Replies

The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.

Wrong. The Fathers' interpretation is exactly the same as the interpretation today. The Bishop of Rome is an equal amongst the senior Bishops. The first among equals definition is yet to be determined in negotiations inside the Church.

I am a born again Christian and I have never been, nor will I ever be a Catholic. I am assured in scripture that I will be with my Savior, Jesus Christ, in heaven.

Wrong. The Fathers' interpretation is exactly the same as the interpretation today. The Bishop of Rome is an equal amongst the senior Bishops. The first among equals definition is yet to be determined in negotiations inside the Church.

Except that is not what Vatican I said nor is it what the early theologians believed. From the Vatican I documents:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world….

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

The Bishop of Rome is an equal amongst the senior Bishops.

So your liberal side is showing, in that you disagree with other RCs that the authority of pope is supreme, and he needs not the ratification of councils for his ex cathedra statements to be infallible, but they need his, and he cannot be deposed by them?

And you believe all Fathers' interpreted Mt 16 as the rock referring to Peter?

Be back you in the AM God willing.

Exactly so. Boatbums can claim all he wants, but he needs to provide some actual evidence to support his position.

I thank Boatbums for providing an accout of my friend Francis Beckwith. I didn’t know all the particulars. It’s good to know that we have some excellent and thorough biblical scholars on our side.

“Wrong. The Fathers’ interpretation is exactly the same as the interpretation today. The Bishop of Rome is an equal amongst the senior Bishops. The first among equals definition is yet to be determined in negotiations inside the Church.”

If you actually read the article, you will find that the “Fathers” were far from teaching anything like the Primacy of Rome or any special Papal authority. In fact, Augustine called the “rock” Peter’s confession of faith, as did many others. Therefore, no matter how many times you repeat it, your claims that the Fathers supported your interpretation re simply false.

Heck, even when the Primacy of Peter came into vogue, they STILL did not connect it with the Primacy of Rome. Here is “Pope” Gregory the First asserting that the throne of Peter is held by three separate Bishops, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome.

“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL

Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:

“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

Enjoy