Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peterís primacy
AsiaNews ^ | 7 June, 2006

Posted on 06/07/2006 8:12:05 PM PDT by Petrosius

Benedict XVI talked about the primacy intended by Jesus and recognized by the apostles. He said a spontaneous prayer so that ?entrusted to poor human beings, the primacy may be always exercised in its original sense as desired by the Lord, that it may be recognized by our brothers not yet in full communion with us.

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – The foundation of the primacy of Peter in the desire manifested by Jesus and recognition by the Twelve, and spontaneous prayers so that “poor human beings” entrusted with the primacy will know how exercise it according to the will of Jesus, and so it may be recognized also by Christians who are not in full communion with Rome. This was the thrust of the words of Benedict XVI in today’s general audience.

Thus, Christian unity, indicated by Benedict XVI himself as being one of the fundamental objectives of his pontificate, accompanied his reflection on the “primacy”, described as a “constitutive element” of the Church, which has always posed one of the main – if not the main – obstacles to Christian unity unity. In this regard, John Paul II, in his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint” (1995), affirmed the openness of the Catholic Church to discussing not the primacy but concrete ways of exercising it. Today, Benedict XVI underlined that the task entrusted to Peter, is “to strengthen his brothers”. Off the cuff, he said: “This is the primacy given for all times: Peter must be the guardian of communion with Christ, lead to communion with Christ… with the charity of Christ, even to lead to the realization of this charity in everyday life.”

In his reflection, Benedict XVI today highlighted different aspects of the “primacy”: its institution by Christ, the awareness of Peter and recognition by the Twelve.

On this spring day, Benedict XVI addressed at least 40,000 people who packed into the square and brightened it up with colourful flags, hats, handkerchiefs, and even a few umbrellas to offer protection from the sun, already rather warm at times. The pope drew attention to the narrative of John about the first meeting of Jesus with Simon, brother of Andrew, saying “it records a singular fact: Jesus ‘looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)’ (Jn1:42). Jesus did not usually change the names of his disciples”, in fact, “He never gave a new name to any of his disciples. However he did so with Simon, and that name, translated in Greek as Petros, would crop up several times in the Gospels and would end up by replacing his original name. This fact takes on particular significance when one recalls that in the Old Testament, changing a name was usually a prelude to entrusting one with a mission (cfr Jn 17:5; 32:28ff). In fact, the intention of Christ to attribute special importance to Peter within the Apostolic College emerges in many instances: in Capernaum, the Teacher went to lodge in Peter’s house (Mk 1:29); when the crowd flocked to the banks of the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus chose Peter’s boat from the two moored there (Lk 5:3); when in particular circumstances, Jesus took three disciples to accompany him, only Peter is always recalled as the first of the group: the same happened in the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (cfr Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51); in the Transfiguration (cfr Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1; Lk 9:28), during the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (cfr Mk 14:33; Mt 16:37). And again: it was Peter who was approached by the tax collectors at the Temple and the Teacher paid for himself and for Peter alone (cfr Mt 17: 24-27); it was Peter whose feet He washed first at the Last Supper (cfr Jn 13:6) and it was only for him that He prayed so that his faith would not fail and that he may in turn strengthen his brothers (cfr Lk 22: 30-31)”.

“Peter himself is, after all, aware of his unique position: it is he who often, in the name also of the rest, speaks out, asking for an explanation for some difficult parable (Mt 15:15) or the exact meaning of a precept (Mt 18:21) or the formal promise of reward (Mt 19:27).”

Benedict XVI dwelt upon the “profession of faith which, again in the name of the Twelve, he made near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus who asked: ‘Who do you say I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16: 15-16). Jesus replies by making a solemn statement that defines, once and for all, the role of Peter in the Church: 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. I 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’ (Mt 16:18-19). The three metaphors Jesus refers to are in themselves very clear: Peter will be the rock, the foundation on which the Church will stand; He will have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven to open or close as he sees fit; and finally, he will be able to bind or dissolve in the sense that he will be able to establish or prohibit as he holds necessary for the life of the Church, which is, and remains, of Christ”.

“This position of pre-eminence that Jesus meant to confer upon Peter is apparent also after the resurrection: Jesus charged the women to take the news to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cfr Mk 16:7); it is to him and to John that Mary Magdalen rushes to inform them about the overturned stone at the entrance to the sepulchre (cfr Jn 20:2) and John allows Peter to go ahead when the two reach the empty tomb (cfr Jn 20:4-6); Peter would be the first among the Apostles to testify to an apparition of the Risen Lord (cfr Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5). His role, decisively emphasized (cfr Jn 20:3-10), marks the continuity between his pre-eminence among the apostolic group and the pre-eminence he would continue to enjoy in the community born from the paschal events, as attested in the Book of the Acts (cfr 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11.29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.). His behaviour is considered so decisive that it is the focus of observations and even of criticism (cfr At 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14). Peter occupies a leadership role in the Council of Jerusalem (cfr At 15 and Gal 2:1-10) and it is precisely because of his being a witness to the authentic faith that Paul himself recognized in him a certain quality of “first” (cfr 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7ff; etc.). Further, the fact that all the key texts referring to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, when Christ confers upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brothers (cfr Lk 22:31ff), reveals how the Church born from the paschal memory celebrated in the Eucharist, finds one of its constitutive elements in the ministry entrusted to Peter.”

At the end of his reflection, Benedict XVI prayed, off the cuff, that the “primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, may be always exercised in its original sense as desired by the Lord, so that it may be recognized still more in its true meaning by our brothers as yet not in full communion with us.”



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

1 posted on 06/07/2006 8:12:08 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

Ain't gonna happen, but it was nice of the Pope to think about us. ;)


2 posted on 06/07/2006 8:15:11 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10
Of course if you want to persist in recognizing the false meaning of Peter's primacy ... :)
3 posted on 06/07/2006 8:24:21 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

Jesus is supreme.


4 posted on 06/07/2006 8:35:09 PM PDT by Kenny Bunkport (As the Democrat Party becomes more evil, the GOP becomes more stupid. What's a voter to do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
Jesus is supreme.

And Peter is the rock upon which He chose to build his Church.

5 posted on 06/07/2006 8:45:26 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
And Peter is the rock upon which He chose to build his Church.

I guess if we all believed that, we'd all be Catholics...So I will say with a clear conscience, Peter is NOT the rock of the church...Jesus is the Rock that the church was built upon...

Now that was easy wasn't it...

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (not just one apostle), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Jesus is the Rock...Peter, like the rest of the apostles was a rock in the foundation but Jesus Christ is THE ROCK that the church was built upon...

6 posted on 06/07/2006 10:10:04 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
And Peter is the rock upon which He chose to build his Church.

No, that would be Peter's comfession upon which Jesus would build His church. Not Peter.

7 posted on 06/07/2006 10:17:44 PM PDT by tenn2005 (Birth is merely an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005

But Peter is the one he speaks to directly. As the Scripture makes cleasr, he is the first of the twelve. Just look at how much we know about Peter and how little about the others.


8 posted on 06/07/2006 10:34:09 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; P-Marlowe

I would think the Pope would be more concerned with the flood of Catholics becoming Muslims.


9 posted on 06/08/2006 4:14:43 AM PDT by Gamecock ("For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine..." (2 Timothy 4:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

"Today, Benedict XVI underlined that the task entrusted to Peter, is “to strengthen his brothers”. Off the cuff, he said: “This is the primacy given for all times: Peter must be the guardian of communion with Christ, lead to communion with Christ… with the charity of Christ, even to lead to the realization of this charity in everyday life.”"

Good stuff, P. This is why we Orthodox admire this Pope so much, far more than any other at least in my lifetime.


10 posted on 06/08/2006 4:23:00 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
Now you KNEW this reaction was going to happen...

Just waiting for the right time to post the Jack Chick announcement LOL

11 posted on 06/08/2006 5:04:34 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; madison10; Kenny Bunkport; Iscool; tenn2005; RobbyS; Gamecock; Kolokotronis

The problem is, at least based upon conversations I've had with my Protestant friends, is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that (cf 1 cor 3:1-5, 1 cor 12:12ff, Eph 5:27, etc.). Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church (cf Eph 5:23). He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church (Matt 16:19, cf Isa 22:20-23). Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations, cf 2 Ti 1:6, Acts 20:28, etc.).


12 posted on 06/08/2006 5:13:52 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church (Matt 16:19, cf Isa 22:20-23). Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations, cf 2 Ti 1:6, Acts 20:28, etc.).

Uh, Isaiah is referring to Jesus, and there is no reference to any apostles or apostolic succession in Acts, 20...Where do you guys get this stuff???

We comprehend what the Bible says...And we comprehend what your church teaches...And they're not the same thing...Comprehending is not the problem...Believing your church is the problem...And I don't...

13 posted on 06/08/2006 6:07:56 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words.
This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
e.g.

Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,

Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.

Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede

Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.

1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;

2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!

2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,

Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!

Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'

Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."

Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.

b'shem Y'shua
14 posted on 06/08/2006 6:20:17 AM PDT by Uriíel-2012 (Hosea 6:6 I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Uh, Isaiah is referring to Jesus,

Sorry, Charlie. Not even close.

Isa 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

Isa 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa 22:23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

So if the key is being placed upon the shoulder of Christ, as you are stating...

then you are equating Christ with the servant, rather than the king (Hezekiah). To me, that sounds dangerously close to denying the divinity of Christ...

If that's what you choose to believe, well, this is a free country, but you may wish to consider the implications.

15 posted on 06/08/2006 6:25:34 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
It was a nice gesture by our Holy Father, but it is really a waste of time. Who really cares what people think of us outside of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Papacy has always been, and always will be, until Christ comes again to fulfill his promise.

The people who deny the Petrine Doctrine cannot see the forest through the trees, and choose to stay that way. Let them. One day, they will find out, as we all shall. If they want to constantly strain their eyes by being so tunnel visioned in the reading and interpreting of their edited, abridged, and mistranslated KJ Bibles, so what?
16 posted on 06/08/2006 6:27:05 AM PDT by Theoden (Why do you seek the cup of Christ, is it for his glory, or for yours?-Indiana Jones The Last Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; markomalley
there is no reference to any apostles or apostolic succession in Acts, 20...

What's your opinion of Acts 1; Peter standing up and saying Judas has to be replaced because he occupied an office?

17 posted on 06/08/2006 6:29:13 AM PDT by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
I have a question for you. Why do you constantly quote Old Testament when dealing with other Christians here? Christians hold the Old Testament fulfilled, and do not hold it as being authoritative like we do the New Testament. One can interpret and quote Scripture into saying anything that they want it to say. I am not being snide or anything like that, I genuinely want to understand why it is that you still hold the Torah to be authoritative, and yet are a Christian. I do not understand the Messianic views. Thanks
18 posted on 06/08/2006 6:34:14 AM PDT by Theoden (Why do you seek the cup of Christ, is it for his glory, or for yours?-Indiana Jones The Last Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
What's your opinion of Acts 1; Peter standing up and saying Judas has to be replaced because he occupied an office?

Actually, if he re-reads what I posted, he'll note that I was referring to the ordination that happened in Acts 20. (Showing that new episcopates could be established by already-existing bishops).

19 posted on 06/08/2006 6:35:37 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Theoden; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; Frumanchu
Christians here? Christians hold the Old Testament fulfilled, and do not hold it as being authoritative like we do the New Testament.

Oh now that's going to open up a whole can of worms here. So you treat the Old Testament as "the Word of God (Emeritus)"?

20 posted on 06/08/2006 6:39:48 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
Christians hold the Old Testament fulfilled, and do not hold it as being authoritative like we do the New Testament.

You might want to SERIOUSLY think about clarifying that statement, FRiend...

21 posted on 06/08/2006 6:41:53 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Isaias 51

Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just, and you that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence you are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out. 2 Look unto Abraham your father

* God called Abraham a rock

22 posted on 06/08/2006 6:45:31 AM PDT by bornacatholic (Pope Paul VI. "Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; ...
The Primacy of Peter
23 posted on 06/08/2006 7:02:42 AM PDT by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Theoden; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; Frumanchu
For the record,

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately SO oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,94 The books of the OldTestament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. the Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

Just thought that needed to be clarified before it spins out of control.

24 posted on 06/08/2006 7:04:31 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
"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. I 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"

***************

Amen. Thank you, Pope Benedict for reminding us of this.

25 posted on 06/08/2006 7:08:29 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Theoden; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; Frumanchu
Just thought that needed to be clarified before it spins out of control.

Much appreciated. To be fair to Theoden and Catholics in general, there are lots of Protestants, too, who hold to the same error - functionally, if not literally and openly. You can easily identify them by their shibboleth "but we're under grace now, not the law!"

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness
- 1 Timothy 3:16

26 posted on 06/08/2006 7:26:42 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; Frumanchu

It was an honest question, and I don't mean to start a flame war here. You can just send me mail if you don't want this public. Actually, I should have sent that as a PM in the first place. My fault.


27 posted on 06/08/2006 7:46:12 AM PDT by Theoden (Why do you seek the cup of Christ, is it for his glory, or for yours?-Indiana Jones The Last Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I should not have phrased it like that in retrospect. I understand the importance of the Old Testament, that it IS the word of God, and that is divinely inspired, that not what I meant. What I was getting at was ONLY using the OT as a source of authority. That is what I don't understand.

I'm not as old as you guys, I haven't had the time to read up on it ;)


28 posted on 06/08/2006 7:57:21 AM PDT by Theoden (Why do you seek the cup of Christ, is it for his glory, or for yours?-Indiana Jones The Last Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

...according to Catholic tradition.


29 posted on 06/08/2006 8:13:56 AM PDT by Kenny Bunkport (As the Democrat Party becomes more evil, the GOP becomes more stupid. What's a voter to do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Isaias 51

Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just,
and you that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence you are hewn,
and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out. 2 Look unto Abraham your father

* God called Abraham a rock

22 posted on 06/08/2006 7:45:31 AM MDT by bornacatholic

That is not my understanding.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that understanding.

b'shem Y'shua
30 posted on 06/08/2006 8:19:55 AM PDT by Uriíel-2012 (Hosea 6:6 I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
then you are equating Christ with the servant, rather than the king (Hezekiah

I don't have a problem with it...Jesus is not YET the King...But He will be...

31 posted on 06/08/2006 8:41:14 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005; Iscool
Nice try guys, but you cannot run away from the clear words of our Lord. Do you not understand that by denying this that you are the ones who are violating sola scriptura and introducing human tradition by relying on your confessional interpretations that would move the meaning of our Lord's words from referring to Peter, whom He named 'Rock', to refer to only his confession. Nor do you address the institution of a unique office given to Peter by the conferral of the keys.
32 posted on 06/08/2006 8:46:39 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Jesus is not YET the King...But He will be...

Ohhhh boy. That's going to get a lot of responses!

33 posted on 06/08/2006 8:51:43 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
...according to Catholic tradition.

Well, actually according to the words of our Lord himself. Or do you consider that the Gospel according to Matthew is only a part of Catholic tradition. Come to think about it, you have a point. We do only accept Matthew, and the rest of the New Testament, because it was given to us by Catholic tradition.

34 posted on 06/08/2006 8:52:07 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

Isaiah...Verse 1, the reference to the rock is God...Verse 2, the reference is Abraham...


35 posted on 06/08/2006 8:53:43 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
The people who deny the Petrine Doctrine cannot see the forest through the trees, and choose to stay that way. Let them. One day, they will find out, as we all shall. If they want to constantly strain their eyes by being so tunnel visioned in the reading and interpreting of their edited, abridged, and mistranslated KJ Bibles, so what?

You are SO mistaken...We see what you see...But we want no part of it...

36 posted on 06/08/2006 8:55:59 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

In fact, if you take a look at the Aramaic of Matthew, you will discover that both instances of "Rock" in English are the word "Keepa" (IIRC on spelling...no time to look it up right now) -- thus the transliteration, Cephas, for Peter.

Many scholars (in fact most to my knowledge) believe that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, btw.

Just thought I'd throw that one in the stew for consideration.

You can look for yourself at http://www.peshitta.org


37 posted on 06/08/2006 9:00:33 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Theoden
I don't have a problem with it...

Thou sayest...

Oh, btw, FYI Matt 27:11 (KJV) "And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest."

Mark 15:2 (KJV) "And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it]."

Luke 23:3 (KJV)"And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest [it]."

You'll forgive me if I prefer the words of our Lord.

38 posted on 06/08/2006 9:08:00 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
I have a question for you.
Why do you constantly quote Old Testament when dealing with other Christians here?
Christians hold the Old Testament fulfilled,
and do not hold it as being authoritative like we do the New Testament.
One can interpret and quote Scripture into saying anything that they want it to say.
I am not being snide or anything like that,
I genuinely want to understand why it is that you still hold the Torah to be authoritative,
and yet are a Christian.
I do not understand the Messianic views.

Thanks

18 posted on 06/08/2006 7:34:14 AM MDT by Theoden

Y'shua is the "Word of G-d". Is He not?

All scripture that was quoted by Y'shua was from the Tanach.

Did Y'shua say ignore the Tanach? I don't think so.

Y'shua rebuked the Pharisees for ignoring the Tanach and using man-made Tradition instead.

I believe that Y'shua is the Mashiach as for-told in G-d's Holy Word: the Tanach.

b'shem Y'shua
39 posted on 06/08/2006 9:17:37 AM PDT by Uriíel-2012 (Hosea 6:6 I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Alex Murphy
Jesus is not YET the King...But He will be...

Friend, Jesus IS NOW the King. His Kingdom has been inaugurated. What we await is the full and final consumation of His Kingdom. He is on the throne, in complete control.

40 posted on 06/08/2006 9:24:26 AM PDT by Frumanchu (quod erat demonstrandum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Thou sayest...

Oh, btw, FYI Matt 27:11 (KJV) "And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest."

Mark 15:2 (KJV) "And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it]."

Luke 23:3 (KJV)"And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest [it]."

You'll forgive me if I prefer the words of our Lord.

Do you even know what the Lord is saying??? He's saying that this was Pilate's claim, not His...

Joh 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

Joh 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Joh 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

Joh 18:40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Jesus never once said or admitted he was the King...Jesus' Kingdom is NOT, NOW, from HERE...And it won't be til he comes back with His Bride...Not that Kingdom anyway...

If some of you folks would quit reading the hype put out by your church and get into the Bible, you'd pick up on some of this stuff...

41 posted on 06/08/2006 9:33:12 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
Friend, Jesus IS NOW the King. His Kingdom has been inaugurated. What we await is the full and final consumation of His Kingdom. He is on the throne, in complete control.

Sorry, but you're wrong...Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father...Jesus will not be the King until he sits on the throne in the City of David (Jerusalem) and he certainly hasn't made it there yet...But I'm looking for it to happen any time now...Even so, Come Lord Jesus...

42 posted on 06/08/2006 9:37:36 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; tenn2005
I guess if we all believed that, we'd all be Catholics...So I will say with a clear conscience, Peter is NOT the rock of the church...Jesus is the Rock that the church was built upon...

Your conscience, valuable as it is, cannot dictate that the Greek language be other than it is.

Let's walk through the text.

su ei Petros = you are Rock
epi tauth th petra = and upon this same rock
oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian = I will build my Church.

That "su" in the first line is a second person personal singular pronoun. You are Rock. Not "I", not "my faith" but "you". There can be no referent but Peter. Taute in the second line means "same, identical" (e.g. tautology), "You are Rock and upon this SAME rock I will build my Church." Thus, the typical explanation about Petros/petra being two different things is specious, because that would make the text say: "you are a pebble and upon this same Rock I will build my church".

The whole rest of the passage is filled with the 2nd personal singular pronoun...Christ giving these extraordinary power/privileges: I will give YOU = "soi" the keys of the kingdom, power to bind and loose) not on all of the Apostles but on "SU"...on Peter. Whatever YOU bind will be bound in heaven and whatever YOU loose will be loosed in heaven.

There are statements of the Church Fathers that say that the Rock is Peter's confession. And they are right--it is. But it is ALSO Peter's person. His confession came from his person, and the two cannot be separated in this context, particularly in light of the Greek grammar which leaves no room for doubt that Peter's person is the referent.

43 posted on 06/08/2006 9:37:43 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "

I'm not at all clear why, because Christ is referred to the Rock so many other places, that is held to definitively *rule out* the possibility that somebody else could be a Rock in a lesser sense in Matt 16. That's not hermeneutics. It would be like saying because "fish" is literal in 414 places in the Bible, it cannot be figurative somewhere else.

See above, Xenia...the Greek allows no such linguistic games. Christ Himself calls Peter the Rock. I would not be so bold to assert it myself if it was not there in plain Greek.

44 posted on 06/08/2006 9:52:23 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
There are different interpretations of Christ's words, as you know. The typical Protestant interpretation of Jesus reference to "upon this rock I will build my church," is to Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not to Peter himself. It is upon that confession that Christ's church would be built, not upon the man Peter. And the history of the early church bears this out. It was Paul, not Peter, who planted the churches throughout Asia Minor. It was Paul's teaching that caused those churches to grow, not Peter's. Anyone who acknowledges and puts their faith in both the person and the work of Jesus ("the Christ, the Son of the Living God" -- similar to Peter's confession) will be saved, are placed in spiritual union with Him, and become part of His church.

From church history, this interpretation makes the most sense.

45 posted on 06/08/2006 10:01:09 AM PDT by Kenny Bunkport (As the Democrat Party becomes more evil, the GOP becomes more stupid. What's a voter to do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
It was Paul, not Peter, who planted the churches throughout Asia Minor. It was Paul's teaching that caused those churches to grow, not Peter's.

But note something very important. While Paul founded many churches, it was the churches that Peter founded which were the most important and authoritative "patriarchal" churches: Antioch and Rome (and even Alexandria, through Peter's disciple Mark). These Churches exercised a special primacy in their respective regions and went on to become the recognized seats of the three original Patriarchates.

Paul's churches had no such special patriarchal authority.

46 posted on 06/08/2006 10:08:16 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Alex Murphy
If some of you folks would quit reading the hype put out by your church and get into the Bible, you'd pick up on some of this stuff...

...

But I'm looking for it to happen any time now...

Sorry...just gotta laugh about these two statements juxtaposed.

Friend, we were not told that the Kingdom was at hand (that the axe was laid at the foot of the tree) just so we could all stand on edge for 2000 years. The Kingdom is here and is among us. It is advancing, and it will one day be fully consumated.

47 posted on 06/08/2006 10:11:34 AM PDT by Frumanchu (quod erat demonstrandum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport
Jesus is supreme.

Shouldn't you listen to what he says, then?

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
48 posted on 06/08/2006 10:12:58 AM PDT by Antoninus (I don't vote for liberals -- regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Now that was easy wasn't it...

Self-delusion often is.
49 posted on 06/08/2006 10:13:54 AM PDT by Antoninus (I don't vote for liberals -- regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
I would think the Pope would be more concerned with the flood of Catholics becoming Muslims.

What, based on that one miserable MSM article you posted yesterday?
50 posted on 06/08/2006 10:15:30 AM PDT by Antoninus (I don't vote for liberals -- regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson