and simply is a list of bishops, except for the first name on the list (see all the points above). And of course, there often was more than one "Pope" at a time, each claiming to be the one in direct succession to Peter and with their own retroactively created "list."
.
Thoughts about Matthew 16:18
The Roman Church directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for the foundational claim. Let's consider what needs to be proven for this to have any credibility...
1) The promise of Matt 16:18 has reference specifically to "Peter."
Response: Matthew 16:18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church. In 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching and the faith that Jesus is the Savior and Lord. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (5:19-20; 28:19).
2) The promise of Matt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.
Response: There a the power-sharing arrangement in Matthew 18:17-18 and John 20:23. The Roman Church itself is confused on this, insisting Jesus gave all this to PETER and then that He didn't.
3) The promise of Mtt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."
Response: The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter, says the Roman Church. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect.
4) This office is "perpetual"
Response: In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the church, and not to a church office or a given Apostle.
5) Peter resided in "Rome"
.
Response: there is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5). Peter was in MANY locations (most we can better confirm than Rome). Why just the bishop of Rome?
6) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome
Response: Even if Peter ever was in Rome, an Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office. Peter was equally and fully an Apostle everywhere - not especially or solely in Rome. Peter was a bishop nowhere, not ever.
7) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome
Response: The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2; Romans 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. When Paul is in Rome, he makes no mention of Peter at all - as an Apostle there, as a bishop there, as a pastor there, as the Pope, or as "there" at all. In any capacity. Nor does he indicate that Peter founded the congregation there or that the ministers in that city had any special role or function or rank.
8) There was only "one" bishop at a time
Response: There is no historic confirmation of this in the Early Church.
9) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."
Response: Peter presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1), but there's no evidence he was a BISHOP there, either. Peter was an Apostle - and this was universal, not limited to one small geographical area.
10) Peter "ordained" a successor
Response: There is no textual support for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors. Apostles, bishops, priests or otherwise. There's no contemporary historical support for this, either. This is entirely made up.
11) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.
Response: The Roman popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor, not an Apostle or Pope.
12) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.
Response: There is no straight-line deduction from Matt 16:18 to the papacy of the Roman Church. What we have is, at best, a long chain of possible inferences, much "connecting the dots of assumptions." It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument and the whole "house of cards" to come tumbling down. Also, the "list" of the bishops in Rome is retroactively created and simply is a list of bishops, except for the first name on the list (see all the points above). And of course, there often was more than one "Pope" at a time, each claiming to be the one in direct succession to Peter and with their own retroactively created "list."
.
Last edited:
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
==============================================================================================
I have found it fascinating over the years to observe the repeated discussions regarding topics such as the Origin and Authority of the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, Infant Baptism, Once Saved Always Saved and Election To Salvation.
Very little (if anything at all) regarding new information is ever forthcoming.
It’s a bit like being a donkey attached to a grindstone of old, going round and round and round in endless circles.
Some time ago, the situation led me to the one inescapable conclusion that can be drawn with certainty and consistency:
People believe what they want to believe, not what they sensibly ought to believe.
That’s what I believe, anyway.
==============================================================================================
I have found it fascinating over the years to observe the repeated discussions regarding topics such as the Origin and Authority of the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, Infant Baptism, Once Saved Always Saved and Election To Salvation.
Very little (if anything at all) regarding new information is ever forthcoming.
It’s a bit like being a donkey attached to a grindstone of old, going round and round and round in endless circles.
Some time ago, the situation led me to the one inescapable conclusion that can be drawn with certainty and consistency:
People believe what they want to believe, not what they sensibly ought to believe.
That’s what I believe, anyway.
==============================================================================================
ImaginaryDay2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Messages
- 3,967
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Aka = would you like eggs with that (re)hash?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,121
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Seems to me that way too many Protestant CH posters are fixated on what they allege Catholic teaching to be.
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
==============================================================================================
ImaginaryDay2 (Post #4):
I guess I could say, “Exactly my point.”
I guess I could also point out that “People believe what they want to believe, not what they sensibly ought to believe” is a timeless truth, especially within Christendom.
No matter how anyone might attempt to diminish the importance of that truth.
==============================================================================================
But I guess that many people to whom that apples, won’t want to admit it. They never do. They want to believe that it’s the people with other beliefs that are intransigent.
==============================================================================================
And, I suspect that my encouraging people to read the Bible as it was actually written (to see what they find), and my asking people to present Scripture that they have stated exists (to see if the doctrines supposedly supported by that Scripture are actually Biblical), and my pointing out inconsistencies in people’s statements in support of doctrines cherished by them (to obtain clarification) – I suspect that that might just categorise me a little differently.
Just maybe.
==============================================================================================
ImaginaryDay2 (Post #4):
I guess I could say, “Exactly my point.”
I guess I could also point out that “People believe what they want to believe, not what they sensibly ought to believe” is a timeless truth, especially within Christendom.
No matter how anyone might attempt to diminish the importance of that truth.
==============================================================================================
But I guess that many people to whom that apples, won’t want to admit it. They never do. They want to believe that it’s the people with other beliefs that are intransigent.
==============================================================================================
And, I suspect that my encouraging people to read the Bible as it was actually written (to see what they find), and my asking people to present Scripture that they have stated exists (to see if the doctrines supposedly supported by that Scripture are actually Biblical), and my pointing out inconsistencies in people’s statements in support of doctrines cherished by them (to obtain clarification) – I suspect that that might just categorise me a little differently.
Just maybe.
==============================================================================================
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,677
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
MoreCoffee,
You COULD have actually made a reply.... and corrected any misunderstanding this video or this Greek Orthodox member had.... but..... instead, you just rebuke any discussion of the topic. Hum. Perhaps that says much.
Pedrito,
Christianity is divided.... including on some very important and foundational issues. I understand that we now live in a post-modern, post-Christian era where uber-relativism is the new religion (there is no truth, all we have are equal opinions and feelings) and so many (even some who are Christians) will assumes everything is unknowable, truth is unattainable (and doesn't matter anyway) and division is meaningless if everyone just hugs each other. So, they will just not read or reply or post in any such thread or discussion. If you are an uber-relativistic, that would be my suggestion: since it doesn't matter, since truth is irrelevant, why waste your time on such a thread? BUT, realize, friend, not every Christian proceeds with those assumptions. And they might choose to engage in the issue. IMO, you are free to ignore.... and you should welcome people to engage. Make sense?
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,121
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
You could have listened but you didn't. You'd rather make allegations than check the facts. I do not know what motivates you. I pray that whatever it is will leave you. May God grant the Spirit of a sound mind to you and the mind of Christ.
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
==============================================================================================
Josiah in Post #7:
I Thank Josiah for the information. It was new to me.
==============================================================================================
But the following has left me a little puzzled:
I’m not sure what motivated Josiah to associate me with the nebulous perspectives of uber-relativism (as described).
My encouraging people to read the Bible as it was written to identify the specific Original Apostolic Gospel, doesn’t sound uber-relativistic to me.
Nor does requesting (multiple times) that specific Scripture verses (those that have been stated to exit to support the idea of a “soul” which survives death) be tabled for review, seem uber-relativistic.
And I submit that putting forward the idea that once the Original Apostolic Gospel is made manifest, the one denomination that is faithfully representing God’s truth will be clearly identified, is not uber-relativistic either.
==============================================================================================
So what could possibly entice anyone to address me with the words: “If you are an uber-relativistic”?
It beats me. (Well, it should.)
==============================================================================================
Josiah in Post #7:
I Thank Josiah for the information. It was new to me.
==============================================================================================
But the following has left me a little puzzled:
I’m not sure what motivated Josiah to associate me with the nebulous perspectives of uber-relativism (as described).
My encouraging people to read the Bible as it was written to identify the specific Original Apostolic Gospel, doesn’t sound uber-relativistic to me.
Nor does requesting (multiple times) that specific Scripture verses (those that have been stated to exit to support the idea of a “soul” which survives death) be tabled for review, seem uber-relativistic.
And I submit that putting forward the idea that once the Original Apostolic Gospel is made manifest, the one denomination that is faithfully representing God’s truth will be clearly identified, is not uber-relativistic either.
==============================================================================================
So what could possibly entice anyone to address me with the words: “If you are an uber-relativistic”?
It beats me. (Well, it should.)
==============================================================================================
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,677
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
You have yet to post anything remotely related to the opening post and issue of this thread... so you chose to supply nothing to listen to. It's a common approach of yours; simply to blame people for bringing up issues that divide Christianity and foundational dogmas in dispute - then rebuking those want to discuss it because you won't. Interesting.
Truth. Unity. Lifting high the Cross. I think Jesus wants that. I think that's important.
I will continue to be motivated by and dedicated to the above as long as the Lord gives me breath.
Now, do you have anything to contribute to this foundational issue that has divided Christianity for over 1000 years? If not, that's okay (just don't post in the thread if you have nothing to say; make sense?).
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,121
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Albert Barnes comments Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage.
A Catholic commentator writes
You gave a Lutheran's opinion and I give you a Presbyterian and a Catholic opinion.
Another Catholic source says
Previously I quoted from saint Francis De Sales which you may have forgotten.
And earlier in that thread I wrote:
A Catholic commentator writes
Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John 1:42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fullness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew 7:24, 25.)
Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew 7:24, 25.)
You gave a Lutheran's opinion and I give you a Presbyterian and a Catholic opinion.
Another Catholic source says
But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," Matthew 16:18 hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Matthew 16:18 Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 16:19 be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," Matthew 16:19 etc.; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," John 20:22 etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God;" but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 3:18 they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 16:16 And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, 1 Corinthians 10:4 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:30 And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "You are Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, Matthew 7:24 is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.
Previously I quoted from saint Francis De Sales which you may have forgotten.
And earlier in that thread I wrote:
Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole Church
specifically, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments,
A difference so great as this makes the one (that is Peter) unable, in comparison, to be called a foundation by the side of the other (that is the Lord Jesus Christ), whilst, however, taken by itself, it can be called a foundation, in order to pay proper regard to the Holy Scriptures.
So, although Christ is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds under himself, between those shepherds and the Lord there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd.
- foundation but founded on another foundation, which is Christ Jesus, Our Lord ;
- foundation of the Evangelic Church alone,
- foundation subject to succession,
- foundation of the Church militant not of the Church triumphant,
- foundation by participation, ministerial not absolute foundation ;
specifically, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments,
A difference so great as this makes the one (that is Peter) unable, in comparison, to be called a foundation by the side of the other (that is the Lord Jesus Christ), whilst, however, taken by itself, it can be called a foundation, in order to pay proper regard to the Holy Scriptures.
So, although Christ is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds under himself, between those shepherds and the Lord there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
The interesting thing to me is the fact that it is actually irrelevant whether ”rock” refers to Peter or not. It is often the object of attention when people set out to debunk the idea of the Papacy, but if ”rock” does refer to Peter (which I think it does), there still is no basis for a Papacy to be found in Scripture (and of course there is none in Tradition either, if one thinks that Tradition might be definitive).
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,121
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Some who accept that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is founded yet deny that apostolic success exists so the verse applies to saint Peter and to no one else; no successors. I reject that point of view but some accept it.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
St. Peter's alleged position and Apostolic Succession have nothing to do with each other. I agree that there are people who think that debunking the latter is the key to debunking the former, but that error doesn't change anything.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,677
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Of course, there's nothing in the Bible that says Jesus gave PETER anything. In fact, the grammar of the Greek makes the RCC "spin" very difficult and forced if not impossible. If Jesus had meant NOT faith in Christ but rather the flesh of one man, Peter, then He would have said "On YOU"
But Albion is absolutely correct. There is NOTHING in the text (or in the Bible) that indicates that one denomination can or must or will rip the "keys" from the cold, dead hands of Peter and regift them to whomever it itself alone chooses - in perpetuity. IF Jesus gave "keys" to PETER than He gave them to PETER where they still are. And no Christian can proclaim or apply the Gospel. IMO, the "spin" of the modern RCC (which has been universally rejected by all others) is not about Peter at all. but about itself.... a way to TRY to suggest that the amazing power claims of it itself come from Jesus. But yes.... Albion has a good point (as usual), if the RCC's ungrammatical, untextual reference to this text is true - then all it means is that NO ONE since Peter died in 67 AD can share or apply the Gospel... the church died when Peter did.
.
But Albion is absolutely correct. There is NOTHING in the text (or in the Bible) that indicates that one denomination can or must or will rip the "keys" from the cold, dead hands of Peter and regift them to whomever it itself alone chooses - in perpetuity. IF Jesus gave "keys" to PETER than He gave them to PETER where they still are. And no Christian can proclaim or apply the Gospel. IMO, the "spin" of the modern RCC (which has been universally rejected by all others) is not about Peter at all. but about itself.... a way to TRY to suggest that the amazing power claims of it itself come from Jesus. But yes.... Albion has a good point (as usual), if the RCC's ungrammatical, untextual reference to this text is true - then all it means is that NO ONE since Peter died in 67 AD can share or apply the Gospel... the church died when Peter did.
.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
We might also mention that the rather strained argument often used by advocates of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility--that the situation with Peter is somehow a fulfilment or counterpart of the key given in the OT to David--does not also include the claim of this having established an OT religious monarchy. Yet that kind of thing is supposedly a "given" when it comes to the bishops of Rome.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,121
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
I am inclined to see apostolic succession as linking saint Peter to his successors but I acknowledge that some argue against that. I do not accept their postion.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
In what sense? Peter--assuming for the sake of the argument that he was a Pope--is a saint. Jorge, the current bishop of Rome, is not. So that might be one diff.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,121
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Francis is a successor to saint Peter so he is not greater than saint Peter and is not one of the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus Christ while saint Peter was.