Difference between Catholic and Protestant.

[BreadOfLife]

I think the Catholic Church made their first mistake when they misunderstood Jesus when He said, "On this rock I will build my church." The context clearing points to Jesus referring to Himself. They identified Him as the Son of God. He is the cornerstone. He is the Rock of our salvation. It is all about Jesus.. The Holy Spirit began to build the Church and continues. People build nothing spiritually. That is God's department, they just spread the gospel and love one another.
Peter was just one of the Apostles, the one who denied Jesus three times, the one who Jesus had to set him straight ( chastising him in a way) by asking if He loved Him three times. Paul actually did a vastly amount more work to spread the Gospel through the world than Peter. Peter even later needed further rebuke from Paul for appeasing the Judaisers. That was Peter, putting his foot in his mouth, making mistakes and I'd imagine that is probably why he only wrote two books.
Peter was not the first Pope! And I do not believe such an administration was ordained by God. HE would not award so much power and responsibility to one person. It takes thousands of Church leaders to do His work. The Holy Spirit is in charge! Actually, the word Pope is not in the Bible. I have seen Apostle, Priest and Bishop. Guess they thought to add that authority. Whatever, they can have their Pope. He should be called Pope Peter. Francis of Assisi was born Giovani Pietro Bonardone. His father did not want anything to do with the Church nor did he want his son to be named after Apostles. He was away in France at the time of his son's birth. But Giovani Pietro was already named by God.
His father was fond of France so he changed his name to Francisco.

Your opinion above is cute.
HOWEVER, I have some eminently-qualified PROTESTANT linguistic scholarship on the matter - and they ALL disagree with you . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19
1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broke off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.
"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.
"The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

"The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

"The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.
"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter
"Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which--in accordance with the words of the text--applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

 

[BreadOfLife]

CONIYNUED . . .

"The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.

"'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

"Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.

"There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]; indeed refer to Peter." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter's confession that Jesus declares his role as the church's foundation, but it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

4. The identity of the rock ("petra") is affirmed by the Aramaic that Jesus was speaking.

"The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, 'And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

 

[BreadOfLife]

CONTINUESD . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19

"But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, 'Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.' The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, 'Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

"Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

"PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff.; Matt 8:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose." --W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

"On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha = Petros." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage." --Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.

"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would be occur in both places) . . . ." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The natural reading of the passage [Mat 16:18], despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built (thus rightly Morris, France, Carson, Blomberg, Cullman [Peter, 207], Davies-Allison; so too the interconfessional volume by Brown, Donfried, and Reumann [Peter in the NT, 92])." --Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

5. The keys symbolize authority over the house.
"The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux (Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961], 129 ff.) rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel." --W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

"For the same reason, Christ calls the office of teaching the word, (Mat 16:19) 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven'; so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time in endeavouring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity." --John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 2, trans. William Pringle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 136-137.

"The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church (which is not what the kingdom of heaven means; see pp. 45-47) but an authority derived from a delegation of God's sovereignty." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 256.

"The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1,8 ) here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

"The keys of the kingdom would be comitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority." --George Buttrick and others, eds., The Interpreter's Bible, (New York: Abingdon, 1951), 453.

"The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys." --S. T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987), 256.

"What do the expressions 'bind' and 'loose' signify? According to Rabbinical usage two explanations are equally possible: 'prohibit' and 'permit', that is, 'establish rules'; or 'put under the ban' and 'acquit.'" --Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 204-205.

"These terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case, Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

 

[BreadOfLife]

CONTINUED . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19

"In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God." --Ralph Earle, "Matthew," in A. F. Harper and others, eds.,Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansis City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.

"This verse [Mat 16:19] therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side contol, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

**Particularly note-worthy are the words of Martin Luther in his tract called "The Keys," which he wrote 9 years after his excommunication:

"So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Mat. 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. He does not say he has two kinds of keys, but he gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others." --Martin Luther, "The Keys," in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luther's Works, vol. 40, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958), 365-366.

6. Peter's position is like that of the steward in Isa 22.
"Isaiah 22:15 ff. udoubtedly lies behind this [Mat 16:19] saying." --W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom'? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." --F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

"The keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a household servant could hold (Mark 13:32-34). A higher official held the keys in a royal kingdom (Is 22:22) and in God's house, the temple." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"'The keys of the kingdom of heaven: the phrase [from Mat 16:19] is almost certainly based on Is. 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority transferred to him." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Intervarsity Press], 837.

"The master of the palace had similar functions at the court of Judah. Announcing the promotion of Elyaqim, Isaiah 22:22 says: 'I lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, if he opens, none will shut; if he shuts, none will open.' The Egyptian vizier's instructions are described in a very similar fashion. Every morning 'the vizier will send someone to open the gates of the kings house, to admit those who have to enter, and to send out those who have to go out.' One is reminded of the Lord's words to Peter, the Vizier of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19)." --Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 130.

"In Isa 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and in Rev 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage [Matthew 16:19] Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys." --George Buttrick and others, eds.,The Interpreter's Bible, (New York: Abingdom, 1951), 453.

"In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house." --Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.

"Materially, then, the keys of the kingdom of God are not different from the key of David. This is confirmed by the fact that in Mt. 16:19, as in Rev. 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls them." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

R. T. France, in his commentary on Mat. 16:19 says that Isaiah 22:22 is "generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here. . . ." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mmm. I can imagine your church leaders saying something similar in the 16th century as they burned people at the stake in England for the crime of teaching their children the Lord's prayer in English.

Not sur - but that number didn't come CLOSE to the 72000 or so Catholics killed or starved to death by Protestant leaders in that same Country.

 

[Philip James]

All Catholic Churches and “SOME” Protestants Churches KEEP traditions and feasts given the HEBREWS / TRIBES OF ISRAEL .

Hello Taken,

Im curious. Just what feasts given to the Hebrews do you think we keep?

no incense

no altars

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Pax et Bonum

 

[JunChosen]

I think the Catholic Church made their first mistake when they misunderstood Jesus when He said, "On this rock I will build my church."

Actually, I believe Jesus was pointing at Himself when He told Peter: "On this rock I will build my church."

And this is proven in Deuteronomy 12:1-4:
1) Give ear O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear O earth, the words of my mouth.
2) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and tight is he.

Peter has NEVER been without iniquity, just and right! He's merely a man.

And, Psalms 89:26 reads:
"He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."

Peter is a sinner and therefore cannot be the Rock of Salvation

God made it clear that the name Cephas (Peter) by interpretation means A stone. John 1:42

Another big mistake is they claim that their church is the pillar and ground of truth, although Jesus claimed He was the way, the truth and the life.

What audacity! Go figure!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

The bishop of Smyrna was St. Polycarp.

So then, Jesus commends Polycarp and Polycarp commends Ignatius..

Ignatius of Antioch

Pax et Bonum

Clever. I didn't say that these men were not important and influential voices in their churches and later in their writings (as commentaries to reference. All I said was, I didn't need to learn from them when the Bible alone is sufficient. The Word of God is trustworthy. Outside commentary - not so, contains errors, not 100%. Some teachings are slit in and others are questionable. Compare them
They didn't teach exactly the same things. They sometimes differed in doctrines just as many do today. The Bible says we don't need a teacher, we have the Holy Spirit to help us discern scripture.

 

[Wrangler]

Christ suffered once" means "Christ is crucified twice a day in morning and evening mass (1 Peter 3:18)

To me, this is among the most disturbing Catholic doctrines.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

CONTINUED . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19

"In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God." --Ralph Earle, "Matthew," in A. F. Harper and others, eds.,Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansis City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.

"This verse [Mat 16:19] therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90. ...

As I proclaimed, ALL Priests, Bishops, Pastors, scholars err, both Catholic and Protestant. So you thought by using Protestants scholars, you would gain headway ... "I'll get him by referencing Protestants scholars!" I will use scripture only to refute this.

All through scripture, Jesus is referred to as the stone, the rock of our salvation. Mose, Isaiah, David spoke of the Messiah, the Lord as the rock.

“Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation,
A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
Whoever believes will not act hastily.” Isaiah 28:16

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.” Psalm 118:22

“And he said: ‘The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
The God of my strength, in whom I will trust;
My shield and the horn of my salvation,
My stronghold and my refuge;
My Savior, You save me from violence.’” 2 Samuel 22:2-3

“For I proclaim the name of the Lord:
Ascribe greatness to our God.
He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.” Deut. 32:3-4

Paul explains,

“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,” Eph. 2:19-20

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Cor.10:4

We believe in Christ, and He is our foundation, our rock! There is salvation in no other name, Jesus

“ He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.” Luke 6:48

Peter himself clarifies Jesus is the rock, the living stone. It can be no other person, it is a spiritual building.

“ Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. 1 Peter 2:4-8

This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:11-12

Jesus was referring to Himself:
"When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, (identifying him) and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16: 13-18

He started out with the question, they identified Him as the Christ, the Son of God and that on this rock (on this premise that He is the Christ, the Son of God), Jesus said, I will build My Church. The Father revealed this truth to them, as the Holy Spirit does now. It is a spiritual Church, not made by any man.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Actually, I believe Jesus was pointing at Himself when He told Peter: "On this rock I will build my church."

And this is proven in Deuteronomy 12:1-4:
1) Give ear O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear O earth, the words of my mouth.
2) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and tight is he.

Peter has NEVER been without iniquity, just and right! He's merely a man.

And, Psalms 89:26 reads:
"He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."

Peter is a sinner and therefore cannot be the Rock of Salvation

God made it clear that the name Cephas (Peter) by interpretation means A stone. John 1:42

Another big mistake is they claim that their church is the pillar and ground of truth, although Jesus claimed He was the way, the truth and the life.

What audacity! Go figure!

To God Be The Glory

That was my point.

 

[JunChosen]

@BreadOfLife,

Read my lips.... I say it again you are in ERROR!

First of all, let us make clear, that all these so called theologians or whoever you trust in ARE NOT INSPIRED!!! Let God be true and all men LIARS!

FYI, John 1:42 can be trusted as the word of God. Did you know that when God changes the name of a person, it means something??? For instance, God changed the name of Abram to Abraham and by interpretation means "the father of many nations.

Likewise, when Peter was brought by Simon, his brother which said, "We have found the Messias, which is interpreted, the Christ.

The very next verse when Jesus saw Peter (Simon), He said, "You are Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, "A stone."

There are many, many passages like the above in the Bible. Now if you rather believe these writers than God, you are free to do so of course, but to your peril!

To God Be The Glory

 

[JunChosen]

That was my point.

I apologize, I did not read your post since I thought we were in the same page anyway.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Wrangler]

Your opinion above is cute.
HOWEVER, I have some eminently-qualified PROTESTANT linguistic scholarship on the matter - and they ALL disagree with you . . .

1st, truth is not subject to majority rule.

2nd, proof the Catholic take on the rock upon which Jesus builds his church is seen in the fact that the religion is NOT called Peterinity.

 

[Brakelite]

Not sur - but that number didn't come CLOSE to the 72000 or so Catholics killed or starved to death by Protestant leaders in that same Country.

That's interesting. Do you have a reference for that?

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I apologize, I did not read your post since I thought we were in the same page anyway.

To God Be The Glory

No problem.

 

[Philip James]

. All I said was, I didn't need to learn from them when the Bible alone is sufficient

The point is the bible alone is NOT sufficient.

If we are not partaking of the ONE loaf, and the ONE cup Jesus gave to the apostles, where are we?

Pax et Bonum!

 

[Philip James]

To me, this is among the most disturbing Catholic doctrines.

Hello Wrangler, you're disturbed by a false accusation and representation of Catholic doctrine? Good such straw man attacks should be disturbing to us..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Dropship]

For me, Catholicism faceplants because of 4 things-
1- They pray to Jesus's mum and to dead "saints" even though Jesus said- "This is how you should pray- 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name'", so catholic prayers are like blank cartridges.
2- The catholic hierarchy ban women outright from being priests, perhaps they don't like girls..;)
3- They have a "confessional box" where any sinner can confess his crimes to a priest and be "forgiven".
4- They believe in 'purgatory' and think that if they find themselves in hell they'll be let out after serving their time, as if hell is fitted with a swing door..:)

 

[Illuminator]

I think the Catholic Church made their first mistake when they misunderstood Jesus when He said, "On this rock I will build my church." The context clearing points to Jesus referring to Himself. They identified Him as the Son of God. He is the cornerstone. He is the Rock of our salvation. It is all about Jesus.. The Holy Spirit began to build the Church and continues. People build nothing spiritually. That is God's department, they just spread the gospel and love one another.

Why can't we bury the hatchet and agree that "this rock" refers to both Peter and Jesus??? Why be a slave to conflict???

Peter was just one of the Apostles, the one who denied Jesus three times, the one who Jesus had to set him straight ( chastising him in a way) by asking if He loved Him three times. Paul actually did a vastly amount more work to spread the Gospel through the world than Peter. Peter even later needed further rebuke from Paul for appeasing the Judaisers. That was Peter, putting his foot in his mouth, making mistakes and I'd imagine that is probably why he only wrote two books.

Peter, the fisherman from Galilee, was set free above all from his sense of inadequacy and his bitter experience of failure, thanks to the unconditional love of Jesus. Although a skilled fisher, many times, in the heart of the night, he tasted the bitterness of frustration at having caught nothing (cf. Lk 5:5; Jn 21:5) and, seeing his empty nets, was tempted to pull up his oars. Though strong and impetuous, Peter often yielded to fear (cf. Mt 14:30). Albeit a fervent disciple of the Lord, he continued to think by worldly standards, and thus failed to understand and accept the meaning of Christ’s cross (cf. Mt 16:22). Even after saying that he was ready to give his life for Jesus, the mere suspicion that he was one of Christ’s disciples led him in fright to deny the Master (cf. Mk 14:66-72).

Jesus nonetheless loved Peter and was willing to take a risk on him. He encouraged Peter not to give up, to lower his nets once more, to walk on water, to find the strength to accept his own frailty, to follow him on the way of the cross, to give his life for his brothers and sisters, to shepherd his flock. In this way, Jesus set Peter free from fear, from calculations based solely on worldly concerns. He gave him the courage to risk everything and the joy of becoming a fisher of men. It was Peter whom Jesus called to strengthen his brothers in faith (cf. Lk 22:32). He gave him – as we heard in the Gospel – the keys to open the doors leading to an encounter with the Lord and the power to bind and loose: to bind his brothers and sisters to Christ and to loosen the knots and chains in their lives (cf. Mt 16:19).

All that was possible only because – as we heard in the first reading – Peter himself had been set free. The chains that held him prisoner were shattered and, as on the night when the Israelites were set free from bondage in Egypt, he was told to arise in haste, fasten his belt and put on his sandals in order to go forth. The Lord then opened the doors before him (cf. Acts 12:7-10). Here we see a new history of opening, liberation, broken chains, exodus from the house of bondage. Peter had a Passover experience: the Lord set him free.
Full text: Pope Francis’ homily on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul 2021

Peter was not the first Pope! And I do not believe such an administration was ordained by God. HE would not award so much power and responsibility to one person. It takes thousands of Church leaders to do His work. The Holy Spirit is in charge! Actually, the word Pope is not in the Bible. I have seen Apostle, Priest and Bishop. Guess they thought to add that authority. Whatever, they can have their Pope. He should be called Pope Peter. Francis of Assisi was born Giovani Pietro Bonardone. His father did not want anything to do with the Church nor did he want his son to be named after Apostles. He was away in France at the time of his son's birth. But Giovani Pietro was already named by God.
His father was fond of France so he changed his name to Francisco.

Can you at least acknowledge that St. Francis of Assisi was a Christian, or are you going to fight and argue about that too???

That was Peter, putting his foot in his mouth, making mistakes and I'd imagine that is probably why he only wrote two books.

If volume is a criteria for truth, there are about 2 verses in the Bible concerning the doctrine of the virgin birth. It's accepted by all Christians. Does a mere 2 verses diminish it's importance?