What church?

[Stravinsk]

When Jesus said

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven."
Matthew 16:17-20​

What church was he talking about? Yours? An invisible one? Or a real one that is visible and that a person can join when God calls?

And as usual, (sigh), Roman Catholic teaching relies on a myopic focus of a statement by Messiah that is removed from the context to make their false point.

If Peter, the man, was given the very keys of the Kingdom and Peter, the man, was who Christ was going to build his church...then let's examine Peter's VERY FIRST ACT as Grand Pontiff:

Continuing on from where the Catholics left off...

Matthew 16

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Peter's first act is to DENY the whole Passion, including the Resurrection. Christ responds by calling him, Peter, who is supposed to hold the keys of heaven, who is supposed to be the Rock just referred to (and in Catholic teaching, the first pope) - Christ says he is Satan!

Tired argument from a Church that absolutely depends on people not reading the context, to take what they say as Authoritive and give up their mind and will so that we can all be "one" under their child molesting priest class.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No Stravinsk, it isn't "as usual Catholics ..." it is as usual people read a post written by me and quoting the holy scriptures and they turn the thread into an attack on the Catholic Church. The only "as usual" is the immense amount of anti-Catholicism in some folk's posts. As usual they have taken a question "What church?" and read their theology into it and tried to read their misconceptions of Catholic Church teaching into my motive for starting the thread. As usual some folk in CH need to stop hating Catholicism and start reading what is written.

 

[Stravinsk]

No Stravinsk, it isn't "as usual Catholics ..." it is as usual people read a post written by me and quoting the holy scriptures and they turn the thread into an attack on the Catholic Church. The only "as usual" is the immense amount of anti-Catholicism in some folk's posts. As usual they have taken a question "What church?" and read their theology into it and tried to read their misconceptions of Catholic Church teaching into my motive for starting the thread. As usual some folk in CH need to stop hating Catholicism and start reading what is written.

Hey, I understand that you want to make fallacious arguments by taking statements out of context to use as a proof text, but it's pretty insulting to people's intelligence to pull the "Anti Catholic" card as if pointing out what you are doing (or I should say what Catholics have done for hundreds of years with this verse) is somehow not valid just because it also is sometimes accompanied by other beliefs you find unpleasant because you are Catholic.

I've read what is written. I've also read just a few verses later that destroys what you are trying to teach. It's you (and Catholicism in general) that refuses to read what is written and be intellectually honest about it in the context of what is ALSO written in the next few verses.

 

[Josiah]

Catholic Church teaching is the gospel. That's where your posts are in error. They say all sorts of things about Catholicism that are wrong because they don't go to Catholic Church sources to find the truth.

IMO, the RC Denomination is a fine denomination (just not THE church). And while I have found the RC Denomiantion (and its docilic, parroting members) VERY, VERY confused on the issue of the Gospel, nonetheless, it does tend to come through (although it may need to be untangled from the MESS being taught). In any case, I think it was Luther who noted that even in the RC Denomination, the Word is proclaimed - in the Lection, in the Liturgy, in hymns (especially now that Catholics sing a LOT of Protestant hymns), even in the art of that denomination. While one may need to ignore the sermonette and classes (and Catholics do tend to do that), it's entirely possible in the parishes owned and operated by the individual RC Denomination to hear and learn the wonderful Gospel - and IMO many do! Not because of your denomination but in spite of it. God's Word is powerful and effectual - even the RC Denomination cannot strip it and render it impotent. Soli Deo Gloria! THIS is why I believe that generally my many Catholic relatives and friends are heaven-bound.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

No Stravinsk, it isn't "as usual Catholics ..." it is as usual people read a post written by me and quoting the holy scriptures and they turn the thread into an attack on the Catholic Church. The only "as usual" is the immense amount of anti-Catholicism in some folk's posts. As usual they have taken a question "What church?" and read their theology into it and tried to read their misconceptions of Catholic Church teaching into my motive for starting the thread. As usual some folk in CH need to stop hating Catholicism and start reading what is written.

I have repeatedly stated MANY very positive things about Catholics and about The Roman Catholic Denomination. You have not returned ONE of the things to me as a Lutheran or to my denomination (the LCMS), not ONE of the very affirming things I said, not one, not even one. Who, you might ask, is the actual "anti?" Hum. Kind of obvious, isn't it?

 

[tango]

There is a Church built upon the tomb of saint Peter the name of the church built there is Saint Peter's on the Vatican hill. It is the Basilica where the pope conducts masses and in which popes are crowned. The famous church building seen in virtually every papal mass from Rome. Another church is built on the tomb of saint Paul it is called Papal Basilica of St. Paul outside the Walls. It looks like this

But you are mistaken to think that the Lord's words to saint Peter signified a place where a building would be built. He spoke of the Church not of a church building. And by saying that the Church would be built upon saint Peter he appears to have been speaking of both the testimony of saint Peter and Peter's role in the Church as first among the apostles leading them in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Except the part of my post you quoted right after your reply quite clearly says:

In that regard it seems more reasonable to conclude that "my Church" refers to a group of people rather than a physical building

so I'm not sure why you're responding as if I think it is a physical place.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Except the part of my post you quoted right after your reply quite clearly says:

so I'm not sure why you're responding as if I think it is a physical place.

I responded to the first part of your post to make sure that nobody would walk away from this thread thinking that I (or Catholics in general) think that "Church" means a building. I read the rest of your reply with delight. I did not comment on it because it was comment enough in its own words.

I do, however think that when Jesus said "and on this rock I will build my church" that he was not specifically referring to people. He may have been referring to the concept of the Church or to a specific incarnation of it. If the former was in mind then people are encompassed by the concept but the specifics of the people are not in view and if it was the latter then people (both good and bad) are in view because in the parables of the kingdom and in the pastoral letters of the new testament it is acknowledged (explicitly) that the church is people both good and bad both heading for heaven and not heading for heaven.

 

[Rens]

I responded to the first part of your post to make sure that nobody would walk away from this thread thinking that I (or Catholics in general) think that "Church" means a building. I read the rest of your reply with delight. I did not comment on it because it was comment enough in its own words.

I do, however think that what Jesus said "and on this rock I will build my church" that he was not specifically referring to people. He may have been referring to the concept of the Church or to a specific incarnation of it. If the former was in mind then people are encompassed by the concept but the specifics of the people are not in view and if it was the latter then people (both good and bad) are in view because in the parables of the kingdom and in the pastoral letters of the new testament it is acknowledged (explicitly) that the church is people both good and bad both heading for heaven and not heading for heaven.

I Always heard that He meant with that: on this revelation I will build My church, the revelation Peter got that He is the Christ.
A house is not built on the sand, but on rocks. That is the Word in that parable. And Jesus is the Word and the Rock of Ages.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I Always heard that He meant with that: on this revelation I will build My church, the revelation Peter got that He is the Christ.
A house is not built on the sand, but on rocks. That is the Word in that parable. And Jesus is the Word and the Rock of Ages.

I've heard that theory about what Jesus meant too but he didn't say "on this revelation I will build my church ..." he said "on this rock I will build my church ..." But saint Peter's confession was the immediate reason for the Lord's statement to Peter nevertheless the Lord chose to speak to Peter and say "you are rock and on this rock I will build my church ..." so the church looks like it was build on a person and what that person said set the stage for saying it.

Peter is, however, not the centre of this thread. He is the rock but he is not the church. Just like a plot of land is not the building built on it. So "what church?" isn't answered by pointing to saint Peter. It's answered by listening to what Jesus says.

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven."
​

 

[Josiah]

I've heard that theory about what Jesus meant too but he didn't say "on this revelation I will build my church ..." he said "on this rock I will build my church ..."

"This" goes not go back to "The Roman Catholic Denomination." "This" goes back to what Peter had just said.

That not only is the obvious and grammatical meaning, but it's also the earliest interpretation - and still the one of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches (as well as Protestants)... it was not until YEARS later as the Bishop of Rome (stripped of much after all moved to Constantiople) TRIED to regain (and multiply) the POWER he once enjoyed.

If the "this" goes back to Peter (grammatically impossible), then there was no church except for Peter and when Peter died - so did the church, with those "keys" in his cold, dead hands...... for Jesus says NOTHING about "and when you die the singular, individual Roman Catholic Denomination can rip them from your cold, dead hands and re-gift them to whomever it and it itself alone as a denomination chooses to do over and over until I resume my lordship of the church."

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven."

Note the basis of this discussion (which you chose to delete)....

Note the word "this" which appears twice in this quote (although you chose to delete what these "this" refer to)....

Note where "The Roman Catholic Church" is mention. Note the number of times "Denomination" appear in the quote....

Note where "re-gift" is mentioned.

 

[~Jo~]

⚰

 

[MoreCoffee]

"This" goes not go back to "The Roman Catholic Denomination." "This" goes back to what Peter had just said.

That not only is the obvious and grammatical meaning, but it's also the earliest interpretation - and still the one of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches (as well as Protestants)... it was not until YEARS later as the Bishop of Rome (stripped of much after all moved to Constantiople) TRIED to regain (and multiply) the POWER he once enjoyed.

If the "this" goes back to Peter (grammatically impossible), then there was no church except for Peter and when Peter died - so did the church, with those "keys" in his cold, dead hands...... for Jesus says NOTHING about "and when you die the singular, individual Roman Catholic Denomination can rip them from your cold, dead hands and re-gift them to whomever it and it itself alone as a denomination chooses to do over and over until I resume my lordship of the church."

...

This time I will write meh. Saint Chrysostom maintained in one of his sermons that "this rock" was saint Peter's confession but his argument was not based on grammar but on reasoning about what must have been the intended meaning of the Lord's words. He had to play fast and loose with the grammar to get the result your post presents as "the obvious and grammatical meaning". But even a cursory look at the grammar shows that your statement is wrong. In English it is wrong. More importantly in Greek it is wrong. In Greek the passage reads thus:

᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων· τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; οἱ δὲ εἶπον· οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ ᾿Ιερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπε· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέ σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός.​

Show me where it is obvious that "this rock" refers to saint Rock's words rather than to saint Rock himself?

 

[Josiah]

Saint Chrysostom maintained in one of his sermons that "this rock" was saint Peter's confession but his argument was not based on grammar but on reasoning about what must have been the intended meaning of the Lord's words.

Yes, the singular RC Denomination must ignore the text and history and even the Fathers.

And yes, if you actually read the verse you quoted ... and didn't delete the whole basis of it..... you'd see the two "this" refer to what Peter had just said. That was the original, historic, traditional view... and upheld by Scripture.

You can take a very, very weird view that the "this" refers to Peter (VERY hard to do!) but then the church is not the RCC, it's Peter - and it died around 68 AD, with the "keys" now in the cold, dead hands of Peter. You ignored very single thing I posted to you - very word of it - because there's NOTHING in the text you quoted about any denomination, nothing about re-gifting the "keys", nothing about one denomination being the all-powerful, unaccountable Lord over all.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, the singular RC Denomination must ignore the text and history and even the Fathers.

And yes, if you actually read the verse you quoted ... and didn't delete the whole basis of it..... you'd see the two "this" refer to what Peter had just said. That was the original, historic, traditional view... and upheld by Scripture.

You can take a very, very weird view that the "this" refers to Peter (VERY hard to do!) but then the church is not the RCC, it's Peter - and it died around 68 AD, with the "keys" now in the cold, dead hands of Peter. You ignored very single thing I posted to you - very word of it - because there's NOTHING in the text you quoted about any denomination, nothing about re-gifting the "keys", nothing about one denomination being the all-powerful, unaccountable Lord over all.

Another meh for the post. You didn't deal with the text in Greek and didn't show any grammatical reason for applying "this rock ..." to saint Rock's words rather than to saint Rock himself. In the Greek it is almost impossible to grammatically link "this rock" with what saint Rock said. I'd give you the passage in Greek again but you ignored it before and will ignore it again because it doesn't say what you want it to say. But even in English translation the grammar doesn't help your case. Look at what it says rather than what you wish it said.

Then Jesus went into parts of Caesarea Philippi. And he questioned his disciples, saying, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, and others say Elijah, still others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Jesus said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Rock responded by saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And in response, Jesus said to him: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven." Then he instructed his disciples that they should tell no one that he is Jesus the Christ.​

(Matthew 16:13-20)

᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων· τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; οἱ δὲ εἶπον· οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ ᾿Ιερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπε· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέ σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός.

 

[Josiah]

MoreCoffee,

You deleted what Peter said... thus you had no option for the two "this" statements except something else. Any reading of the text - in Greek or English - is clear that the two times "this" appears goes back to Peter's faith and conviction and proclaimation - not Peter per se. That's the historic view, that's what the EOC and OOC have ALWAYS held, that's what the RCC once held - until it started it's obscene power-quest and war for power. But have it your way - the keys were given to PETER and all this said of PETER. Okay. Then the keys are in the cold, dead hands of Peter... the church, the gospel, the "keys" died in 68 AD in Rome. That's the ONLY possible application of your twisted view because there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the RC Denomination or any other denomination, there's NOTHING about the "re-gifting" of these keys, there's NOTHING about when Peter died these "keys" would magically float through the air and hand in the "hands" of the singular RC Denomination... which Jesus here states may regift them to anyone it itself exclusively chooses, in perpetuity. That's all a lie, baseless, with NOTHING in this text to support it. The bishop of Rome - hoping to out-power the others - simply came up with that absurd twisting of the words of Jesus and then just INSERTED out of the blue sky all that stuff about his denomination (never noticing the text says NOTHING about his denomination or any other) and all that absurd stuff about the RCC being commanded to "re-gift" the keys (to him, of course). It's all purely made up, out of this obsession with power. There's NOTHING in the text to support it. All Rome did was teach that Christianity was about a MAN (not a faith) and thus died when he did. Sad really. Absurd obviously.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Another meh for the post. You didn't deal with the text in Greek and didn't show any grammatical reason for applying "this rock ..." to saint Rock's words rather than to saint Rock himself. In the Greek it is almost impossible to grammatically link "this rock" with what saint Rock said. I'd give you the passage in Greek again but you ignored it before and will ignore it again because it doesn't say what you want it to say. But even in English translation the grammar doesn't help your case. Look at what it says rather than what you wish it said.

Then Jesus went into parts of Caesarea Philippi. And he questioned his disciples, saying, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, and others say Elijah, still others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Jesus said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Rock responded by saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And in response, Jesus said to him: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven." Then he instructed his disciples that they should tell no one that he is Jesus the Christ.​

(Matthew 16:13-20)

᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων· τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; οἱ δὲ εἶπον· οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ ᾿Ιερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπε· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέ σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός.

MoreCoffee,

You deleted what Peter said... thus you had no option for the two "this" statements except something else. Any reading of the text - in Greek or English - is clear that the two times "this" appears goes back to Peter's faith and conviction and proclaimation - not Peter per se. That's the historic view, that's what the EOC and OOC have ALWAYS held, that's what the RCC once held - until it started it's obscene power-quest and war for power. But have it your way - the keys were given to PETER and all this said of PETER. Okay. Then the keys are in the cold, dead hands of Peter... the church, the gospel, the "keys" died in 68 AD in Rome. That's the ONLY possible application of your twisted view because there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the RC Denomination or any other denomination, there's NOTHING about the "re-gifting" of these keys, there's NOTHING about when Peter died these "keys" would magically float through the air and hand in the "hands" of the singular RC Denomination... which Jesus here states may regift them to anyone it itself exclusively chooses, in perpetuity. That's all a lie, baseless, with NOTHING in this text to support it. The bishop of Rome - hoping to out-power the others - simply came up with that absurd twisting of the words of Jesus and then just INSERTED out of the blue sky all that stuff about his denomination (never noticing the text says NOTHING about his denomination or any other) and all that absurd stuff about the RCC being commanded to "re-gift" the keys (to him, of course). It's all purely made up, out of this obsession with power. There's NOTHING in the text to support it. All Rome did was teach that Christianity was about a MAN (not a faith) and thus died when he did. Sad really. Absurd obviously.

You ignored what the bible says again. I guess sola scriptura cannot mean that what the scripture says matter much in discussion. It's more important in your theology to repeat what your denomination opines isn't it, Josiah? Your posts are about some Lutheran religious traditions. The bible is just ballast to help steady things when your leaping around cherishing opinions above what is written in the holy scriptures.

 

[Josiah]

You ignored what the bible says again.

Friend, is you that deleted Peter's ENTIRE confession of faith (to which the two "this" refers).... you who didn't want to noted that it nowhere says "The Roman Catholic Denomination" (for anything!!!), doesn't say that that one specific denomination (the RCC or LDS or any other) may rip the "keys" from Peter at some point, take such for it itself alone, then re-gift such in perpetuity... Yes, you want to delete the ENTIRE issue of faith and change everything to a man - Peter. Of course, in doing so, you indicate that Christianity died as Peter did - and the "keys" you assume SO much about are in Peter's cold, dead hands.

I guess sola scriptura cannot mean that what the scripture says matter much in discussion.

It does. Only you want to "see" SO very, very much that - well.... isn't there. NOTHING about any denomination. NOTHING about any stealing from anyone. NOTHING about re-gifting. You just insert all the egotistical, power-grabbing, nonsensical stuff that's needed for your denomination quest to lord it over all as the gentiles do. Friend, it's not there - it's all made up. What IS there is what you chose to delete, ignore, dismiss - the Christian faith (the thing the two "this" refers to).





The Eastern Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Church (they should know Greek) has denounced the egotistical Romanist claim.... indeed, the East (which should know Greek) has held the same view centuries before some guys in Rome came up with the new Romanist view. You can google this yourself, but here's just one (www.theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/articles/2010/07/st-peter-the-rock )

Mt.16: 16. “Simon Peter answered, ‘you are the Messiah,* the Son of the living God.’ 17And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you,! ….For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18And 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. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ 20Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was* the Messiah.*”

If Christ is the Messiah, is it not an absurd and an aberrated version portrayed by the imperial churches that Jesus built the church on St.Peter? “You are peter, Petras in Greek, means the ‘rolling, shaky stone’ or controlled by flesh and blood in this context. But the Father in Heaven revealed that ‘this rock’, Petros in Greek, means the solid immovable rock, the faith that he uttered that ‘you are the Messiah’ about Jesus Himself. The holy church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself the Rock, Cornerstone…a holy temple in the Lord, Eph.2: 19-22; 1.Pet.2: 6.

It proves beyond any doubt that the church’s foundation is not based on one apostle, many apostles and prophets, but the Cornerstone, the Rock, is Jesus that makes a harmonious blending factor/essence that connects to all other bricks. The Heavenly Jerusalem is built by God as its radiance like a most rare jewel. The great wall has 12 gates, and at the gates 12 angels….and the 12 gates are 12 pearls, and each of the gates made of a single pearl…,Rev.21: 10-21. Thus the church is built on the Rock of the faith that the beloved apostle uttered, not on Peter the rolling stone. If St.Peter was the immovable rock upon which the church is built, Jesus wouldn’t have rebuked him by calling him as Satan’.


.

Again, this one from www.uaocamerica.org/sources-of-teaching/thou-art-peter

Although there are many issues which divide Orthodox and Roman Catholics such as the Roman doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal Infallibility, Created Grace, and Original Sin, the most divisive doctrine between the two Churches has been the doctrine of Papal Supremacy. The Church of Rome claims that Christ made Peter and his successors the chief rulers over the Church; the successors of Peter are the Popes of Rome; the Church of Christ (the means of salvation) is located where Peter and his successors are. Therefore, (according to traditional Roman Catholic theology) union with him (the Pope) is necessary for salvation. As the visible head of the Church, he is the final judge of truth, the supreme teacher, the visible sign of unity, and the Vicar of Christ. Since the Pope is the head, the bishops of the Church can do nothing without him. The converse of this is, however, not true. Although the Pope generally acts in concert with his fellow bishops, he can at least in theory, act independently of them.

Below is an examination of the problems associated with these papal claims.

First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter. Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Eastern Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.


.

.