www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church

Isaias 22;19-23

Compare with:



St. Matthew 16:13-19

I hope that helps, Joe.

Thanks Dr. Eric!

Joe

Ray,

I take no offence, Ray.

I'm certain Jesus prayed for each of the Apostles, and chose each individually, and I'm pretty sure that he told them to pray for each other, etc. They weren't chosen for their personal virtues, just as none of us is chosen for our own qualities. My understanding is that we are all here by grace, "gratis", freely.

Precisely because of this underlying understanding, this scene strikes me as "special". Clearly, Peter did later deny Christ 3 times; clearly, he then repented of his sin (as Judas did not, we presume). Clearly, Peter dissimulated over kosher food, and was corrected by Paul. And Jesus had to know all of this. So, why DID Jesus address Himself here to Peter (singular), immediately after mentioning that ALL the apostles were to be sifted like wheat?

If this is an indication of the nature of the Petrine Ministry, and I think it is, what I take away is that that ministry is not a function of the Successor's personal qualities, nor given as if it were some kind of privilege or reward, nor as something to brag about, and certainly nothing by which "to lord it over the clergy" (1 Peter 5,3), but as a service to the Church, universal and one. Perhaps Christ could have found another way to provide this service; I believe this is the way he did do it. Certainly, He knew that He would send the Holy Spirit to be with the Church forever, bringing it into a knowledge of all truth, yet that same Spirit inspired the Evangelist to record this scene specifically. Coincidence?

And this is without prejudice to the dignity of the other Apostles, or their successors, whose calling as bishops does come directly from God, then and now. An excellent example of this is how Matthias was chosen to replace Judas.

Best,
Michael

Good. Just checking

This is after all just an internet forum, no one here is teaching, and surely no one's faith should hing on an internet forum.

Can you do me a favor? can you check the Greek of "what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" and tell me if the tense is not rather "what you bind on earth shall already have been bound in heaven." That is not verbaitum ... but I think you know what I am asking.

Do you have the resources?

In other words ... does Peter judicate and heaven follow suit? or does Peter confirm what already exists in heaven?

BTW - no one should assume I am trashing my church (the RC) just because I question one item. My proposal is that it is misunderstood and not that there is no value to it at all and people should flee.

-ray

That said, the Eastern Churches accept the idea that the bishop of Rome has a primacy within the worldwide synod of bishops (i.e., the universal episcopate), but they reject the idea that he has supremacy over the Church, or over any other bishop for that matter, because all bishops are sacramentally equal. [/quote]

how does that square with the idea that he needs to appove of Bishops and that he can in his power remove them if necessary? How is this simply power within but not over or hreater than the rest? There is no other Bishop who can remove another Bishop or another priest under a Bishop but the Vatican can do this. Are you saying that they use this power as a power that is the primacy within and not over? I mean, I am just curious how this is to be viewed within your definition?

Joe,

Since the word "exalt" means "to lift up," it would certainly seem to imply making it higher than the others.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Father Deacon you may be right. Or perhaps what is meant is that even though Rome was not a traditional apostolic center (Jerusalem and Antioch were), St. Peter journeyed there and by his martyrdom he exalted Rome to be an apostolic see (like Antioch and Jerusalem). Such is a possible interpretation I think, though you might be right and perhaps St. Gregory does think that there is some sense in which Rome is higher.

Joe

Joe,

Now, that's an interesting way of looking at it!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Ray,

The tenses line up as so:

future active, future perfect passive
future active, future perfect passive

"What thou shalt bind on the earth, (it) shall be bound in the heavens, and
what thou shalt loose on the earth, (it) shall be loosed in the heavens."

There is no "already"; whether that would be a reasonable way to interpret the Greek, is above my "pay scale". Anybody?

Best,
Michael

Jerusalem is a late comer. Peter was not bishop of Jerusalem. James the brother of the Lord was.
The three originals were
Antioch (by Peter), Alexandria(by Mark-disciple of Peter) and Rome ( by Peter), later Jerusalem and then Constantinople (by Andrew but a patriarchate as New Rome because of the emperor)
What do you mean not traditional? Paul writes to the Romans and doesn't he say others labored there before him. How early do you want for it to be traditional? BC?

I recived the following in PM and it may be that this person wants to remain outsidie the discussion so I will not name him or her. It is from a teacher of biblical Greek.


The Marschall Revised Standard Version Interlinera Greek-English New Testaments ... gives the transliteration as this ...


Now let us suppose that this is inconclusive by itself. Is there anything further (in the context) that would further support �having already been bound� ??

Heaven is immutable (unchanging and eternal) and earth is mutable (the theater of change). If we take these theological positions as true � than it makes sense that Peter does not change the eternal - he confirms it.

Still further (and in direct context now) � there is a flow to scripture. People often miss that and lift some part out of its context and interpret it without its nested context. But here, Jesus himself joins the two portions of the text by saying �

Well � let me give it in the typical English first � the sense is that Peter had just told what had been revealed to him (�My father had told you this�) and so from the father�s revelation to Peter � Jesus launches the famous 'Rock' portion with these words (in typical English translation)�


However the Greek is a bit different � it has �


Which in English would be �And I say to you also � � or �And I also say to you� �. but the meaning of �also� is � further ... Equal to: �I say to you further ��

God the father begin the conversation to Peter (revealing the Jesus is his son) � and God the son continues the conversation. Jesus is God also. One God. Two - speaking as one mind and one God-nature.

This would be somewhat similar to you yourself beginning to tell a story (of something that happened to you) and your wife picking up in the middle and finishing the story. Do you see? Two minds that are one.

But in any case � Jesus does join the two portions together. The second (the binding and loosening) is some how joined as a continuation of the first part (the revelation to Peter).

If this is true (as it seems to be) then we can better understand the second part by looking at what happened in the first part.

In the first part - Jesus tells us what happened (at least from his view) and we should prefer his view. He knows the reality behind the appearance. What happened is this - God the father (in heaven) gave Peter a revelation of the heavenly reality that Jesus was his son. The view in heaven is that Jesus was always God�s son. Jesus was not instantly made into the Father�s son at the moment that Peter said �You are the son of God�. That reality (Jesus is the Father�s son) always { was / is / and shall be }. In a sense we can say that Peter was allowed to peek into heaven - and tell us what he saw. Tell us what he understood from his moment of enlightenment.

Peter confirmed that Jesus was God�s son. The fact of which having already been a reality in heaven.

Do you see?

The first part does reflect the second part - they flow joined. In both cases Peter declares on earth - what was already an existing reality in heaven.

Apparently our exmination of the Greek (having been loosed etc..) is looking more correct.
Now � with that behind us (and I do hope you see it) � let us now deal (and this is all I will have time for tonight) with the � �further� in just one area.

We all know the quote so I will summaries � �"You are Petros and on this petra I will build my ecclesia."

Indeed there is much to unpack here by applying its true context � But let me only deal with �Rock� as much has been made of the difference between petros (male - small pebble) and petra (feminine - large boulder or mountain).

There is a play on words here (we all know that). And the essential RC interpretation appears to be correct (but I say there is no reason to assume exclusivity to the exclusion of the other apostles). Setting aside my own reason to believe this is not and exclusion � some claim that the play on words has to do with a thought like this � �You are rock (small rock - Peter the single person) and upon this rock (large rock - the universal church) I will build my ecclesia (government of the church).

In fact I have argued this argument myself.

However � by the time of the Koin Greek of the gospels the older Greek that held the meaning of small-rock and large-rock was no longer used. Jesus was probably using the normal form (rock - feminine) with a reflection to the mountain on which the Temple stood. The mountain was simply called �The Rock� or �the Rock of the Temple� by Jews (as it is called today the Rock of the Dome). However - it is not proper form to give a feminine name (petra) to a male (Peter) and so he is given the male form of rock (petros) to Peter the man. The idea of small-pebble and large-boulder need to be discarded as the apostles would not have known or made that inference.

Now we could get deep into linguistics and ophthalmology here - and I will claim that the conjunction � (and or but) in Hebrew and Aramaic (which are the same word but translated to English differently depending upon context) and is called WAW - is the same in Koin Greek (I am not %100 positive) and that makes the line read�

�You are Rock (a friendly nick-name with the meaning of hard-headed and stubborn) but upon this rock (referring in some way to the mountain upon which the Temple was built) I will build my church�.

Notice that the conjunction �but� means �on the other hand� and �this one and not the other one� �. while conjunction �and� has a meaning of �joined� and �one added to the other�. A difference which should be determined well and re-examined in the Greek due to the Hebrew and Aramaic use of one word (WAW) determined entirely by context.

Certainly the word play is around the Rock (Temple mountain) on which the Jewish Temple stood - the Temple that Jesus identified with - himself. Tear down this Temple and I will rebuild it.

We have assuredly identified the word play - but just exactly its full meaning is I can not yet tell.

It is late and time for bed.

Please notice that I have not drawn any conclusions on Infallibility or universal judicial Papal Primacy as defined by the Roman church - I simply state that this event in Matthew - has been misinterpreted as support - and in reality it appears to be something different than the common accepted RC interpretation as applied to the dogma.

At best (as support for the dogma) it is inconclusive and circumstantial evidence.

If you like - I will next deal with the �keys� and the binding and loosening and show you what Jesus himself used as an interpretation. The keys are not isolated to just this passage. We should look to see how he uses them (and what they mean) at other places in gospels and the NT entire.

Michael ... have I written too much to digest?

Pleas excuse the typos my spell checker changes words with a mind of its own

Peace to you and your church.
-ray

"Jerusalem is a late comer. Peter was not bishop of Jerusalem. James the brother of the Lord was."

I must agree. Jerusalem was a focal point early on though as a base for ministry. This is obvious in Acts.

What happened to the early Church in Jerusalem during and after the siege of the city?

Right. A bit odd the Peter was not the bishop of the most important church at the birth - but circumstantial (against his Primacy) and as inconclusive as anything else.

James did preside at the First Ecumenical Council (it ws his church and he was host).

But not proof of anything.

Off to bed with me now.

-ray

You are making much todo about nothing!
The point is that whatever Peter and later the apostles bind and /or loose are in accord with heaven.
Curiously this is also an innovation. Never mentioned by the Fathers.

Koine Greek makes no such distinction between pebble and rock. That is classical Greek many centuries before. No biblical Greek scholar today accepts that distinction and believe me the protestants have tried but have abandoned that approach.
The Greek is very clear that Jesus is still talking about the rock that is Peter because the Greek says " on this same rock."


You forget where they were when Jesus did this play on words.
In Caesarea there is a huge rock formation. He was using that as his back drop not the temple.

You have that right. "Peter" "rock" was never used before as a name! Then why have you mentioned it three times now!

This indeed an innovation with no basis anywhere. Maybe you could get that from modern English but not Greek nor Aramaic. None of the fathers said anything like this. On the contrary there is another play on words. "Simon" means "wavering" and "Peter" "Rock" is not wavering but rock solid.
Rock is in no way a friendly nickname. Peter's whole mission has changed as in all biblical name changes. He has become the Rock on which the church is built.

This is pure fantasy.

Nice try but the Gospel is in Greek not Aramaic nor Hebrew and "kai" means "and" not "but"

There is absolutely nothing to connect the "rock" with the Temple. Absolutely nothing. They were not near Jerusalem. They were in Caesarea Phillipi where there is a huge rock formation as a backdrop.

You have invented many distinctions and terms that have nothing to do with the passage.

I hope you are thinking more clearly now.

Please notice your intent is obvious.

At best your presentation is pure fantasy and not based on the Gospels nor the Fathers. It is not based on an analysis of the Greek but a pseudo analysis of Aramaic or Hebrew that is irrelevant to the passage.

Don't forget the OT use of "key" for the prime minister!

Melkiteman...

Your insults and inability to read what is written is also noted. I will refrain from replying in kind.

As to my use of rock to mean hard headed .. take that up with Archbishop Sheen from whom I borrowed it.

As to the rest of your insults - par the course. The weapon of someone who has nothing to reason with. I am open to other views but not from one with such a lack of charity.

-ray