The Pope

[stan the man]

Non Catholic Quotes

Other Protestant scholars and works confirm the Catholic view that Peter is the Rock:
. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 972)

Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.

(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, "Peter," Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O'Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )

Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the 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 . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the 'rock' on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.

(Robert McAfee Brown, in McCord, Peter J., ed., A Pope For All Christians?, New York: Paulist Press, 1976, Introduction, 7. This book is an ecumenical project offering views on the papacy from many perspectives. Brown is a Presbyterian and very prominent ecumenist)

Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of 'Kepha'/'kepha', there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference 'Petros'/'petra'? Probably the most common view would
be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary . . . ; K. Stendahl in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p. 787.

(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/NY: Paulist Press, 1973, 92-93. This is probably the most important ecumenical work on Peter, and is thus cited first in a long bibliography in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

The great Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent was among those who took the traditional view:
The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men . . . . . .

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.

(Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92; emphasis in original)

Lutheran professor, a professor of scripture and theology at Concordia Seminary in Hong Kong, Torg Forberg wrote an article entitled, "Peter, High Priest of the New Covenant." Forberg insists that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest in the New Testament, but he says, "Peter is presented as some kind of successor to the High Priest in tradition used by the final redactorate, Matthew 16:13-19. Peter stands out as a kind of chief Rabbi who binds and looses in the sense of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted. Peter is looked upon as a counterpart to the High Priest. He is the highest representative for the people of God." This is Protestant testimony.

 

[stan the man]

I won't go through all the quotes, but let me just summarize with a quotation from an English Protestant scholar, J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes. He says, "The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years."

Here are other Protestant and Orthodox scholars who believe the Rock in Matthew 16:18 is Peter himself, include:

1) John Meyendorff (Orthodox) (in The Primacy of Peter, [he is editor], Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992, 67-90)

2) Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. c. 895): "On Peter repose the foundations of the faith" (Epist. 99 and Niceph., PG CII, 909 A, in Meyendorff, ibid., 72)

3) St. Gregory Palamas (Orthodox, d. 1359), called Peter the "foundation of the Church" (Triads, II, I, 38, in Meyendorff, ibid., 74). Meyendorff writes: "It is not difficult to present an abundance of such quotations. All Byzantine theologians, even after the conflict with Rome, speak of Peter in the same terms as Photius . . . without any attempt to attenuate the meaning of biblical texts . . . the Church . . . remains eternally founded on Peter." [Ibid., 74-75]

4) Gennadios Scholarios (Orthodox; Patriarch of Constantinople, d.c. 1472): "Christ established the Church on Peter" (On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, I, in Meyendorff, ibid., 87).

5) William Hendriksen (Reformed) (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973, 647}

6) Gerhard Maier (Lutheran) [The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993, 90]

7) Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist) [The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, Nashville: Broadman, 1992, 251-252]

8) Albert Barnes (Presbyterian) [Notes on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973, 170]

9) Herman Ridderbos (Reformed) [Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987, 303]

10) David Hill (Presbyterian) [New Century Bible Commentary: Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972, 61]

11) Henry Alford, (Anglican) [The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983, 119]

12) John Broadus (Reformed Baptist) [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886, 355-356]

13) Gerhard Kittel (Lutheran) [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968, 98-99]

14) Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) [Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd rev. ed., 1962]

 

[Claudia_T]

Well when you take a look at the mystery beast of Revelation 13, you begin to see that it is the same beasts in Daniel. You cannot come to any other conclusion. nd the entire Time Prophecy ends up with the Papacy.

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed and all the world wondered after the beast. " Revelation 13:1-3.

The beast of Revelation 13 is made up of various parts. Each of its parts represents something. And you turn to the Book of Daniel to understand because you see the same beasts there that altogether make up this multi-faceted beast of Revelation.

Daniel unlocks Revelation.

So look at Daniel 7:2:

"Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea." Daniel 7:2

The winds of heaven are blowing on the waters, causing a frenzy.

So first we have to see what the Bible says "waters" stands for. So we turn to chapter 17 of Revelation and it tells us:

"And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. " Revelation 1 7.15.

Well that was easy, right? As I said, the Bible explains itself. Waters represent peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.

And so what then is the wind? In the Scriptures the wind has always been used as a symbol of war:

"Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up against Babylon, and against them that dwell in the midst of them that rise up against me, a destroying wind .... Thus the slain shall fall in the land of the Chaldeans, and they that are thrust through in her streets." Jeremiah 51:1,4.

And so you have the people to be in a state of war. That is what is being pictured in this Time Prophecy.

And then everything starts to change, which of course it would under these turbulent conditions and we see this:

'And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. " Daniel 7.3.

So here we start to break things down in this multi-part beast of Revelation 17. We have now the first beast. The prophet describes him in this way:

"The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. " Daniel 7.-4.

Well who is this lion? We read:

"The king of Babylon hath heard the report of them, and his hands waxed feeble: anguish took hold of him, and pangs as of a woman in travail. Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan unto the habitation of the strong." Jeremiah 50:43,44.

It is the Babylonian Empire which arose in the year 606 B.C. Then what are the wings? You can look in the British Museum where they took a stone from the ancient city of Babylon and it portrays a lion with wings! The lion with wings is the symbol of the old city of Babylon. You can find that in various literature today.

The symbol of a "man's heart" is used to denote "weakness" as a "heart of stone" means that you just ruthlessly do things to promote the interests of your kingdom.

The phrase "the man's heart" tells us there would be a time of weakness when Babylon would be overcome and destroyed, and this would open the way for a second world kingdom.

"...and behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it. and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh." Daniel 7.5.

And so the symbol of a bear is God's "cartoon figure" of the next world power.

We will find that it was Persia conquered the world in the year 538 B.C.

The bear was depicted as devouring three ribs in its mouth. Well wouldnt you know it... Old Babylon was composed of exactly three provinces, namely, Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt. Persia destroyed all three!

God says the bear raised himself on one side. When Medo-Persia became strong, the Persians then overthrew the Medes.

Going on we read (and remember this is describing all the individual parts of the big multi faceted beast of Revelation 17:

"After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl, the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. Daniel 7.6.

It was Greece that was the next universal power in world history, and it developed in the year 331 B.C. The fact that the beast had four wings meant it would swiftly conquer the world.

Well wouldnt you know it that Alexander the Great conquered the world in only twelve years, which back then would've been considered to be a miracle.

Okay now the beast has 4 heads.

Alexander died young without leaving anybody to carry on the kingdom. And his realm was divided among the four generals-Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, Ptolemy. These generals would continue to rule the world under the fourth beast.

Then God tells us that another world power would rise soon:

"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. Daniel 7:7.

This fourth beast is old pagan Rome which began its reign in the year 168 B.C. It had great iron teeth, meaning it was a great world power. Edward Gibbon, when writing about the history of Rome, describes the Roman enemies as being "broken by the iron monarchy of Rome".
We have now come in history to the time of the cross.

Okay now we come down to the time of the Cross. Pagan Rome was the ruling power of the world when Jesus was born, and it was under pagan rule that He was crucified in A.D. 31.

Pagan philosophy was at that time taking over the world... but Jesus was going to give them light.

And so when you look at this Beast of Revelation you can see its various parts all described in the Book of Daniel. The time prophecies of history all fit together, like God knew exactly what kingdom would come next and next and next, which of course He did.

And you cant come to any other conclusion but that Rome is the Beast. Once you discover that, then other prophecies begin to unfold. And the entire thing fits together like a puzzle.

You discover the Pope's name adds to 666 and so forth, VICARIUS FELI DEI "Vicar of Christ" on his Pope Hat. He thinks he speaks for Christ.

 

[stan the man]

I believe that we are reaching a point these days in the scholarly dialogue that is exciting, where some of the most essential points are now being admitted and acknowledged gladly by both sides. But I must say, as I listen to tapes that are made of debates that are held across the country through these last few years, there are still many non-Catholics, out there who are so vehemently opposed to the Catholic Church, they will still go back to the over-reaction of the Protestants, the anti-Catholic misinterpretations and use them.

A good friend of mine was in a recent debate with a Protestant minister who was using it right and left, even after the debates. My friend went up to him and said, "Do you think, even though you are arguing that Peter isn't the Rock because you were quoting this and that and the other thing, do you think that Peter is the Rock?" And the anti-Catholic debater said, "Of course I do!" Although he had argued against that position, he held it himself. He just wanted to undermine the Catholic teaching. There is a broad consensus emerging, and it's a strong and sure foundation that we can build on in discussions and dialogues. I don't want to overdo it, but I think it is a very, very important point.

 

[Claudia_T]

Tragic Pizza,

You should go read what I posted just now. You will see that the prophesies add up to Rome, and with all the other prophesies having to do with this in Daniel and Revelation, no matter which one you do, it adds up the same.

 

[webdog]

Oh, I see plenty wrong with it, I just don't see it as an indication that the Pope thinks he's God.

You don't think the Pope believes he has that kind of power? You need to study catholicism more, then.

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421


894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426
895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope. 896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and "form" of the bishop's pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, "the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father":428

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (CD 2).

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

 

[Dustin]

I agree with Martin Luther, Ian Paisley, and the great historic majority of Protestantism: The pope is the Anti-Christ.

Anytime a guy who claims to be Christian receives a Quran and kisses it and says "I receive the word of God.", it kinda makes you lean that way.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Claudia_T]

I agree with Dustin's agreement

 

[webdog]

I don't know if he is "the" Anti Christ, but he surely in "an" antichrist...

 

[Shiloh]

BTW, it is against BB rules to push catholic doctrine

To that I say AMEN!! However why is it against BB rules to "push" catholic doctrine and not wrong to "push" SDA's doctrint. It is just as dangerous.

 

[Claudia_T]

Hey! There's my Shadow...

 

[Dustin]

BTW, it is against BB rules to push catholic doctrine

To that I say AMEN!! However why is it against BB rules to "push" catholic doctrine and not wrong to "push" SDA's doctrint. It is just as dangerous.

I've wondered the same thing...

 

[DHK]

The great Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent was among those who took the traditional view:
The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men . . . . . .

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.

(Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92; emphasis in original)
.

Isn't it convenient how you misquote Vincent, leaving out pertinent details of what he actually said. While I don't agree with everything Vincent, what you posted you twisted to make it seem like he was saying something that what he didn't say. Let's look at what he really said:

“Onthis rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the “chief corner-stone,” but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1Pe_2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1Pe_2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Rev_21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Eph_2:20, it is said, “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.”
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - livingmen.

The church is built not just on Peter (one confessor), but on all the apostles (confessors). That is his point. In the paragraph above he shows that Christ is the chief cornerston (the foundation), and all the apostles are
but "living stone" built upon that foundation--Jesus Christ. Thus Vincent said the opposite of what you said he said. That is very deceitful of you. How many other mis-quotes have you made?

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

BTW, it is against BB rules to push catholic doctrine

To that I say AMEN!! However why is it against BB rules to "push" catholic doctrine and not wrong to "push" SDA's doctrine. It is just as dangerous.

It is just as wrong. All you have to do is hit the 'report post' button. The mods can't read every thread. If there is promoting or "pushing" of a bogus religion, it will be handled.

 

[Shiloh]

Thank you "16"

 

[Eliyahu]

How sad that you evidently believe this........

Only the Roman Catholics are blinded about the atrocities of Roman Religion.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html


http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

 

[Chemnitz]

Call me stupid but how does one defend their position with out appearing to "push" for their position?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Call me stupid but how does one defend their position with out appearing to "push" for their position?

You aren't stupid. It is, in my mind, a Catch-22, and the reason I'm happy that the administrator seems to have a better grasp of the difference than most BB members and some moderators.

 

[Claudia_T]

Call me stupid but how does one defend their position with out appearing to "push" for their position?

Plus its supposed to be the debate section for other Christian denominations and so how can you state your position then without appearing to push for your side of things? One would expect that **gasp** other denominations would give their position on doctrines. wow what a concept! and besides that I'll just bet that most people in here are smart enough to read both sides of an issue and then make up their own minds about things.

Now I hate to say this but a Cult mentality involves a group of people who tries to seclude or isolate their members from outside influences so that they wont be able to hear anyone else's views on things for fear that they might **gasp again** actually be able to think for themselves and choose a different view of things, other than their own. Thats why Cults try to pull their members away from their own families and things like that. All you get to hear are "Your own Church's doctrines".

hmmmmmmmmm One should be glad that other people's opinions are allowed to be heard, I would think?

Claudia

 

[tragic_pizza]

Read both sides?

When, precisely, does this happen?