Catholic believe pope is infallible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
There is nothing wrong in deciding themes so that people can be focused on God and come closer to God. However, I don't find this necessary.

The problem is not the theme. The problem is when liberty is taken to add something to the theme, that is not at all from the Bible. Please read the words of the Pope:
The Holy Year will open on 8 December 2015, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. This liturgical feast day recalls God’s action from the very beginning of the history of mankind. After the sin of Adam and Eve, God did not wish to leave humanity alone in the throes of evil. And so he turned his gaze to Mary, holy and immaculate in love (cf. Eph 1:4), choosing her to be the Mother of man’s Redeemer.
Now, when did God turn his gaze to Mary? This is false teaching by the Pope. The verse, Eph 1:4 has been quoted out of context, and does not support what the Pope says. This is what I have a problem with. People distorting the scriptures in order to promote extra biblical concepts.

The Pharisees had similarly invented traditions in order to uphold the Law, and to make sure the Law was obeyed. However, the traditions became more important than the precepts of the Law, and the fundamental teachings of the Law were forgotten. Traditions almost always work in exactly the opposite direction that they were designed to work. Therefore the Pharisees faced the wrath of Jesus. This is exactly what is happening in the Catholic Church. People go through all kinds of tedious traditions and pilgrimages, but the heart seldom changes. Yes, there are exceptions I would say. However, the power of the Word of God in changing hearts is underestimated and even forgotten.

If anything at all has the backing of the hand of God, it is obedience to the Word of God. Therefore I don't see the necessity for themes and traditions. Themes are good, no problem, but the Word of God has the power to change the thoughts and attitudes of the heart(Heb 4:12). Holy Doors may not achieve what the Holy Bible can. Why not train people to carry their Bibles and read their Bibles daily?

Like I said,

I think traditions are great and hold people together, especially little folk.

However, regarding the above, you won't get an argument from me.

I hope I've made it clear that I'm not Catholic.
Some of these feasts do draw people's attention to God. Otherwise they would never even think of Him.
OTOH, once a persone comes to God, these feasts actually take the attention away from God, in my opinion.

I definitely agree that they need to read the bible more.
Some of my friends don't understand WHY they should read the bible.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
Oh come on Jesus did not call Peter the Rock. Jesus called Peter a little stone. Jesus said He would build His church on Himself not poor old Peter. If Peter were here today he would slap anyone who made such a statement up alongside their head.

The keys are figurative? Scripture is the keys to opening the kingdom of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Whatever kind of rock you want it to be....
It's known about the big rock and the little rock --- nothing new.

I usually don't post links, but this would become too lengthy, so I will in this case.

You could Google much information on this. The problem is that many are bothered to have Peter be the one on whom the Church is built. Jesus is the CORNERSTONE, 1 Corinthians 3:15 talks to this, but it becomes complicated. It talks about how God will judge Teachers and preachers.

This does not intimidate or limit Jesus in any way. SOMEONE had to begin His Church.
If you care not to believe what most theologians believe, that's Ok with me.
This is not something I'm willing to argue...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

In Evangelical circles, the "little rock, big rock" theory is fairly recent. Nearly every Protestant commentary written in the last 50 years interprets Peter as the rock upon which the Church was built. (However, they didn't believe that Peter had a successor, more about that here ). The scholarly Evangelical work, Carson's "Expositors Bible Commentary" explains this well. It is in the section on Matthew 16. These Evangelical scholars looked closely at the Greek word for rock "Petra" and determined that it refers to Peter. The early Christians also referred to Peter as the Rock. Some Quotes are here.

We don't think the "little rock, big rock" theory hold up under scrutiny. Jesus built his Church on people, not a declaration. Following through on the passage we see that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter, not to his declaration. The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)(1)

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.

I recently spoke with a grammar specialist who is not Catholic. She explainedthat the adjective "this" grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.

upon this rock

When Jesus says "whatever you bind" to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for "you" is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for "you" in "whatever you bind" is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

Examples of Peter's Authority among the Apostles

Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).
He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)
He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)
The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)
Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)
He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32);
John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
Jesus told Peter to "feed my lambs...tend my sheep... feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep). Regardless of that interpretation of sheep and lambs, it is clear Jesus is asking Peter to feed and tend his flock. That is what a shepherd does. It appearsthat he is asking Peter to shepherd his Church on earth, on his behalf.
What about Bill Webster's accusations in "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History"

Recently a Reformed Baptist named Bill Webster tried to deny the irrefutable concensus among the Fathers of the Church the Peter is the Rock and that his office was established by Christ and passed on to successors until this day. A great response to that charge by Steve Ray is here.

Early Church quotes about Peter as the Rock

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)

"Simon Kephas answered and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Kephas, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (220 A.D.):

"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying ....

"I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this ***personally on Peter****? 'On you,' He says, 'I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys'...." (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):

"Peter, the Rock of the Church ..." (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). "Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom." (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).

Origen (230-250 A.D.):

"See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church ..." (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?'" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

"Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded." (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

"Peter, upon whom is built Christ's Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail." (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)

St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):

"For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring ..." (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).

"God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord's word, upon a Rock ..." (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).

"There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord's authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance" (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church)

"Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church ...." (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
No infants were baptized in the Book of Acts, as far as I have read. Baptism was never meant for infants.

To illustrate my point, imagine if the WHO issues a requirement that all adults must be vaccinated against an particular virus. Now, the following day, the WHO releases a statement stating that all households in a particular town were successfully vaccinated! Would we assume that infants were vaccinated as well? Obviously not, because the vaccine was meant for adults only.

Similarly, baptism (as it is taught all over the Book of Acts) was not meant for infants. Taking particular verses in isolation and formulating a doctrine based on these few verses is dangerous. One needs to look at ALL verses concerning baptism.

Infant baptism originated more from a strategy than from a teaching.


What kind of strategy?

The reason the CC baptizes infants is because of original sin.
They believe that since God cannot be in the presence of sin, and babies are born with original sin, this sin must be removed from the soul of the baby.

They do believe that God is merciful and if the baby dies, he will be in heaven. However, in the past this was not so well understood and it was asked that babies be baptized as soon as possible since their eternal soul could not be ensured to go to heaven.

As an official teaching, limbo never existed...
 

AllenW

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2016
1,450
70
48
Actually, Jackson123 is right.
There was a time when the Catholic Church stated that anyone outside the Church was lost.
You seem to know the Catholic Church's doctrine...do you know that this is no longer true?
CCC 1271

So the Catholic Chuch DID change a very important statement of theirs which was ex-cathedra.

Also, BEFORE 1917 persons that were divorced were not allowed to enter a Church.
After 1917 and prior to Vatican Council II, they could participate in a Liturgy, but not receive communion.
Today, divorced and remarried couples are allowed to receive communion under certain conditions.

So, yes, the Catholic Church does change its position on important doctrine.

It does make one wonder IF the Pope is indeed infallible.
There were some popes that were murderers and homosexuals and known to rape nuns.
There's nothing infallable about them.
The modern day catholic church keeps putting on a face lift when necessary, but it's the same church underneath.
The catechism stills says "anethema" to anyone not catholic, regardless of what comes out of their mouth.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
There were some popes that were murderers and homosexuals and known to rape nuns.
There's nothing infallable about them.
The modern day catholic church keeps putting on a face lift when necessary, but it's the same church underneath.
The catechism stills says "anethema" to anyone not catholic, regardless of what comes out of their mouth.
If you really want to get into this in more detail ---

The CC believes that IF a person Leaves it ---thus having had the total truth ---- and then Leaves it for a different Church, then that person is in danger because they're leaving the truth for a Church that does not have the TOTAL TRUTH.

The total truth is how they explain things. Other churches only have partial truth. So if the congregation does NOT KNOW they have only the partial truth, they can still be saved. I think I posted the CCC number up above.

IF a Catholic Leaves the Church, his soul is in danger.

Of course, all churches like to put God into very little boxes.
I believe God won't fit into a box and He WILL judge us on the love we have for Him and how well we lived our lives.
Not because we have to be so perfect, but because we did our best in trying to follow His lead.

Also, at the beginning there was no other Church except the Catholic or Universal Church, so OF COURSE, everyone outside the Church was lost.

Today there are other churches so they have stated that those outside the CC are NOT lost.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
There were some popes that were murderers and homosexuals and known to rape nuns.
There's nothing infallable about them.
The modern day catholic church keeps putting on a face lift when necessary, but it's the same church underneath.
The catechism stills says "anethema" to anyone not catholic, regardless of what comes out of their mouth.
the thought that came to mind is that MAN is fallible. Adam fell, and so did every other man that came after him.

INFALLIBILITY exists only in the sense that the statements made ex-cathedra MUST follow Church tradition and the bible.
 

AllenW

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2016
1,450
70
48
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, which abolished all ecclesiastical penalties not mentioned in the Code itself (cannon 6), made "anethema" synonymous with excommunication (cannon 2257).
 

AllenW

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2016
1,450
70
48
the thought that came to mind is that MAN is fallible. Adam fell, and so did every other man that came after him.

INFALLIBILITY exists only in the sense that the statements made ex-cathedra MUST follow Church tradition and the bible.
Church tradition.
When push comes to shove, Church tradition rules over the Bible.
 

onlinebuddy

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,115
24
38
Actually, whole households were baptized in Acts.
No ages are given.
Your point is a fallacy.
If I say adults were baptized, that's not an assumption, because the teachings given to them, and the circumstances they were baptized in would prove my point. Yes, no ages were mentioned, but it is obvious to anyone with a sound mind, that the ones baptized in the Book of Acts had received the Word and had responded in some way or the other. Therefore, we may infer that baptism has some prerequisites, without which baptism is nothing more than a dip in the water!

However, if someone says that infants were baptized among the "households," now that's a clear assumption. It may be true or may even be untrue because, as you rightly pointed out, "no ages were given." Now, to ASSERT that infants WERE necessarily baptized, would be a fallacy. Furthermore, to formulate a doctrine based on that assumption, would be erroneous.



 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
Actually, Jackson123 is right.
There was a time when the Catholic Church stated that anyone outside the Church was lost.
You seem to know the Catholic Church's doctrine...do you know that this is no longer true?
CCC 1271

So the Catholic Chuch DID change a very important statement of theirs which was ex-cathedra.

Also, BEFORE 1917 persons that were divorced were not allowed to enter a Church.
After 1917 and prior to Vatican Council II, they could participate in a Liturgy, but not receive communion.
Today, divorced and remarried couples are allowed to receive communion under certain conditions.

So, yes, the Catholic Church does change its position on important doctrine.

It does make one wonder IF the Pope is indeed infallible.
You are right
it prove that catholic is lie

change doctrine mean accuse pope before not infallible.



lie lie liar devil is the father of lie


let love our catholic brother and sister, tell them that they are being cheated by the devil through pope

Say we know a poor, he only have little for food, than we see froudster approaching him to cheat the rest of his money. How wicked we are if we not warn him. It is ok not to give him money, what wrong with just warn him, it will mean a lot though he may unaware.

Devil is robber. He use catholic as his tool. Let love our catholic brother. Warn them. They may mad at you, but it is ok, In Act, Devil mad to Stephen and kill him when he warn people that they will go to hell if not accept Jesus. Then Stephen move to beautiful palace with the Lord it has been 2000 years he stay there, free utility, free food.





 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Like I said,

I think traditions are great and hold people together, especially little folk.

However, regarding the above, you won't get an argument from me.

I hope I've made it clear that I'm not Catholic.
Some of these feasts do draw people's attention to God. Otherwise they would never even think of Him.
OTOH, once a persone comes to God, these feasts actually take the attention away from God, in my opinion.

I definitely agree that they need to read the bible more.
Some of my friends don't understand WHY they should read the bible.
I would offer because they must get their approval from men Pope violatting the warning not to and what they as a traditon of men calll apostlic sucession rather than the loving comandment to study in order to seek the aporoval of one not seen. It is why they do not have the undertstanding the Bible affords Why would they or any man read it if it cannot perform what it says it can,give us the faith of Christ needed to believe God.
 

AllenW

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2016
1,450
70
48
If I say adults were baptized, that's not an assumption, because the teachings given to them, and the circumstances they were baptized in would prove my point. Yes, no ages were mentioned, but it is obvious to anyone with a sound mind, that the ones baptized in the Book of Acts had received the Word and had responded in some way or the other. Therefore, we may infer that baptism has some prerequisites, without which baptism is nothing more than a dip in the water!

However, if someone says that infants were baptized among the "households," now that's a clear assumption. It may be true or may even be untrue because, as you rightly pointed out, "no ages were given." Now, to ASSERT that infants WERE necessarily baptized, would be a fallacy. Furthermore, to formulate a doctrine based on that assumption, would be erroneous.



Okay.
No what?
 

AllenW

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2016
1,450
70
48
I know there are catholics that are saved
therefore, to put down the church....well..... Jesus says you'll be judged the same way.
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
If you really want to get into this in more detail ---

The CC believes that IF a person Leaves it ---thus having had the total truth ---- and then Leaves it for a different Church, then that person is in danger because they're leaving the truth for a Church that does not have the TOTAL TRUTH.

The total truth is how they explain things. Other churches only have partial truth. So if the congregation does NOT KNOW they have only the partial truth, they can still be saved. I think I posted the CCC number up above.

IF a Catholic Leaves the Church, his soul is in danger.

Of course, all churches like to put God into very little boxes.
I believe God won't fit into a box and He WILL judge us on the love we have for Him and how well we lived our lives.
Not because we have to be so perfect, but because we did our best in trying to follow His lead.

Also, at the beginning there was no other Church except the Catholic or Universal Church, so OF COURSE, everyone outside the Church was lost.

Today there are other churches so they have stated that those outside the CC are NOT lost.
This ccc design to lie to the member so they not leaves catholic. It is transparent, kid can see it. Total thruth is in the bible
 

onlinebuddy

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,115
24
38
All I'm saying is that let us hold fast to the teachings of the Bible, and serve the Lord with fear and trembling. Let us not add to or subtract from what the Bible says. Let us not just wear the spectacles given to us by the church we were born in, but cross-check what we are taught, with what the Bible says.

To judge is not our job; but we are called to rightly divide the Word of truth.

 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
All I'm saying is that let us hold fast to the teachings of the Bible, and serve the Lord with fear and trembling. Let us not add to or subtract from what the Bible says. Let us not just wear the spectacles given to us by the church we were born in, but cross-check what we are taught, with what the Bible says.

To judge is not our job; but we are called to rightly divide the Word of truth.

You're writing to AW, but I just want to say that we're all big people here and have checked everything we believe.
I'm pretty sure of this.

I too have read that babies were baptized.
The early Christians believed that babies shoujld be baptized.
Following are some Early Church Theologians and what they believed about infant baptism...


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).



Origen


"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage


"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
P.S.

Personally, I believe that one should be baptized AFTER they have faith in Jesus.
( which cannot be at a few months of age)
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
This ccc design to lie to the member so they not leaves catholic. It is transparent, kid can see it. Total thruth is in the bible
Jackson,

I think we all should learn that every Church has its very own beliefs.
Because we don't agree with these beliefs does not mean that they do them for some ulterior motive.
I trust that every Church is teching what it believes to be true...

EVEN THOUGH I MAY NOT AGREE WITH IT.

I think you have too many bad motives in your mind. The CC believes what it believes --- it's wrong in some ways --- but i's not the anti-Christ.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Whatever kind of rock you want it to be....
It's known about the big rock and the little rock --- nothing new.

I usually don't post links, but this would become too lengthy, so I will in this case.

You could Google much information on this. The problem is that many are bothered to have Peter be the one on whom the Church is built. Jesus is the CORNERSTONE, 1 Corinthians 3:15 talks to this, but it becomes complicated. It talks about how God will judge Teachers and preachers.

This does not intimidate or limit Jesus in any way. SOMEONE had to begin His Church.
If you care not to believe what most theologians believe, that's Ok with me.
This is not something I'm willing to argue...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

In Evangelical circles, the "little rock, big rock" theory is fairly recent. Nearly every Protestant commentary written in the last 50 years interprets Peter as the rock upon which the Church was built. (However, they didn't believe that Peter had a successor, more about that here ). The scholarly Evangelical work, Carson's "Expositors Bible Commentary" explains this well. It is in the section on Matthew 16. These Evangelical scholars looked closely at the Greek word for rock "Petra" and determined that it refers to Peter. The early Christians also referred to Peter as the Rock. Some Quotes are here.

We don't think the "little rock, big rock" theory hold up under scrutiny. Jesus built his Church on people, not a declaration. Following through on the passage we see that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter, not to his declaration. The Reformer, Martin Luther, said this:

Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)(1)

W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.

I recently spoke with a grammar specialist who is not Catholic. She explainedthat the adjective "this" grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.

upon this rock

When Jesus says "whatever you bind" to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for "you" is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for "you" in "whatever you bind" is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

Examples of Peter's Authority among the Apostles

Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).
He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)
He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)
The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)
Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)
He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32);
John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)
Jesus told Peter to "feed my lambs...tend my sheep... feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep). Regardless of that interpretation of sheep and lambs, it is clear Jesus is asking Peter to feed and tend his flock. That is what a shepherd does. It appearsthat he is asking Peter to shepherd his Church on earth, on his behalf.
What about Bill Webster's accusations in "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History"

Recently a Reformed Baptist named Bill Webster tried to deny the irrefutable concensus among the Fathers of the Church the Peter is the Rock and that his office was established by Christ and passed on to successors until this day. A great response to that charge by Steve Ray is here.

Early Church quotes about Peter as the Rock

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)

"Simon Kephas answered and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Kephas, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (220 A.D.):

"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying ....

"I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this ***personally on Peter****? 'On you,' He says, 'I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys'...." (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):

"Peter, the Rock of the Church ..." (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). "Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom." (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).

Origen (230-250 A.D.):

"See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church ..." (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?'" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

"Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded." (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

"Peter, upon whom is built Christ's Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail." (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)

St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):

"For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring ..." (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).

"God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord's word, upon a Rock ..." (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).

"There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord's authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance" (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church)

"Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church ...." (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).
What on earth would make any reasonable person believe that Christ would build His church on a man? Jesus is not building, and it is an ongoing process, an organization. Jesus is building an eternal living organism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
What on earth would make any reasonable person believe that Christ would build His church on a man? Jesus is not building, and it is an ongoing process, an organization. Jesus is building an eternal living organism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
So you want Jesus to come down to earth on Sundays and do the sermon in your church's service?

WHO was supposed to actually do the building of the Church?

Are you one of those persons who don't understand what WORKS are??

I think so. And this is why you have a problem with this.

God gave us families.
Does someone have to be the HEAD of that family?

or does it just grow all by itself?

I cannot argue this Beyond this point.
It has nothing to do with salvation and you're free to believe what you will.

In Mathew 28:19 Jesus told the apostles to go into the world and preach what He had taught and baptize.

He authorized men to build the Church.
Every organization has a head.

What Church do you go to?
There is not a head of that Church??