OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 10:08:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the bible verse which support theteaching of dark age and falliable church?  (Read 562 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« on: November 18, 2012, 04:55:34 AM »

Quote
Revelation chapter 3
1.And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
 
2.Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: (for I have not found thy works perfect before God.)
 
3.Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
 
4.Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy
 
5.He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
 
6.He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.


Protestant Christian like to use the quoted Scriptures to support their doctrine/ teaching of Dark age and falliable Church.

Do you have any comment about this and Revelation chapter 3 :1-6 ?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 04:59:54 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2012, 04:56:29 AM »

Individuals in the Church aren't infallible, but the gates of hell will not overwhelm the Church as a whole.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2012, 07:33:07 AM »

Individuals in the Church aren't infallible, but the gates of hell will not overwhelm the Church as a whole.

You know, I probably run this into the ground around here, but this has to be one of the most widespread misunderstandings of Scripture I hear in these parts.

Look that up in the Greek and get back to me about those "gates" and "hell" and how it makes any sense that a gate of hell would prevail against the Church.

Notice when the matter is brought up and what those gates really belong to.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 07:33:22 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2012, 07:39:05 AM »

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἰ ὁ Xριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὃτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψεν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς.καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Well, what about it?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 07:41:21 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,485


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2012, 07:39:59 AM »

Here's the Greek of Matt. 16:18:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Comment, orthonorm?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2012, 07:45:57 AM »

Individuals in the Church aren't infallible, but the gates of hell will not overwhelm the Church as a whole.

You know, I probably run this into the ground around here, but this has to be one of the most widespread misunderstandings of Scripture I hear in these parts.

Look that up in the Greek and get back to me about those "gates" and "hell" and how it makes any sense that a gate of hell would prevail against the Church.

Notice when the matter is brought up and what those gates really belong to.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2012, 08:10:15 AM »

You're too cryptic for us simple folk.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2012, 08:13:52 AM »

Here's the Greek of Matt. 16:18:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Comment, orthonorm?

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἰ ὁ Xριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὃτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψεν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν [τοῖς] οὐρανοῖς.καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Well, what about it?



I cannot read the greek words. Can anybody translate them into English?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 08:16:17 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2012, 08:17:45 AM »

Quote
And I dέ I say to thee, that Thou art Peter's and on taύtῃ tῇ pέtrᾳ oikodomήso my Church, And pύlai ᾅdou th katischύsousin this

Quote
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. But Jesus answered and said unto him: Blessed art thou, Simon Variona, that flesh and blood CDK apekalypsen thee, but my Father That [percent] ouranois.kago NOT tell thee that thou are Peter and upon taftῃ tῇ petrᾳ build my Church and gates ᾅdou not prevail against it.

I use the google translation. Its translation is very poor.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2012, 08:20:08 AM »

Here's the Greek of Matt. 16:18:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Comment, orthonorm?


I cannot read the greek words. Can anybody translate them into English?

My translation:

And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not overwhelm it.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 08:20:23 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2012, 08:36:46 AM »

Here's the Greek of Matt. 16:18:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Comment, orthonorm?


I cannot read the greek words. Can anybody translate them into English?

My translation:

And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not overwhelm it.

Hades is the place which settle the soul of death.

So, What does 'the gate of hades' refer to?What is the meaning of  'the gate of Hades shall not overwhelm it' ? Does this verse mean that the power of darkness shall never overwhelm the Church  ?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2012, 08:38:23 AM »

Here's the Greek of Matt. 16:18:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Comment, orthonorm?


I cannot read the greek words. Can anybody translate them into English?

My translation:

And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not overwhelm it.

Hades is the place which settle the soul of death.

So, What does 'the gate of hades' refer to?What is the meaning of  'the gate of Hades shall not overwhelm it' ? Does this verse mean that the power of darkness shall never overwhelm the Church  ?



Ambrose of Milan
Expositio evangelii secundam Lucam 6:98-99
CSEL 32:275-276

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:15-20)


[98] Struggle thus so that you may be a rock. Look not for the rock outside of you, but inside of you. Your rock are your deeds; your rock are your thoughts. On this rock your house is built so that the spirit of wickedness can smash it with none of his storms. Your rock is faith, the foundation of the Church is faith. If you will become a rock, you will be inside the Church because the Church is [build] on the rock. If you will be in the Church, the gates of hell will not overcome you. The gates of hell are the gates of death (Psalm 107:18). Moreover, they are the gates of death, they cannot be the gates of the Church.

[99] What are the gates of death, that is, the gates of hell, but sins, each and every single one? If you will commit adultery you have entered the gates of hell. If you will betray the faith, you have passed the gates of hell. If you will commit a mortal sin (peccatum mortale) you have entered the gates of hell.

But God is mighty, who exalts you from the gates of death so that you may announce all His glorious deeds in the gates of Sion's daughter. The gates of the Church are gates of chaste lives, gates of justice, through which the just is used to enter, saying: "Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter and give thanks to the LORD (Psalm 118:19)" 

But as the gate of death is the gate of hell so is the gate of justice the gate of God. "This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter. (Psalm 118:20)". Flee thus from perseverence in crimes so that the gates of hell cannot overcome you, because if sin will become your master the gate of death will prevail. Flee thus from contentions, quarrels, noises and and the tumult of discord so that you will not run into, and enter, the gates of death.

The rock is the orthodox faith.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 08:39:38 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,983



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2012, 11:49:24 AM »

Regarding Mat. 16:18.

Romans claim it means the creation of a special ministery that is exclusive of Peter and his successors of being a sheppard over his brother Apostles and consequently of the Bishop of Rome over his brother bishops, implying both infallibility and universal jurisdiction, considered conditio sine qua non for the proper exercise of that ministry.

1) We must assess if it means what Romans say it mean;
2) Even it means the rock is Peter, if it has the consequences they say it has;

Let's examine (1) first.

Here is a study by Archbishop Peter Kenrick right before Vatican I (quoted first by Irish Hermit):

Quote
Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
"Thou are Peter and upon this rock...."

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America's
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.


Let's look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:


1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers


2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers


3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers


4....That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.


Archbishop Kenrick summarises

"If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea brings the opinions of several Fathers about the passage (see below).

Examining the bishop's study and Thomas' compilation, both Roman sources, therefore without any Orthodox bias, we can come to the following conclusions:

(a) the prevailing catholic opinion among fathers is that the Orthodox faith of Peter is the Rock mentioned by Christ;
(b) even those who thought it was Peter (see Augustin bolded below) conceded that the Orthodox Faith is the primary meaning upon which even the interpretation that it is Peter is dependent;
(c) Aquinas not once mentions a Father that strictly says it is Peter, much less links this with Papal claims. It seems that even in medieval Rome this link was not at all made by the Church as a whole (kat'holic).

Finally, if we ask Peter himself, by analyzing what he has to say about the image of the rock (see below), his answer is consistently with the *minority* of the Fathers, that the Rock is Jesus Christ himself. He could have in a humble way marked his position if it were as it is claimed by modern Rome, but it seems that he who heard Christ's words directly and to whom they were addressed in that particular event, understood something quite different from what modern papists suppose. That makes evidence (d), that even Peter explains that image in a meaning different from papal claims.

All these put together, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that (1) is and can only be answered thus: Mat 16:18 means that the rock is Jesus Christ upon whom the Orthodox faith is the cornerstone against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Quote
CATENA AUREA
13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
14. And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.”
15. He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?”
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Gloss., non occ.: As soon as the Lord had taken His disciples out of the teaching of the Pharisees, He then suitably proceeds to lay deep the foundations of the Gospel doctrine; and to give this the greater solemnity, it is introduced by the name of the place, “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi.”

Chrys., Hom., liv: He adds ‘of Philip,’ to distinguish it from the other Caesarea, of Strato. And He asks this question in the former [p. 580] place, leading His disciples far out of the way of the Jews, that being set free from all fear, they might say freely what was in their mind.

Jerome: This Philip was the brother of Herod, the tetrarch of Ituraea, and the region of Trachonitis, who gave to the city, which is now called Panaeas, the name of Caesarea in honour of Tiberias Caesar.

Gloss., ap. Anselm: When about to confirm the disciples in the faith, He would first take away from their minds the errors and opinions of others, whence it follows, “And he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?”

Origen: Christ puts this question to His disciples, that from their answer we may learn that there were at that time among the Jews various opinions concerning Christ; and to the end that we should always investigate what opinion men may form of us; that if any ill be said of us, we may cut off the occasions of it; or if any good, we may multiply the occasions of it.

Gloss., non occ.: So by this instance of the Apostles, the followers of the Bishops are instructed, that whatever opinions they may hear out of doors concerning their Bishops, they should tell them to them.

Jerome: Beautifully is the question put, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” For they who speak of the Son of Man, are men: but they who understood His divine nature are called not men but Gods.

Chrys.: He says not, Whom do the Scribes and Pharisees say that I am? but, Whom do men say that I am? searching into the minds of the common people, which were not perverted to evil. For though their opinion concerning Christ was much below what it ought to have been, yet it was free from wilful wickedness; but the opinion of the Pharisees concerning Christ was full of much malice.

Hilary: By asking, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” He implied that something ought to be thought respecting Him beyond what appeared, for He was the Son of Man. And in thus enquiring after men’s opinion respecting Himself, we are not to think that He made confession of Himself; for that which He asked for was something concealed, to which the faith of believers ought to extend itself.
We must hold that form of confession, that we so mention the Son of God as not to forget the Son of Man, for the one without the other offers us no hope of salvation; and therefore He said emphatically, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” [p. 581]

Jerome: He says not, Whom do men say that I am? but, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” that He should not seem to ask ostentatiously concerning Himself. Observe, that wherever the Old Testament has ‘Son of Man,’ the phrase in the Hebrew is ‘Son of Adam.’

Origen: Then the disciples recount the divers opinions of the Jews relating to Christ; “And they said, some say John the Baptist,” following Herod’s opinion [margin note: see Matt 14:2]; “others Elias,” supposing either that Elias had gone through a second birth, or that having continued alive in the body, He had at this time appeared; “others Jeremias”, whom the Lord had ordained to be Prophet among the Gentiles, not understanding that Jeremias was a type of Christ; “or one of the Prophets,” in a like way, because of those things which God spoke to them through the Prophets, yet they were not fulfilled in them, but in Christ.

Jerome: It was as easy for the multitudes to be wrong in supposing Him to be Elias and Jeremias, as Herod in supposing Him to be John the Baptist; whence I wonder that some interpreters should have sought for the causes of these several errors.

Chrys.: The disciples having recounted the opinion of the common people, He then by a second question invites them to higher thoughts concerning Him; and therefore it follows, “Jesus saith unto them, Whom say ye that I am?” You who are with Me always, and have seen greater miracles than the multitudes, ought not to agree in the opinion of the multitudes. For this reason He did not put this question to them at the commencement of His preaching, but after He had done many signs; then also He spoke many things to them concerning His Deity

Jerome: Observe how by this connexion of the discourse the Apostles are not styled men but Gods. For when He had said, “Whom say ye that the Son of Man is?” He adds, “Whom say ye that I am?” as much as to say, They being men think of Me as man, ye who are Gods, whom do you think Me?

Raban.: He enquires the opinions of His disciples and of those without, not because He was ignorant of them; His disciples He asks, that He may reward with due reward their confession of a right faith; and the opinions of those without He enquires, that having the wrong opinions first set forth, it might be proved that the disciples had received the truth of their confession not from common opinion, but out [p. 582] of the hidden treasure of the Lord’s revelation.

Chrys.: When the Lord enquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes, all the disciples answer; but when all the disciples are asked, Peter as the mouth and corifeus of the Apostles answers for all, as it follows, “Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Origen: Peter denied that Jesus was any of those things which the Jews supposed, by his confession, “Thou art the Christ,” which the Jews were ignorant of; but he added what was more, “the Son of the living God,” who had said by his Prophets, “I live, saith the Lord.” [Eze 33:11] And therefore was He called the living Lord, but in a more especial manner as being eminent above all that had life; for He alone has immortality, and is the fount of life, wherefore He is rightly called God the Father; for He is life as it were flowing out of a fountain, who said, “I am the life.” [John 14:6]

Jerome: He calls Him “the living God,” in comparison of those gods who are esteemed gods, but are dead; such, I mean, as Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Hercules, and the other monsters of idols.

Hilary: This is the true and unalterable faith, that from God came forth God the Son, who has eternity out of the eternity of the Father. That this God took unto Him a body and was made man is a perfect confession. Thus He embraced all in that He here expresses both His nature and His name, in which is the sum of virtues.

Raban.: And by a remarkable distinction it was that the Lord Himself puts forward the lowliness of the humanity which He had taken upon Him, while His disciple shews us the excellence of His divine eternity.

Hilary: This confession of Peter met a worthy reward, for that he had seen the Son of God in the man. Whence it follows, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas, for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Jerome: This return Christ makes to the Apostle for the testimony which Peter had spoken concerning Him, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” The Lord said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas?” Why? Because flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but My Father. That which flesh and blood could not reveal, was revealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. By his confession then he obtains a title, which should signify that [p. 583] he had received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, whose son he shall also be called; for Barjonas in our tongue signifies The son of a dove.
Others take it in the simple sense, that Peter is the son of John [ed. note: In John 21, the Vulgate has ‘Johannis,’ but in John 1, 43, ‘Jona.’], according to that question in another place, “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?” [John 21:15] affirming that it is an error of the copyists in writing here Barjonas for Barjoannas, dropping one syllable. Now Joanna is interpreted ‘The grace of God.’ But either name has its mystical interpretation; the dove signifies the Holy Spirit; and the grace of God signifies the spiritual gift.

Chrys.: It would be without meaning to say, Thou art the son of Jonas, unless he intended to shew that Christ is as naturally the Son of God, as Peter is the son of Jonas, that is, of the same substance as him that begot him.

Jerome: Compare what is here said, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” with the Apostolic declaration, “Immediately I was not content with flesh and blood,” [Gal 1:16] meaning there by this expression the Jews; so that here also the same thing is shewn in different words, that not by the teaching of the Pharisees, but by the grace of God, Christ was revealed to him the Son of God.

Hilary: Otherwise; He is blessed, because to have looked and to have seen beyond human sight is matter of praise, not beholding that which is of flesh and blood, but seeing the Son of God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and he was held worthy to be the first to acknowledge the divinity which was in Christ.

Origen: It must be enquired in this place whether, when they were first sent out, the disciples knew that He was the Christ. For this speech shews that Peter then first confessed Him to be the Son of the living God. And look whether you can solve a question of this sort, by saying that to believe Jesus to be the Christ is less than to know Him; and so suppose that when they were sent to preach they believed that Jesus was the Christ, and afterwards as they made progress they knew Him to be so. Or must we answer thus? That then the Apostles had the beginnings of a knowledge of Christ, and knew some little concerning Him; and that they made progress afterwards in the knowledge of Him, so that they were able to receive the knowledge of Christ revealed by the Father, as Peter, who is [p. 584] here blessed, not only for that he says, “Thou art the Christ,” but much more for that he adds, “the Son of the living God.”

Chrys.: And truly if Peter had not confessed that Christ was in a peculiar sense born of the Father, there had been no need of revelation; nor would he have been worthy of this blessing for confessing Christ to be one of many adopted sons; for before this they who were with Him in the ship had said, “Truly thou art the Son of God.” Nathanael also said, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God.” [John 1:49] Yet were not these blessed because they did not confess such sonship as does Peter here, but thought Him one among many, not in the true sense a son; or, if chief above all, yet not the substance of the Father.
But see how the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; from none other comes it to confess the Son than of the Feather, and from none other to confess the Father than of the Son; so that from this place even it is manifest that the Son is of the same substance, and to be worshipped together with the Father. Christ then proceeds to shew that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,”

Jerome: As much as to say, You have said to me, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,” therefore I say unto thee, not in a mere speech, and that goes not on into operation; but I say unto thee, and for Me to speak is to make it so [ed. note: See Mr. Newman’s Lectures on Justification, Lect iii, p.87], “that thou art Peter.” For as from Christ proceeded that light to the Apostles, whereby they were called the light of the world, and those other names which were imposed upon them by the Lord, so upon Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, He bestowed the name of Peter (Rock.)

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 53: But let none suppose that Peter received that name here; he received it at no other time than where John relates that it was said unto him, “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter.” [John 1:42]

Chrys.: And pursuing the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him as follows: “And upon this rock I will build my Church.”

Chrys.: That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein shewing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd.

Aug., Retract., i, 21: I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that [p. 585] it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church,” as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;: and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, “Thou art Peter.” But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.

Hilary: But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death. And to shew the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Gloss. interlin.: That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.

Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell.

Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

Raban.: The gates of hell are the torments and promises of the persecutors. Also, the evil works of the unbelievers, and vain conversation, are gates of hell, because they shew the path of destruction.

Origen: He does not express what it is which they shall not prevail against, whether the rock on which He builds the Church, or the Church which He builds on the rock; but it is clear that neither against the rock nor against the Church will the gates of hell prevail.

Cyril [ed. note: ‘ This passage is quoted in the Catena from ‘Cyril in Lib. Thes.’ but does not occur in any of S. Cyril’s works. On the subject of this interpolation, vid. Launoy’s Epistles, part i. Ep. 1-3. and v. Ep. 9. c. 6-12. From him it appears that, besides the passage introduced into the Catena, S. Thomas ascribes similar ones to S. Cyril in his comment on the Sentences, Lib. iv. cl. 24. 3. and in his books ‘contr. impugn.reliq.’ and ‘contra errores Graee.’ He is apparently the first to cite them, and they seem to have been written later than Nicholas I. and Leo IX. (A. D. 867-1054.) He was young when he used them, and he is silent about them in his Summa, (which was the work of his last ten years,) in three or four places where the reference might have been expected.]
According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, [p. 586] with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we [ed. note: The editions read here, ‘et nos necessario salutis,’ the meaning of which, says Nicolai, it is impossible to divine], not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.

Jerome: Let none think that this is said of death, implying that the Apostles should not be subject to the condition of death, when we see their martyrdoms so illustrious.

Origen: Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, “Thou art Peter;” for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.

Chrys.: Then He speaks of another honour of Peter, when He adds, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” as much as to say, As the Father hath given thee to know Me, I also will give something unto thee, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Raban.: For as with a zeal beyond the others he had confessed the King of heaven, he is deservedly entrusted more than the others with the keys of the heavenly kingdom, that it might be clear to all, that without that confession and faith none ought to enter the kingdom of heaven. By the keys of the kingdom He means discernment [margin note: discretio] and power; power, by which he binds and looses; discernment, by which he separates the worthy from the unworthy.
It follows, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind;” that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and “whatsoever thou shalt loose,” that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.

Origen: See how great power has that rock upon which the Church is built, that its sentences are to continue firm as though God gave sentence by it.

Chrys.: See how Christ leads Peter to a high understanding concerning himself. [p. 587] These things that He here promises to give him, belong to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immoveable amidst the storms of so many persecutions and trials.

Raban.: But this power of binding and loosing, though it seems given by the Lord to Peter alone, is indeed given also to the other Apostles, [margin note: see Matt 18:18] and is even now in the Bishops and Presbyters in every Church. But Peter received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and a supremacy of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand that all who in any manner separate themselves from the unity of the faith, or from communion with him, such should neither be able to be loosed from the bonds of sin, nor to enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.

Gloss., ap. Anselm: This power was committed specially to Peter, that we might thereby be invited to unity. For He therefore appointed him the head of the Apostles, that the Church might have one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church should have recourse, if ever they should have dissensions among them.
But if there were many heads in the Church, the bond of unity would be broken. Some say that the words “upon earth” denote that power was not given to men to bind and loose the dead, but the living; for he who should loose the dead would do this not upon earth, but after the earth.

Second Council of Constantinople, Concil. Con. ii. Collat. 8: How is it that some do presume to say that these things are said only of the living? Know they not that the sentence of anathema is nothing else but separation? They are to be avoided who are held of grievous faults, whether they are among the living, or not. For it is always behoveful to fly from the wicked. Moreover there are divers letters read of Augustine of religious memory, who was of great renown among the African bishops, which affirmed [margin note: see Aug. Ep. 185, 4] that heretics ought to be anathematized even after death. Such an ecclesiastical tradition other African Bishops also have preserved. And the Holy Roman Church also has anathematized some Bishops after death, although no accusation had been brought against their faith in their lifetime. [ed. note: This passage is quoted from the sentence of the Council. It alleges the authority of S. Cyril, from one of whose lost works against Theodorus the sentence beginning, “They are to be avoided, &c,” is quoted.]

Jerome: Bishops and Presbyters, not understanding [p. 588] this passage, assume to themselves something of the lofty pretensions of the Pharisees, and suppose that they may either condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty; whereas what will be enquired into before the Lord will be not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of him that is being judged.
We read in Leviticus of the lepers, how they are commanded to shew themselves to the Priests; and if they have the leprosy, then they are made unclean by the Priest; not that the Priest makes them leprous and unclean, but that the Priest has knowledge of what is leprosy and what is not leprosy, and can discern who is clean, and who is unclean. In the same way then as there the Priest makes the leper unclean, here the Bishop or Presbyter binds or looses not those who are without sin, or guilt, but in discharge of his function when he has heard the varieties of their sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who loosed.

Origen: Let him then be without blame who binds or looses another, that he may be found worthy to bind or loose in heaven. Moreover, to him who shall be able by his virtues to shut the gates of hell, are given in reward the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For every kind of virtue when any has begun to practise it, as it were opens itself before Him, the Lord, namely, opening it through His grace, so that the same virtue is found to be both the gate, and the key of the gate. But it may be that each virtue is itself the kingdom of heaven.

Quote
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord {is} gracious.
To whom coming, {as unto} a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, {and} precious,
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {are: or, be ye}
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe {he is} precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, {precious: or, an honour}
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, {even to them} which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:3-8
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 12:00:19 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,983



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2012, 01:35:30 PM »

We have proven that Mat. 16:18 does not mean what modern Rome claims it means. But we must examine the consequences they take from their novel interpretation so let's for the sake of argument treat the passage as meaning some special leadership charisma for Peter and Peter exclusevily.

And let's deal with (2) - even it meant what modern Rome claims it to mean, would it have the consequences they claim it has?

What consequences are that? Namely,

(a) Necessary, untransferable leadership of Peter and his successors over the Church, meaning the bishops of Rome;
(b) this leadership is necessarily exercized through universal jurisdiction, meaning that no bishop is autonomous in relation to the leader of the Church, who can even override bishops' and councils when necessary;
(c) Infallibility in questions of dogma and morality;

Let's examine (a).

At once we meet one problem: the Patriarch of Antioch is also a successor of Peter and it is reasonable to say that the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is the successor of Mark, disciple of Peter is also a successor of Peter. But if we keep just the Patriarch of Antioch we immediatelly have the situation that, if any special charisma was given to Peter *and* his successors, everything that is said of the bishop of Rome is also true of, at least, the bishop of Antioch. This is a very underestimated fact because it is a final proof that even if Romans were right about the principle they would necessarily be wrong about the consequences. Each line of successors of Peter would have inherited the "special charisma" of primacy and we would have at least a diarchy or even a triarchy in the Church. It couldn't mean the bishops of Rome only.

On what basis does modern Rome claim, then, that this charisma belongs *only* to the successors of Peter *in Rome*?
Mostly on an ex post facto interpretation of letters among church illustrous figures, the titles assigned to the pope, and requests of intervetion from other sees to Rome. Also on the colorful events like the proclamation of Chalcedonian bishops that "Peter spoke through Leo".

Regarding the titles, we don't have to look any further than the title of that other successor of Peter who is the Patriarch of Alexandria, styled "Judge of the World". To modern ears it strikes as an utter presumption, but for Greek-Roman style no hyperbole was too much to pamper an authority. That hyperbolic titles were banal is easily verifiable in any analysis of texts of the first period, specially in Greek. Even the librarian of the imperial palace was styled "Librarian of the Universe" and there were several "protos" and "archi", that it, "first" this, "principal" that. Even today we have "archdeacons", "archpriests" and "archbishops". Despite the fact we have thousands of them, no one would take the prefix "arch" (principal, main, chief) literally, meaning that the "archdeacon" is in fact the universal leader of all deacons. I believe that as the West lost contact with Hellenistic culture and greek, these stylistic matters became transparent to them and titles that were long used were taken to their literal meaning - the tendency to "objectivity" and the search for the "clarity" that is typical of the West ironically blinding us to the subtleties of a culture that was already abusing these figures of speech, but with the waiver that, being literate in their own mother-language, they knew these were hyperboles and not literal descriptions.

For the requests of intervention, what is not said is as important as what has been said, that is, churches asked the moderation of each other often, not only Rome. Even when Rome was requested to moderate, we don't see any trace of "Rome spoke, the case is closed" motto, for the litigation would continue as long as both parties were strong enough to resist the other. One thing that did set Rome apart from the other Churchs is that it had centuries of history on the side of the Orthodox Faith, not being the source or nest of any large or serious heresy and that was always remembered. It is clear that Rome was held in high steem because it had kept the Orthodox Faith. Only later, papism would claim an inverted order: that the Orthodox Faith had been kept because of the high position it had, as a provision of God for men. Every single text praising Rome, in its proper dialogical context, that is, inserted in the conversation it was part of, can be shown to argue precisely that "Rome is worthy of praise and dignity because it has always been Orthodox" and not once we can see "Rome will always be Orthodox because God put her in a special place of dignity". Nowhere it is implied "automatic Orthodoxy" for Rome.

Finally, in the event of Chalcedon, it is known that a common interpretation of the time about the bishops is that *each one of them* was a successor of Peter, and the Throne of Peter was the collegiate of all bishops, just like Jesus refers to all the Pharisees as sitting on the Throne of Moses. "The throne" was a role, that could and was played by all the authorities of the people of God, and the change from the image of this authority from "throne of Moses" to "throne of Peter" adds to the point that Peter was seen as a transitory figure of authority like Moses, who was the leader of the Hebrews in their transition to the Promised Land, but instituted a collegiate of Judges, just like after the Apostles we had the collegiate of bishops. The special ministry was necessary a bit longer with Joshua but soon after it became a governance by confederate judges, just like the church was to be led by confederate bishops. That this parallel to the original judges was pretty much clear for the early Church we know from the roles the bishops had in being actual judges in the Church, and St. Paul even ask the people to not use the secular (Roman) tribunals, but to settle everything internally in the church, with the "new judges", the bishops. The parallels between Moses and Peter are many and would demand a study of its own. Enough to say that Peter led different peoples to the "promised land" of the Kingdom of Christianity, being the first "Converter" for Jewish, Romans and other pagans as seen in Acts, leading them away from the "Egypt" of their passions. Moses is indeed a prefiguration of Peter, just like the Judges are of the bishops, and the monarchical troubles and eventual fall of the Hebrews a warning for the future of the Western Church.

What this all means related to Chalcedon is that the "Voice of Peter" that spoke through Leo, was the collegiate of bishops gathered in the synod itself. What they were saying in "plain English" was that Leo had voiced the common agreement of all bishops, and nothing more.

So, as seen above, the praxis of the 1st millenium reflects a collegiate governance, with preeminance given due to a history of "experience" in "being Orthodox". It does not assume or postulates a see miraculously unable of falling into heresy, an posterior assumption that can only be projected onto those facts, but not concluded from them.

With this we have proven that (a) was not and could not be a consequence of Mat 16:18 even if it meant what modern Rome claims it to mean.



« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 01:37:07 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2012, 02:44:05 PM »

You're too cryptic for us simple folk.

So you are going to there as well?

Thought you were a bit smarter than that and I know I am given your posts around here:

Individuals in the Church aren't infallible, but the gates of hell will not overwhelm the Church as a whole.

You know, I probably run this into the ground around here, but this has to be one of the most widespread misunderstandings of Scripture I hearLook in these parts.

Look that up in the Greek and get back to me about those "gates" and "hell" and how it makes any sense that a gate of hell would prevail against the Church.

Notice when the matter is brought up and what those gates really belong to.

We'll start simply.

What did your translation say? The gates of what?

Was it hell? If not how does that change possible meaning of the verse?

I didn't read through all the Patristic quotes, I am going to get my Patristics guy on this later if needed.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2012, 02:46:58 PM »

Here's the Greek of Matt. 16:18:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Comment, orthonorm?


I cannot read the greek words. Can anybody translate them into English?

My translation:

And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not overwhelm it.

Hades is the place which settle the soul of death.

So, What does 'the gate of hades' refer to?What is the meaning of  'the gate of Hades shall not overwhelm it' ? Does this verse mean that the power of darkness shall never overwhelm the Church  ?


Walter, good for you. This verse is about the abode of the dead.

I think between your post and mine above Cyrillic can see where this is going.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,483



« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2012, 02:50:27 PM »

We'll start simply.

What did your translation say? The gates of what?

Was it hell? If not how does that change possible meaning of the verse?

I didn't read through all the Patristic quotes, I am going to get my Patristics guy on this later if needed.

I've posted the patristics on this before. Put quickly (since I'm missing the game): most Church Fathers considered heresy to be the primary meaning of gates of hell. It could also mean worldly powers, widespread internal corruption (but not conquering) of the Church, or personal sin in each of us. I particularly like the interpretation of some that sees each of us as being a gate of hell/hades, but that's just me.
Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2012, 02:50:41 PM »


What did your translation say? The gates of what?

Was it hell? If not how does that change possible meaning of the verse?


Ah, I see what you're getting at. Please do continue.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 02:51:59 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,483



« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2012, 02:52:36 PM »

Here's one post with patristic quotes. Some of those guys even learnt Greek in seminary!  Tongue
Logged

I would strongly recommend Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr Seraphim Rose.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2012, 02:54:49 PM »

We'll start simply.

What did your translation say? The gates of what?

Was it hell? If not how does that change possible meaning of the verse?

I didn't read through all the Patristic quotes, I am going to get my Patristics guy on this later if needed.

I've posted the patristics on this before. Put quickly (since I'm missing the game): most Church Fathers considered heresy to be the primary meaning of gates of hell. It could also mean worldly powers, widespread internal corruption (but not conquering) of the Church, or personal sin in each of us. I particularly like the interpretation of some that sees each of us as being a gate of hell/hades, but that's just me.

I've had someone else look at the Patristics with me when I mentioned I thought the Orthodox and RC method of understanding of this verse struck me as extremely odd from my reading of it for decades.

I'll hit him up so he provide the correct quotes.

Enjoy the game!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2012, 02:55:48 PM »

Here's one post with patristic quotes. Some of those guys even learnt Greek in seminary!  Tongue

Thank you.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2012, 02:57:18 PM »


What did your translation say? The gates of what?

Was it hell? If not how does that change possible meaning of the verse?


Ah, I see what you're getting at. Please do continue.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2012, 02:59:16 PM »

On a side note, I couldn't find a single piece of Patristics to support the Roman Catholic view of this passage. It was one of the biggest issues for me when deciding whether to be Orthodox or Roman Catholic. All of the Fathers either assert that St. Peter's faith was the rock, or that the rock was Christ Himself. Even St. Augustine--in his Retractions--wrote that he was uncertain about this passage but was now leaning toward the more Orthodox view that the rock was St. Peter's faith.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,913


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2012, 03:01:02 PM »

On a side note, I couldn't find a single piece of Patristics to support the Roman Catholic view of this passage.

Then you didn't look too well. But this is not the topic of this thread.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 03:01:22 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2012, 03:01:54 PM »

I want to make clear I am suggesting the opposite of what RCs and Orthodox jump to with this verse and it might even be able to connote the typical apologetic after a lot of hoop jumping, but its radical meaning seems a little different and much more clear to me.

IOW, I am not arguing that the Church can fall into error.

(I hate that I have to point this out.)
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2012, 03:04:13 PM »

On a side note, I couldn't find a single piece of Patristics to support the Roman Catholic view of this passage.

Then you didn't look too well. But this is not the topic of this thread.

True enough! Just like I cannot claim that many Orthodox Patristics don't use this verse as a billy club either.

But it doesn't mean I gotta use that verse as a billy club as well.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2012, 03:10:36 PM »

Before I split for a bit, in that thread you have this snippet of Patristic though on the subject (again I know where the bulk lies in the polemics, but I didn't get to this verse through my Church is more unprevailable than your Church polemics):

St John Chrysostom Homily 52 on Matthew

Quote
He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html

Note the use of hell instead of the proper word hades.

But still St. John is on to something there.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2012, 03:14:18 PM »

I want to make clear I am suggesting the opposite of what RCs and Orthodox jump to with this verse and it might even be able to connote the typical apologetic after a lot of hoop jumping, but its radical meaning seems a little different and much more clear to me.

In order for death to not be able to resist the church and Christ, the church's means of salvation must always be effective - including having correct teachings. ?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,439



« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2012, 03:18:03 PM »

I want to make clear I am suggesting the opposite of what RCs and Orthodox jump to with this verse and it might even be able to connote the typical apologetic after a lot of hoop jumping, but its radical meaning seems a little different and much more clear to me.

In order for death to not be able to resist the church and Christ, the church's means of salvation must always be effective - including having correct teachings. ?

I said I was leaving, but hey . . .

This is where stuff gets complicated and I can how someone could reverse engineer the polemical side of this verse.

Your wording here isn't the most fortunate, but I think see where you are coming from.

Perhaps more later!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2012, 03:35:26 PM »

I think what Orthonorm is trying to say is that there is a difference between Hell and Hades. When we use the former term, we generally associate it with things like corruption, fallibility and evil. When we use the latter term, we usually just associate it with death. The passage in question uses Hades--the latter term. What I think Orthonorm is saying is that someone could argue that this passage does not mean that God will protect the Church from all evil and corruption and fallibility, but that He will only protect the Church from death. It is a valid argument, however, I still disagree with it. Ultimately, I think that it leads to the same thing either way. For example, you could argue that in order for the Church NOT to lead to death--as the passage promises it won't--then the Church would have to be protected from all evil and total corruption of its teachings and Sacraments as well--since evilness leads to death. So ultimately it leads to the same thing. The passage itself refers to death (Hades) but Hell--and all of the things we associate it with like evil etc--are precisely what leads to death. Therefore to favor one and deny the other seems sort of contradictory both ways.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,824


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2012, 03:47:23 PM »

In English, "The Gates of Hades" does not imply an advancing power.

It implies a final barrier of defense.

In virtually all, of not all, ANE history, no human being or god, legendary or otherwise, ever made it to death and back without being scathed in some way; no one breached the Gates of Hades (I.E., the gates prevailed against the person trying to breach them.)

However, Christ breached the Gates of Hades and plundered Hades.


I do admit, however, that I have read comments on this passage which state that the "Gates of Hades" was indeed a Greek or Hebrew idiom for the advancing power of an enemy; or the power of an enemy in general. Or perhaps "The might of his camp". One would have to look into this more.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 03:49:44 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.169 seconds with 58 queries.