Replies

I 'know' that is ewhat your church believes, and by leaving out the PREVIOUS verse someone could be fooled into accepting it.

The problem is that you left out the SUBSEQUENT verse, which clearly shows that Christ is offering Peter the keys to the Kingdom. He is, in other words, passing His authority to Peter. Put that together with the quotations from the Early Church Fathers -- I am still waiting for a single quote from anyone in the early church that contradicts Peter's authority -- along with the other passages which establish Peter's role of authority in the Church, and the conclusion is plain and obvious. But more on this later, because you post comments on this elsewhere, and I will address this issue in response to that post.

You've provided 'proof' in all the writings of men explaining your organizations position.

If you study Biblical history, the canonization of the Bible was based in large part on a validation of those Scriptures, and much of that validation involved comparing Scripture to the writings of the Early Church Fathers -- those patriarchs who lived closest in time, proximity and culture to the Apostles. They carry a certain authority when the meaning of the Scriptures are in doubt, as is in the case here. We are in disagreement on the meaning of Scripture, and we can turn to the Early Church Fathers to resolve that ambiguity. They clearly and overwhelmingly favor the Catholic interpretation.

If a reading of Scripture cannot convince you that the REVELATION that "Jesus of Nazareth is the CHRIST" is the 'rock' upon which the church is to be built; instead of PETER, then what more can be said?

I have addressed your interpretation of Scripture, although initially I did not see your post with the quotes from Scripture on the Lord as the rock. But I addressed that post last night and I again addressed the issue in an earlier post. None of your quotations refutes what we witness in the gospel of Matthew--which is plainly and clearly Christ's passing of authority from Himself to Peter. Focusing on whether Peter was called Peter prior to this point in scripture is a red herring, and demonstrates nothing. The important point is the passing of the keys to the Kingdom, which follows Peter's designation as "rock." And, again, this is not the only Scripture that validates Peter's authority -- as I showed in a long list of Scripture I posted yesterday.

So, again, we are both looking at the same Scripture, and sincerely believe we each have the right interpretation. Who is correct? What is your authority in your claims to truth in your particular interpretation of this passage? Mine is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, with Apostolic Authority going back to Peter, who was granted the keys to the Kingdom by Christ. What is your authority?

You have no guarantee that your particular interpretation is not in error -- and, based on Scripture, an error in interpretation could lead to your "destruction" (2 Peter 3:16), which is the cost of heresy.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening councils and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline.

For example, Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there. In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated. In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy. This was all before the canonization of Scripture, by the way -- so the same infallible Church that canonized infallible Scripture is also stamping out heresy.

In the case of these heresies and/or conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.

Arius and those who followed him quoted verses from the Bible to "prove" their claims. The disputes and controversies which arose over his teachings became so great that the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle them. The Council, under the authority of the Pope, declared Arius' teachings to be heretical and made some decisive declarations about the person of Christ, and it did so based on what Sacred Tradition had to say regarding the Scripture verses in question.

Here we see the teaching authority of the Church being used as the final say in an extremely important doctrinal matter. If there had been no teaching authority to appeal to, then Arius' error could have overtaken the Church. As it is, a majority of the bishops at that time fell for the Arian heresy. Even though Arius had based his arguments on the Bible and probably "compared Scripture with Scripture," the fact is that he arrived at a heretical conclusion. It was the teaching authority of the Church--hierarchically constituted--which stepped in and declared he was wrong.

The application is obvious. Do you believe Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created? Of course not, right? Well then, take note that Arius presumnably "compared Scripture with Scripture," but nontheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this were true for Arius, what guarantee do you have, as a Protestant, that it is not also true for your interpretation of a given Bible passage?

The very fact that you know (or I assume you know) that Arius' interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or "right" interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used. The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is. The only possible answer is that there must be, out of necessity, an infallible authority to tell us. That infallible authority, the Catholic Church, declared Arius heretical. Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius' tachings, and the whole of Christianity today might have been comprised of modern-day Arians.

It is evident, then, that using the Bible alone is not a guarantee of arriving at doctrinal truth. The above-described result ws that happens when the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura is used as a guiding principle, and the history of the Church and the numerous heresies it has had to address are undeniable testimony to this fact.

Mine is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, with Apostolic Authority going back to Peter, who was granted the keys to the Kingdom by Christ. What is your authority?
__________________________________________

Have you ever ask the mormons that ????

This thread was started to refute the sole authority of The Bible...

and to give creedance to the bom...

Mine is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, with Apostolic Authority going back to Peter, who was granted the keys to the Kingdom by Christ. What is your authority? .

NAsbU Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
When is the kingdom of heaven ?
Then, now or some time in the future ?
The verb is future tense.
So Has Yah'shua given anyone the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai